Winnie the Pooh horror film won’t be shown in Hong Kong or Macau
The distributor of a new Winnie the Pooh horror film has announced that it would not be released in Hong Kong and Macau.
The “disappointment and inconvenience” to spectators in the Chinese special administrative regions was acknowledged by VII Pillars Entertainment.
The movie opened in theaters in the US in February and the UK in March.
In recent years, protests against President Xi Jinping have made use of allusions to the original, kid-friendly Winnie the Pooh.
In 2013, an image of former US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping became viral, sparking the start of the meme.
Since then, Chinese censors have strictly enforced their restrictions on references to AA Milne’s character, and the 2018 Christopher Robin movie was outlawed in the nation.
Xi Jinping, Barack Obama, and characters from Winnie the Pooh in a composite image
In 2013, a meme featuring Xi Jinping and former US President Barack Obama gained popularity. Hong Kong’s Office for Film, Newspaper, and Article Administration denied the movie had been censored and claimed it had given the horror film a certificate of approval.
According to the office, it would not comment on commercial choices made regarding the film.
Rhys Frake-Waterfield, the film’s director, stated to Reuters: “The movie theaters all decided to show it after they had previously promised to do so. It won’t happen by chance.” They provide technical justifications, but
It went viral online when the trailer was released.
Mr Frake-Waterfield was able to make the film when the 95-year copyright on Milne’s first Winnie the Pooh story elapsed in the US in January last year.
But Disney – which bought some licences in the 1960s – still owns certain rights. Trademark laws mean the bear cannot wear a red T-shirt in the horror film, for example.
“We weren’t allowed to have him say things like ‘oh bother’ either,” Mr Frake-Waterfield told BBC Culture last month.
“There are these elements where we need to be careful not to encroach on their brand and their territory because that’s not the intention.
“The intention isn’t just to steal their copyright and use it for our own purposes. It’s to go from something which is possible to use because it’s now publicly available, and just go off on an extreme tangent from that point and make this horrific alternative version to him.”