Disney's STEAMBOAT WILLIE Has Entered The Public Domain And Already Spawned Horror Movies And Video Games

Disney's STEAMBOAT WILLIE Has Entered The Public Domain And Already Spawned Horror Movies And Video Games

On January 1, Disney's Steamboat Willie officially entered the public domain. In the hours which have followed, the floodgates have opened and we already have two horror parodies and even a video game...

By JoshWilding - Jan 02, 2024 10:01 PM EST
Filed Under: Disney
Source: Toonado.com

Mickey Mouse's precursor Steamboat Willie was introduced by Disney in 1928 but, on January 1, the character entered the public domain. While companies will need to be very careful to avoid being pursued by Disney for copyright infringement, the parodies have already begun. 

In a statement issued late last year, the studio made it clear that it will be keeping an eye on these projects with a statement that warned they will "continue to protect our rights in the more modern versions of Mickey Mouse and other works that remain subject to copyright."

There's only so much they can do, though, and as we first reported on FearHQ.com, at least two low-budget horror movies in the same vein as Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey are already in the works. That includes an untitled horror-comedy from Steven LaMorte, the filmmaker behind The Mean One, a horror parody of The Grinch.

In the movie, a sadistic mouse will torment a group of unsuspecting ferry passengers. Production is set to begin in the spring and LaMorte says, "Steamboat Willie has brought joy to generations, but beneath that cheerful exterior lies a potential for pure, unhinged terror. It’s a project I’ve been dreaming of, and I can’t wait to unleash this twisted take on this beloved character to the world."

He added, "We are doing our due diligence to make sure there’s no question or confusion of what we’re up to. This is our version of a public domain character. It’s a scary thrill ride with heart and humor, based on this character that everybody knows."

Here's a sneak peek at the reimagined, murderous, Steamboat Willie:

steamboat-teaser-16x9-copy

That design is very close to the original Steamboat Willie (the lawyers must have been happy it's not too close to Disney's take), though the same can't be said for Mickey's Mouse Trap.

In the movie, which is directed by Jamie Bailey, It's Alex's 21st birthday, but she’s stuck at the amusement arcade on a late shift so her friends decide to surprise her, but a masked killer dressed as Mickey Mouse decides to play a game of his own with them which she must survive.

So, yes, it's just a killer in what's clearly a Mickey Mouse mask. The cast includes Sophie MacIntosh, Callum Sywyk, Allegra Nocita, Ben Harris, Mirelle Gagne, Mackenzie Mills, James Laurin, Kayleigh Styles, Jesse Nasmith, Madeline Kelman, Dair Kovic, Nick Biskupek, and Simon Phillips, and no release date has been announced yet. 

We do, however, have a trailer and poster for what looks like a very low-budget project. 


mickeysmousetrapposter-copy

It's not just in theaters (or on Digital, more likely) that Steamboat Willie is entering the horror realm. Nightmare Forge Games, for example, has announced Infestation 88, a new 1-4 player survival horror co-op PC game.

"In the year 1988, what was thought to be an outbreak of rodents in various locations morphed into something far more sinister," reads an official description teasing a deadly new take on Steamboat Willie. It adds that players will take on the role of, "an exterminator treating sinister infestations caused by twisted versions of classic characters and urban legends."

You can take a look at the trailer for Infestation 88 below (via GameFragger.com):

It's hard to know how to feel about these plans, particularly when Steamboat Willie is such an iconic part of Disney history. Some will no doubt be pleased to see the studio lose its IP, though it's clear that no major studio is currently planning to take on the House of Mouse! 

Stay tuned for updates as we have them and let us know your thoughts on these plans in the comments section below.

New LILO & STITCH Poster Highlights Experiment 626 - When Will The First Trailer Be Released?
Related:

New LILO & STITCH Poster Highlights Experiment 626 - When Will The First Trailer Be Released?

MOANA 2 Social Media Reactions Promise A (Mostly) Worthy Sequel...Even If The Songs Aren't As Good
Recommended For You:

MOANA 2 Social Media Reactions Promise A (Mostly) Worthy Sequel...Even If The Songs Aren't As Good

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
CoHost
CoHost - 1/2/2024, 10:11 PM
Disney isn't the copyright Nazi y'all think they are. They allowed this:

?si=rd211K6zSwRPuk4y
mountainman
mountainman - 1/2/2024, 10:23 PM
@CoHost - I think the main reason they get called out is because they have pressured the government to extend their IP exclusivity multiple times in an unprecedented manner.
sully
sully - 1/3/2024, 12:00 AM
@CoHost - Disney can bark and scream all they want, but companies (and South Park) are protected because of the parody and fair use clauses in copyright law. The main pillar in copyright and trademark law is to prevent uses of similar characters that would *confuse* consumers over which is a legit and a copycat product. The "Mickey" in South Park really in no way can be confused for Disney's Mickey.
Origame
Origame - 1/3/2024, 4:49 AM
@CoHost - well they literally couldn't do anything about that because of fair use.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 1/3/2024, 5:02 AM
@mountainman - That and their questionable litigious nature at times over properties they never realy had copyrights over such as fighting the rights held by Great Ormond Street Hospital of Peter Pan not just how they extended the IP exclusivity for stuff like Winnie the Pooh. Double standards casts more shade than anything, if it was only extending IP exclusivity that is one thing but taking it to court in the opposing direction when it suited them too is a BAD look.
Drace24
Drace24 - 1/3/2024, 5:27 AM
@mountainman - People like to make that argument without really thinking about it.
First of all: Noone ever owned fairytales to begin with. Not even the Brothers Grimm. They are folklore. They have no creator.
Second: Disney atleast used the Public Domain the way it is supposed to. By adding their own creative effort to something pre-existing and - I would argue - staying true to what it originally meant to give the same joy to the next generation. Not just turning a character that was supposed to make children happy into shitty horror because IP recognition.
Third: It was always possible to satirize Mickey through fair use. What people mean when they say "We finally own Mickey!" is "We can finally make money off of him!"
Fourth: As an artist I can tell you, the Mickey Mouse law was a godsend. It brought copyright law from an antiquated clause that hasn't been changed since the 19th century where the full extent of popculture were Penny Dreadful's and newspaper comic strips, into the modern era where works of fiction could stay relevant for decades. This allowed many artists to actually make a living of of their work and finally made sure that intellectual property would actually be treated as property.

Did Disney intend to protect artists rights or were they more interested in keeping the mascot that they created? Obviously it was the latter. But in this one rare instance it just so happened that the needs of simple artists and the want of a major company just aligned. Copyright is a good thing. It protects artists while also ensuring that they have to be creative every new generation. It is good for everybody. But shamelessly vilified by people who just don't think.
mountainman
mountainman - 1/3/2024, 6:46 AM
@Drace24 - I’m someone who is quite skeptical of IP law in general as it tends to benefit huge corporations far more than creators or the public anyway.

Disney has always been a shady business. It’s not just about Mikey and their other IP. You can’t prove that Disney having exclusive rights to the IP is better got the public than it being available to all.

Just look at Pinocchio going public domain recently. The non-Disney movie was galaxies better than that Disney travesty they put out. Just because some a-holes are doing these horror adaptations doesn’t mean that somebody else wouldn’t do something good with it.

IP law is just a crony system to protect the biggest corporations out there.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 1/3/2024, 6:53 AM
@Drace24 - Which is all why I say if they were only trying to extend IP exclusivity it wouldn't be as much of an issue if at times they hadn't tried to do the exact opposite with properties like Peter Pan at the same time. It is more the hypocrisy of stuff like that I have issues with as even when I disagree can see the points for wanting an increased period of IP protection.
Drace24
Drace24 - 1/3/2024, 11:13 AM
@mountainman - I don't know how I would be supposed to prove to you that artist's rights are good for artists but as an artist myself I can tell you from experience: Yes, copyright is a good thing. Obviously. Not only does it allow me to eat and pay my bills, it also allows the entertainment industry that employs artists to exist in the first place.
I have no idea what that Pinocchio thing was supposed to prove. Yeah, it was the better movie compared to Disney's remake, but I would argue it was objectively a worse Pinocchio adaptation compared to Disney's original. And what's even more relevant: It could have been made without the public domain simply by not calling it Pinocchio. It was so different that it was its own thing and the title was really just for IP recognition. It could have been an even better movie simply by being its own thing, but without copyright, noone ever needs to be original.

We are already witnessing and endlessly complaining about Hollywood's IP cashgrabs. You literally complained about it in your post. But removing all protections so that all entertainment is inevitably becoming shitty mascot horror to make a quick buck, that's fine? Really don't think you thought this through.

Intellectual property is property. You don't get my shit. Make your own!
mountainman
mountainman - 1/3/2024, 11:36 AM
@Drace24 - OK so the non-Disney Pinocchio was better than the Disney one that came out recently. That proves beyond a reasonable doubt that public domain is good. Disney has ruined Marvel and ruined Star Wars. Because of IP laws, they can continue ruining these properties, even though there are better fan made productions out there.

I guess I’m just not in favor of propping up huge multinational corporations like you are there. I like choice. I like freedom. I don’t like government backing corporations. Period.
Drace24
Drace24 - 1/3/2024, 12:13 PM
@mountainman - "That proves beyond a reasonable doubt that public domain is good."

...How? How does this leap of logic make any sense whatsoever? You literally skipped over all the arguments I just made, like the fact that that movie could have been made - AND considered an original - entirely without the public domain.

"Disney has ruined Marvel and ruined Star Wars."

Man, I can't hear this petty bullshit anymore. "Muh, old Star Wars and Marvel better..." Again, how does your footstomping even say anything about Intellectual Property? Without IP both of these franchises couldn't even exist! The entertainment industry couldn't exist because noone's creative labor would ever actually be worth anything. We don't even need to guess what that would look like. Do you know the story of Tetris? How the Soviet Union tried to enrich itself with the work of the Tetris creator while he was left in poverty because he had no right to own his own ideas. That's what you are for?

"Because of IP laws, they can continue ruining these properties, even though there are better fan made productions out there."

Okay, this actually made me laugh. You seriously believe the entertainment industry would improve? No, man. It would look like the front page of DeviantArt. Or fanfiction.net. Imagine all Star Wars fanfiction to be canon. Imagine Sonic being pregnant or whatever to actually become an official pinnacle of the character. What on Earth do you find so desirable about that? Not to mention that whever someone sets out to make a mean-spirited "I can do it better!" kind of fan-film the result tends to be something like Spider-Man: Lotus. Screw that.

That said, yes, absolutely fans can sometimes make absolutely incredible works of art. But the point is: They can do that RIGHT NOW. Despite IP. No public domain is needed for that, as long as its transformative and non-commercial. Because if you wanna make money, make your own shit!

"I like freedom."

The freedom to not own your own ideas? Wow... Just wow. That's some real "Workers unions are bad for workers" kind of gaslighting there. You can think of yourself as oh so anti-elitist if you want, but the truth is that this is ONE aspect where the wants of big companies and the needs of simple artists happen to align.

I think what you mean to say is: "I just want to own and/or make money with stuff I didn't make!" The sentiment of someone who never had an original thought.
comicfan100
comicfan100 - 1/2/2024, 10:11 PM
Can't wait for Superman to enter the Public Domain in 15 or so years so we can get that Superman horror movie.

Oh? They already did that? Then what other genre of movie or game can we make using a beloved character if not horror? There's nothing else...
rychlec
rychlec - 1/2/2024, 10:13 PM
@comicfan100 - Yup... pretty lazy, low-hanging fruit to always go that route.
marvel72
marvel72 - 1/3/2024, 5:54 AM
@comicfan100 - I think it's 2033.
tmp3
tmp3 - 1/2/2024, 10:12 PM
So many interesting things have been done with public domain works like Frankenstein, Dracula and Sherlock Holmes. It's sad to see that now the only thing that comes with going public domain is shitty horror movies
tmp3
tmp3 - 1/2/2024, 10:12 PM
Something being free like this opens the flood-gates for such interesting art. Lets hope this isn't a precursor for things to come.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/3/2024, 6:37 AM
@tmp3 - I'm so glad they didn't turn out horror movie versions of Dracula and Frankenstein when they became public domain.
tmp3
tmp3 - 1/5/2024, 12:04 PM
@ObserverIO - Those were already gothic tales, but when they went public domain we had artists like James Whale, Hammer and eventually Coppolla doing their own unique and timeless spins on these characters. This would be like I, Frankenstein being the first Frankenstein adaptation after it went public domain
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/5/2024, 1:40 PM
@tmp3 - I know I was just [frick]ing with you, lol.

Although I think that Whale's Frankenstein was before it was Public Domain. I might be wrong, but I think Universal had to secure the rights for most of the monsters in their cinematic universe. Almost all of which are now in the public domain. Again I might be wrong about that, but I know that the Universal Dracula with Bela Lugosi was definitely an official Dracula film, before it became public domain.
SonOfAGif
SonOfAGif - 1/2/2024, 10:14 PM
This goes to show you how sick in the head people are. They see a children's character and instantly want to make it a Gorey Horror movie instead. Meanwhile these are the same type of people who claim "Showing two women kissing" is a detriment to the youth. But making Mickey Mouse into a murderous serial killer is completely fine.
IronMan616
IronMan616 - 1/2/2024, 10:34 PM
@SonOfAGif - shut up. How do you know who's making the movie. Knock it off with your victim mentality.
ModHaterSLADE
ModHaterSLADE - 1/2/2024, 10:17 PM
Pretty sure that's the more mild content it'll inspire.
rychlec
rychlec - 1/2/2024, 10:17 PM
I sadly made the mistake of actually watching that clip above. I could've drawn a flip book with higher quality.
santoanderson
santoanderson - 1/2/2024, 10:17 PM
You gotta love all the dorks who read the headlines and assumed that every instance of Mickey Mouse ever, has entered the public domain. So you’ve got people today designing and selling t-shirts with a very modern Mickey Mouse design (red trunks, white gloves, yellow boots), not realizing that they can only use the Steamboat Willie design in their knockoffs. Disney’s IP lawyers are gonna have so much fun this year.
comicfan100
comicfan100 - 1/2/2024, 10:20 PM
@santoanderson - Some dude on Twitter is trying to sell his shitty NFT of Micky on a boat using his 2000s design.
heisei24
heisei24 - 1/2/2024, 10:53 PM
@santoanderson - inb4 this was Disney's plan all along
DocSpock
DocSpock - 1/2/2024, 10:23 PM

Total throw up.

Feralwookiee
Feralwookiee - 1/2/2024, 10:52 PM
Old Hollywood used to parody this kind of dumb, cheap, lazy perverting of childern's stories for dark humor.

I've lived long enough to see this all unironically become reality.

GeneralZod
GeneralZod - 1/2/2024, 11:53 PM
@Feralwookiee - Old Hollywood was taking literary classics and giving them visual life for the world to see for the first time. This is taking a long-standing visual work and vandalizing it.
sully
sully - 1/3/2024, 12:02 AM
@Feralwookiee - Which is ironic because a lot of classic and well-known Disney cartoons in the 50's and 60's were ripped from actual Horror stories.
Drace24
Drace24 - 1/3/2024, 5:41 AM
@sully - Like what?
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

View Recorder