There are even Disney Junior shows that go deep and send good messages, like characters having to own up to their mistakes, confront emotions like jealousy, and the list goes on!
Hated the Pleasure Island bit. They put CGI root beers in and it looked ridiculous. Also, Disney are so obsessed with avoiding any censure they removed the beer and smoking references. Both of which were the bad things Pinocchio did to justify his partial transformation into a donkey, in this version he’s ‘punished’ for being kidnapped and drinking root beer.
I didn’t like the CGI root beer either. Like WTH, is it going to be the norm to CGI props now?!! I know the actors had to do multiple takes so why couldn’t the director ask the prop department to try and engineer the root beers like those magic milk baby bottle toys, and add real foam on top?
Even if they wanted to get rid of drinking and smoking, they still should have had him do *something* bad. I don't understand why they think the movie is better if they just make it so nothing is ever the main character's fault. Honestly, I think showing the main character making mistakes would be a much better lesson for kids anyway, because it's good to acknowledge that yeah, sometimes the bad stuff that happens to you is absolutely your fault, and it doesn't make you a bad person, but does mean you need to change how you behave.
@@PixieoftheWood Yeah, I self admit that I think 'take personal responsibility' is often used to pretend collective responsibility doesn't exist . . . But personal responsibiltiy does also exist, and it's silly to remove it from the film if you're literally just duplicating the original story beats.
Oh yeah. Noticed that too. They simply don't obey the laws of physics. You have a full pint of liquid in a huge glass, and the characters are just swinging them around not spilling a drop. Whenever you see actors pretenting to drink coffee or whatever, out of obvious empty containers, your eyes instinctively notice something is off. This is on a whole new level.
I’ve been reading Walt Disneys biography by Neal Gabler and what made Disney a pioneer in animation in the first place was due to how METICULOUS Walt Disney was about the animation his company produced. We’re talking redrawing finished animation multiple times. The animators had to look at their work and figure out how to make it better. These live action remakes are so lazy and soulless, Walt would be rolling in his grave right now. it really is a shame how Disney is completely ruining their reputation for a quick buck
101 Dalmatians got quite a reasonable remake. How did they go downhill from there? Jungle Book remake? Unfunny. Lion King remake? Lifeless. Pinocchio? Meaningless. Not sure about Mulan (which I've seen) or Lady & the Tramp (which I have NOT seen), but this is probably enough to tell me just how the Little Mermaid's remake is going to be: - No more Under the Sea - Lifeless realistic design, so there are going to be Uncanny Valley hyper-realistic fish everywhere - Arial STAYS a mermaid...because Eric needs to accept her - Ursula & the eels are boring as villains - The gull is now female - Flounder is literally a flounder -_-
@@amandamakin1542 I’m scared of how Sebastian is gonna look especially, like how are they going to make him realistic looking but also something familiar to the original?
Yes they made him a victim. Pinocchio is supposed to be guided by temptation at first because he doesn’t know any better. In the remake during pleasure island he is more hesitant and looks uncomfortable the entire time. In the original he gives in to temptation and starts acting like a naughty boy and enjoys it
"It's a complete and utter rehash of the original, but worse!" Almost every Disney remake in a nutshell. Edit: Now that I think about it, not all the remakes rehash the original. Just replace that line with "It just takes the original and makes it actively worse" I feel that is more accurate.
completely agree. if anything I was most interested in Gepettos back story. imagine if the movie was just called"Gepetto" and they showed his wife and child, and how the clocks were so special to the family and THEN something happened to the family. you're left with sad gepetto, going crazy almost. talking to himself, his cat, his fish. and they aren't CG animals that react. they are literally just an actual goldfish and cat that tom hanks is talking to with not response. and he starts making an actual wooden puppet and starts talking to it. And THEN the puppet comes to life after his deep longing. then the puppet wants to go to school. and gepetto isn't stupid he knows a walking taking puppet isn't going to be seen as well. so he's over protective, but gives in. AND THEN pinochio doesn't come home. he's striken with grief. (btw the live action, pinochio is gone for a DAY. and gepetto sellls all his clocks. like. overreaction much.) how about waiting a bit. IDK maybe the whole movie could have been from Gepettos perspective. His son is missing, he see's pinocchios name on stombolli's posters so he goes. but pinochios not there. you know? WE ALL KNOW PINOCHIOS STORY. gepettos perspective. his slight madness. SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING. live action they just told you. "the clocks are special." but if you focused on gepetto more, and SHOWED him selling the clocks. showed him DESPERATE. wanting to find Pinocchio. you got TOM FUCKING HANKS and you had him basically act by himself in a green room for the entire movie. hist accent wasn't bad. but he literally was talking to himself the ENTIRE movie. except for the ONE customer scene. THe ONLY INTERESTING SCENE IN THE MOVIE.
Omg Yes! I completely agree with this angle because it is reflected in the message. It is no longer for Pinocchio to be brave, truthful and unselfish, but for Gepetto to accept his son for who he is, even if he is still a puppet. Although it is up to you to decide which moral you like better, but the fact that it is Gepetto learning in this story but still takes the perspective of Pinocchio, the story suffers because it paints the wooden boy as a victim of circumstance rather than an active player in his own story. :)
That would have been a fantastic idea!! As you said, they had fucking TOM HANKS!! THE CAT AWAY GUY WHO TALKED TO A BALL NAMED WILSON ON A DESERTED ISLAND!! LIKE WHAT NOW DO YOU NEED FOR A FILM THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING!! sorry for the caps but I feel it nessicary On the other hand, cats are very expressive.. like my cat literally talks so much and is really communicative through actions and vocally, he has types of meows.. I feel like Geppedo would talk to his cat and the cat would communicate back, which keeps him from going fully insane because he loves his fur baby and sees it like a son pre ponoccio
@@chassiebazz92 He's also a certain jealous pullstring cowboy doll too. But in the original cartoon, the cat & goldfish did respond to him talking. And yes, cats are very expressive, & goldfish do respond to you if you move your finger or look at them (they follow your finger & look like excited puppies). It sounds like the CGI versions of them are unresponsive & lifeless.
We did get Malificent, which is sort of a remake of Sleeping Beauty, but they put a spin on it, & it did well as a movie. 101 Dalmatians remake had the animals actually fighting back; in the original, it was only a horse in a barn that lives with a cat called sergeant & a dog called Kernal (Colonel?) that fought back for them.
I don’t think Gepetto should’ve had a son before Pinocchio. In all versions (Except this version), part of the point was that Pinocchio was his first son and that’s what made him so special to him. Not that he had a son before him. But that would be okay too, I guess.
Everything I hated about the Pinocchio live action remake: 1. Pinocchio has the soul of Geppetto’s dead son. This makes Geppetto look even worse than in the animated movie. In the original I can forgive him his mistakes because I know he’s new at being a father and therefore doesn’t know yet how to be perfect at it but if he had a son before like in this remake, he should know that you have to take your child to school yourself! Also, this change makes Pinocchio look like a replacement which I hate. In the original he made him because he wished for a child so badly because he was lonely and never had one. In this version he basically wishes for a replacement son! Thanks, I hate it! 2. Geppetto had a deceased wife but it’s not the blue fairy. I had the theory that the blue fairy in the original is actually the spirit of Geppetto’s dead wife and grands his wish because of that. This would be so much easier in my opinion because I don’t understand why some fairy helps him and can give him the soul of his dead son and not his wife. In this version my theory can of course not be true because it’s said he made the clocks for his wife who apparently was German but the blue fairy in this version is certainly not German, so my theory cannot be true. And I really don’t get why some fairy helps him and not his wife! 3. Geppetto still doesn’t take Pinocchio to school himself! Why don’t they finally fix that? This is one of the few things of the animated version that actually should be fixed! So why don’t they finally fix that? They should learn from the 2019 Italian version! 4. Pinocchio goes to school and is kicked out because he is a puppet. What????? Why?????? He should ditch school and go to the theater instead because he should be naughty at the beginning and make mistakes because this is a story about redemption!!!! Seriously, this destroys the entire moral of the story if he is completely innocent at the beginning! In this version it’s completely justified that he goes to the theater instead of taking the easy road to success! The entire moral of the story that you shouldn’t misbehave and should go to school instead of taking the easy road is lost! Thanks, I hate it!!!!! 5. He only reluctantly agrees to go to the theater, very reluctantly. Come on! He should be enthusiastic about being an actor and about taking the easy road to success! Here, he only agrees to be an actor because he had no other choice! The teacher even said puppets belong in the puppet show! So, he really had no other choice than to go there instead of going there to take the easy road to success like in the original! Ugh!!!! Thanks, I hate it!!!!!! 6. The ballerina in the theater seems like his love interest! Thanks, I hate it!!!!!! He is far too young to have a girlfriend and Pinocchio is a story about the love between father and son not romantic love!!!! And it should stay that way! This love interest only distracts from that and adds nothing to the story! It’s completely unnecessary!!! 7. He escapes the cage by lying! That’s a very bad moral! In the original he learns that lying is bad and that it doesn’t help him! Here, they make it seem like lying helps you out! How can you convey such a bad moral???? 8. He is captured to go to Pleasure Island and he only very reluctantly agrees to go with them! Once again, the entire moral of the story is lost!!!! He should at least agree to go with them himself and not say that he doesn’t wanna go there on the coach! like that he seems even more innocent! The whole moral is lost! He should change from a bad boy to a good boy!!! That’s the entire point of the story! Here, the development is nonexistent! 9. On the Island he disagrees with everything the children do wrong, and he refuses to misbehave! Like that he really doesn’t deserve to be turned into a donkey! And once again the entire moral of the story about misbehaving is lost because he doesn’t even misbehave! He is perfect at the beginning and perfect at the end! There is no development! Thanks, I hate it!!!! 10. Stromboli is sent to prison and the ballerina takes over the theater. But I don’t understand for what Stromboli is send to prison because he didn’t really commit a crime! It’s not illegal to imprison a puppet so for what did they put him in prison? 11. He loses the ears and tail when he decides not to go the theater again but to search his father. Seriously? That’s all it takes to break the curse? In the original he breaks the curse by sacrificing his life for his father! Here, he breaks it by deciding to do something that he should do anyway and which he was already doing! Thanks, I hate it! 12. They find Geppetto before he is swallowed by the whale and he and Pinocchio are swallowed at the same time. Like that the reunion scene is not as emotional as in the animated movie or the book! Especially since they were only separated for a day not over a year like in the book or at least a few weeks as in the animated movie (because spider webs can’t grow overnight, he had to have been away for at least a few weeks). Like that the touching reunion scene is missing which is my favorite scene in most versions! (It’s especially touching in the 2019 version) Everything that is tragic is taken away especially if Geppetto was only in the whale for two minutes instead of over a year or at least weeks! Thanks, I hate it! 13. The story takes place on only two days! That’s too much story for such a short time! And besides they have no idea what’s the difference between narrated time and reading time! 14. And now the worst part: the ending! They messed up absolutely everything! Pinocchio doesn’t sacrifice himself for his father and doesn’t prove himself doing so! Instead Geppetto is the one who dies and is brought back without a proper explanation just by Pinocchio’s magical tears! Ok, first off, that’s stolen from tangled! And secondly, Pinocchio should die by sacrificing his life for his father to prove himself, become a real boy and break the curse! There is absolutely no reason for Geppetto to die and especially not to be brought back completely without a proper explanation!!! In the original the revival is justified because Pinocchio is transformed into a real boy because he sacrificed himself! Here, there is no real explanation how Geppetto was even brought back except through the tears which are now magical without an explanation! They messed up everything about the ending!!!! Everything!!!! You can’t even say it’s from the book, there it was completely different: In the book, Geppetto was only very ill, he never died, and Pinocchio has to go working to help him! Here, Pinocchio does nothing for his father! He doesn’t even save him from the whale because Geppetto dies, and Pinocchio doesn’t sacrifice himself! Ugh, this should be the great moment: this is where he changes and puts someone else’s needs before his for the first time after all he did! Here, this great moment is completely missing!!!!! This ruins the entire story! There is absolutely no development from a bad boy to a good one! Thanks, I hate it!!!! 15. And he doesn’t even turn into a real boy at the end!!! Are you kidding me?????? That’s what the entire story of Pinocchio is about! It’s about a puppet who transforms in to a real boy because of his love for his father!!! How can you miss that??? How can you change something important as that??? At first I thought I could forgive some mistakes but not with that ending!!! After that ending I knew I hated that movie!!! It’s the worst live action remake ever!!! Thanks, I hate it!!! Edit: A couple more Things I hated that I forgot to add: 16. I also hated that They Cut the Song little wooden head because it's such a cute Song that Shows how much Geppetto loves Pinocchio and how much He wishes to have a son. The New Songs aren't good in my opinion and don't Show the Love of a father that well. 17. I also hated that The Scene where Pinocchio Burns His Finger was so short and was almost completely Cut. Because this Scene is actually symbolic: At First in the Story Geppetto saves Pinocchio by stopping the fire and later their roles are reversed because later Pinocchio saves Geppetto from drowning at the end. The book equivalent of this Scene is the Scene where Pinocchio Burns His feet Off and Geppetto Takes Care of him and makes him New feet. Then at the end of the book their roles are reversed and then Pinocchio Takes Care of His father. Disney changed the Part of taking Care of each other to saving each other's lives. So the Scene where He Burns His Finger is actually a pretty important Scene that is symbolic and it shouldn't have been Cut down so much. But then again the Remake also completely ruined the ending so the role reversal is completely non existent. Another reason to hate this Remake. It ruined absolutely everything!!!
Dang. I thought this was going to be something good, like an actual recreation of the actual Disney version from back in the days, but nope. You're right. They DID remove a lot of vital stuff. Personally, I thought it was just, alright. It felt like a waste (Why don't we just get something entirely new already, like an entirely new IP or a sequel. Speaking of, if this movie was just one of those obscure direct to video sequels from the early and late 2000s (like the Lion King 1 and a Half) they were releasing for the first time (not live action), then maybe, just MAYBE, I could cut them some slack.) This has no excuse.
"Nothing is his fault." And that's what they've done with all the remakes. Mulan didn't have to risk anything in an effort to save her father. In the cartoon she knew she could die, but was willing to risk it to keep her dad safe. She had to work to learn her gift was using her creativity. In the new one, she was a superhero. She couldn't lose and her only issue was how to get stupid people out of her way. Here Pinocchio is just a good kid in a bad situation, so he has nothing to learn. It's like writers today don't understand character development. (And maybe this explains why so many real people don't understand how to progress in their own lives?)
I agree with all the Mulan stuff (seriously, that movie needs to be thrown in the trash... No wait, that's an insult to the trash) but I actually disagree about the Pinocchio take. In this new version the lesson wasn't learned by Pinocchio, it was learned by Geppetto. Pinocchio was always good enough and didn't need to change to be seen as a "real boy" and as a person with Autism I appreciate the change tbh. But I can see how it would be a let down to see Pinocchio be so innocent if you went in expecting him to be the easily tempted boy in the animation. If he was just as selfish in this version though, the new ending wouldn't have worked and I really think the new moral is a better one.
@@3v1l73ddy boring. It completly ignore what both Collodi and the original cartoon wanted to tell. If they want to actually tell a story about Geppetto and a possible development from his side, Than they should've made a movie ABOUT GEPPETTO, exploring his character for good and exploring what the presence of pinocchio has done to him. Geppetto in this movie is barely a character, so the whole "actually is Geppetto the one that has to learn the lesson" end up being both cheap, pretentious and, even worse, makes him guilty of pinocchio's disadventures, almost like saying that if Geppetto said "I love you Pinocchio even If you are just a wooden boy" (which was something that he already felt IN THE ORIGINAL CARTOON, in which he never show too much interest into having Pinocchio turning a human) nothing bad would've happened. Is awful, just like the MODERN morals Disney is trying to push in the current years
The original Chinese play the Mulan animated movie was based off of was essentially what you described actually. And the live action Mulan was, if memory serves, designed with the Chinese market in mind(which it then absolutely failed to capture lmao) The whole idea of "women barred from service and executed for shaming men" was not, IIRC, present in the original stories. In fact, Mulan had a female warrior princess general friend as well, again if memory serves. That was all Disney. However, so was the live action remake so...
Modern Disney will not show their characters misbehaving. I found out when they where making this film I knew they won’t show him drinking, smoking or behaving badly or selfishly. I was surprised they added in the donkey scene, even if it was cheesy.
The weird thing about these remakes is, that they're usually made by people with experience - but feel like some newbie's first try? I mean, when comparing scenes and character arcs, the remake almost always feels hollow or just plain bad. It's like they just understand people liking them and absolutely not why they work or were so rememberable in the first place.
Honestly I think that's the answer right there. You have a bunch of talented creative people have been told to recreate, as nearly as possible, somebody else's creative vision. Then you tell them to do it on movie after movie. Keep in mind too, as much as we might have nostalgia for these old films. We sometimes lack historical context. The boys drinking beer and chomping cigars, for instance, is both offensive to modern sensibilities . . . but we also lack the zeitgeist of the 1940s audience. A lot of the adults at the time grew up in an America where Alcoholism was so bad that prohibition got passed. IIRC stuff like childhood Alcoholsim would have been well known when disney was a young boy. So that would definitely shape an audience would respond to that. With more creative freedom, you could set up a difference sequence of vices, Pinnochio succumbing to peer pressure to steal something, or do something cruel, for instance. But that would require breaking from the mandated plot beats.
The idea is not about making money or capitalizing on nostalgia. These movies are about proselytizing. Disney wants to change the way we think about kids, make us feel bad about being white, and eliminate any notion that there's such things as objective reality and normalcy. Pinocchio is their latest attempt to make new converts to their woke religion and folks don't want it. They want to be entertained. Disney better get back to doing that.
The are written by people with "experience". But rarely is that experience actually good. And if they have done something good its usually lime 1 or 2 things from like 20 years ago, not a consistent body of work. Writing 1 good script is almost a fluke amongodern writers rather than evidence thst they know what they are doing. This was written by Robert Zemeckis and Chris Weitz. In looking at their imdb it looks like the only good thing Zemeckis ever wrote was the first Back to the Future and the only good thing Weitz ever wrote was Antz. That's 2 genuinely good scripts out of over 40 writing credits between them. So yeah, these people have usually written things, but they are rarely any good.
Pleasure island is such a huge slip up in this specifically because they removed smoking and drinking. Yes the kids overindulge on food and sweets, and yes the kids break things, but the adults in charge have assured them they're in a place where that's ok. It's like arresting someone for going to a carnival with a smash room. They're simply following the rules given to them. The only things universally not ok for children to do are smoking and drinking, and they don't do those things here.
Exactly, they're taken to a theme park where those are the terms of the theme park. The kids know it's a facsimile of a school they're smashing, not a real school so... so what?
@@beetyrant9511 My guess is that there was a mandate that came down to keep Pleasure Island, or else they reached that point in production and an exeuctive was like 'woah that's not bueno!!' and didn't really have the resource to completely rewrite around it. Part of the problem too is that while the general thrust against vice is good. The details have kind of changed with time. Nobody in 1940 was going to have an outrcry about it because horrifically high rates of Alcoholism, including childhood alcoholsim, across the nation were still a thing in living memory. There's a reason prohibition seemed like a good idea. And it did in fact seem to break the worst of the wildly excessive drinking even after it was repealed. It made sense to moralize about it in a children's movie back then. Today it would probably be more pressing to talk about, I dunno, doing cruel things out of peer pressure or to get attention?
It's also bad for children (or anyone) to be cruel to people, selfish, telling harmful lies etc, but I don't know how that could have been incorporated into Pleasure Island, and not every kid wants to be that kind of naughty
@@Bustermachine Exactly, I love alcohol (in safe amounts) but when I was in my early teens I was convinced it must be some evil poison that only stupid people ever drank. Kids' shows can warn against getting dangerously drunk and against underage drinking without denouncing alcohol entirely. The cartoon series The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog also handled the issue in this kind of extreme way with its Sonic Says segments. Like basically "Only dumb butts drink liquor, ever." Wtf? 😂 But I'm only 25 and only a novice history student, so maybe I'm not aware of how bad issues with alcohol were further back in history, as you touched upon.
Even Stromboli throwing Pinocchio in the cage was less terrifying because Fabiana was there so working with Stromboli didn’t feel as depressing. In the original Pinocchio felt alone with a madman who wasn’t afraid to use Pinocchio as firewood.
My 7 year old thought it was horrible she immediately wanted to watch the original and she was blown away by it and was sitting there with tears in her eyes and she said “ why did they do that? They ruined a perfect story he’s supposed to be a real boy!”
If your 7 year old actually said that, she's very observant. Sounds more engaged with the story than me when I was 7, I loved Scar and the hyenas in The Lion King for their designs and couldn't yet grasp the concept of good guys and bad guys or a lot of what was actually happening in the plot lol. Loved all those movies though.
See, Disney? Even a seven year old knows that movie is garbage! No one seems to understand that children understand a lot more than we give them credit for! Why not actually make a movie where you can grow and LEARN something? Try THAT instead of ruining classics!
Sounds a bit like r/thathappened but, yeah. I am pretty forgiving of average or mediocre movies, I could praise even Boss Baby for the main boy's imagination being illustrated in an interesting way, but this movie... I was bored. It wasn't bad in a funny way.
I personally don't care for Gepetto having had a family previously that tragically died, especially the kid. I always recognized him as a little old man that lived his life and just didn't prioritize seeking romance or a family when he had his hobbies to pursue and kids around him to entertain and see grow up, and now that he's in his twilight years, he wishes for company. But I guess it doesn't necessarily make the movie worse, unless they frame the creation of Pinnocchio as "replacing" the child that he lost. If so, _yikes._
I absolutely agree with everything you said. He doesn't learn anythingm because he isn't easily tempted or naive! Takes away the whole point of the story.
It's interesting seeing young people have to experience what my generation did with the Disney *Straight to VHS* sequel era. This is Disney at it's finest. Pumping out cheap, quick production cash grabs and throwing them on their streaming service since DVD sales mean nothing to them now.
Having a live action movie faithful to the original isn't too bad in terms of nostalgia and such, but at the same time it makes you think it's better to see the original 😅 I, for example, have loved Beauty and the Beast since childhood, but even so, I didn't feel so keen to see the live action, at the same time I had nothing against it, so it varies depending on how you see it although most would agree that it's bad to take away something that is part of the essence of the story(The Lion King for example shocked me with the very few scenes I got to see, I don't want to see real animals with no expression 😌)
@@bearerofbadnews1375 I think it was still good though, it was cool seeing the movie in a realistic way :3 sure the expressions could've been better but I think some of the dialogue is pretty good in comparison to the first
I absolutely agree. I shouted at the TV after watching it. The effects are great, lovely story but completely missed the point. The problem is that in the modern age no one can be wrong, just the victim. This means that every person or child is now entitled to being treated as a person who has nothing to learn.
Jining Cricket is kinda useless in this seeing as Pinocchio seems to already have a conscience in the movie with all the times he second guesses himself, especially at Pleasure Island.
This movie was completely unnecessary. Just look at the beautifully done italian Pinocchio movies: each and every one of them has its own way of conveying the ACTUAL story of Pinocchio in an absolutely unique way. No character is ruined, no parts of the plot forgotten or changed in any way. They simply stay faithful to the original book by Collodi, and his already beautiful and complete story. Although I think Disney’s 1940 Pinocchio was very good, the live action is an absolute no for me.
"Maybe Pinocchio became a real boy at the end. Maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter what his body is made of. What matters is what he believes aka identifies as." It's clear as day why Disney left the ending ambiguous.
To me, the key to this story is the theme of becoming a “real boy”. What does it mean to “become real”? Like a Grimm’s fairytale, the original Pinocchio was very dark in some of its storytelling, but it was coming from a time period of dark events. According to Wikipedia, the original author was the eldest of ten children, with seven dying when he was young. He grew up mostly raised by his grandmother because of both of his parents worked, and created sketches/stories centered on Italian politics when he was older. Wikipedia says he eventually started translating French fairy tales into Italian as his focus shifted to children’s literature, and he used this method of storytelling to express his own convictions. In a time period where children were threatened on every side and might not even make it to adulthood, it makes sense to me that authors wrote darker stories to try and help children understand the importance of their choices (even if it wouldn’t be my first pick for my future kids). In the story, a fox and a cat are used to depict two bad influences, and these animals are typically known for slyness, cunning and sneakiness. A fragile creature such as a cricket is used to depict the small voice which tries to warn Pinocchio of moral danger. Pleasure Island offers all the ideals of worldly pleasure, and yet it cannot make Pinocchio a real boy. Even though it’s super creepy, I think the symbolism of this story is important in every century; after all, Aren’t we all trying to become “real people”? People who are no longer breakable? People who can’t be bought? People who are honest, intelligent and kind? I’ve only seen parts of Disney’s remake, but if they failed to depict this message, then I feel deep regret for a missed opportunity.
I enjoyed reading your comment. You have great insight. Disney does not care about depth; they only care about social agendas at this time. They screwed up.
I actually didn’t like this 2022 version of Lampwick: The 1940s version was a delinquent and a bad influence, But his friendship with Pinocchio felt more genuine. I have a few notes below that indicated this 1. Some of his lines when interacting with Pinocchio: - “You’re having a good time ain’t ya?” - “This is the life, huh Pinoky?” - “What’s the matter, Slats? Losing your grip?” 2. He refilled both his AND Pinocchio’s beer glasses after Jiminy storms off He genuinely wanted to share his fun at pleasure Island with Pinocchio And even expressed concern for him to some extent during the pool hall scene; I think this made him all the more likable and made me feel even more Sorry for him following his donkey transformation The 2022 live action version of Lampwick however comes off as a selfish jerk: 1. He swipes Pinocchio’s root beer during the boat ride 2. He comes off as disrespectful and arrogant to Pinocchio during the billiard hall scene (He supports cheating, e.g. “you gotta do what you gotta do to win”) 3. Because Pinocchio already doesn’t feel good about engaging in Pleasure Island’s activities, half the time he and Lampwick always seem to be at odds with each other I don’t mean to sound dark, but these points I made about the live action one made his transformation feel rather cathartic Overall, I prefer the animated version over the live action one
I laughed when Lampwick transformed into a donkey Because he was both over the top and casual about it at the same time That's how AWFUL The Disney Remake of Pinnochio is
Never offer your kids root beer unless you want to make them think you're trying to turn them into donkeys. WTF was up with that on Pleasure Island of all places? It's literally supposed to be where you go to do bad stuff. Instead we get root beer and candy. I did really love Honest John and Gideon. They were very well animated and voiced.
The worst part is how obviously on purpose it was announced. "Yay!! Free ROOT beer" like, they is disney is being like "don't worry! It's not real beer, deer parents" AND "Haha fuck you. You thought this would be fun??" At the same time.
they shouldve shown the drinking and smoking and shit like kids arent dumb in fact i think theyre more exposed these days to these behaviors. just fuckin show what really happens in the land of toys. the vices, children transmogrifying into donkeys and all that shit, why not
@0seconds Exactly! Also, I get that it's there so parents won't be offended, but in the story, it makes no sense why the kids would know that given how Pleasure Island works. You can't say it's because they've been here before, because t's implied that the kids only go there once before theyr'e transformed, hence they never come back as boys/girls. It at least would've made more sense if the coachman had said it.
Out of all the Disney LAR's, the absolute worst ones (for me at least) were Dumbo and Mulan, but Pinocchio is certainly the most frustrating for me, because anything good I can say in its defense is immediately countered with a "but...". They didn't just copy-paste the original and make it redundant, but the changes they made directly take away from the point. They added some new stuff that I kinda liked, but it ultimately goes nowhere and is just yadda-yadda-ed away just as quickly. The Pleasure Island scene looks fairly good, and the peer pressure villain song works really well, but their insistence on drinking *root* beer kinda lessens the impact and takes away from the point--also the fact they included GIRLS on the island as well sorta takes away the idea of it being a punishment for naughty boys. And by the ending they've completely neutered the entire point of the story. If Lion King didn't kill off this idea, if Mulan didn't kill off this idea, I feel like, even if Pinocchio doesn't seal the deal, this should at least be the point where Disney starts to seriously consider how much impact these movies are realistically--let alone how much staying power they'll have in the future other than punchlines the way the Disney Sequels of yore have been. I'd say this one is probably on the better side of mediocre but that's only because I'm grading on a curve and I'd prefer seeing some of these remakes try something new and different--like Christopher Robin or Cruella.
To me, the visuals are uncanny. Seeing a stylized Pinnochio over such realistic gravel gives me alvin and the chipmunks vibes. At the point of them doing this because money, if they actually cared, theyd be way better off making original stuff. When they do, ppl often love it way more than cash grab remakes. Sorry for this rant xD
The only thing i liked about this movie is how nice it looked, the animation as stunning, the visuals bright, compelling and cohesive, it's so refreshing to see a disney remake actually look nice as opposed to dull really ugly ones like that beauty and the beast 2017 sh*tshow But despite its flaws, i really didn't hate this movie like I loathed beauty and the beast, the lion king, or mulan, it was enjoyable if you turned off your brain and didn't think of the miss that was the absence of character developpment also i think it's creepy that they made pinocchio some kind of replacement son to gepeto ? i think it should've been better to have the wife die without having children though she always wanted to, and to pay her hommage gepeto would create this wooden boy
The Lion King looked so lifeless. This suffered too many changes to the story. At least it didn't suffer from BOTH like the Watership Down remake did. That was both lifeless & had a dumb story change.
Personally loved the Beauty and the Beast movie, I felt like they gave Belle and her father a lot more character development with going into her backstory and what-not , as well as the darker tone fit well with it. Plus some of the songs like Gaston, I personally think is better than the original because you can really see how much of the town absolutely loves him and sees him as a hero. The changes that movie made at least added something but with Pinocchio they made so many changes that changed the whole plot and added nothing to really make it any better in my opinion. I’ll agree that the animation is gorgeous but they literally ruined what made the Pinocchio original great.
there was only one thing I liked about this movie....Because everything else was PURE Dog Shit....And that thing is Pinocchio.....He actually Looks like the original animated Pinocchio. Everything else is dog shit as I have already stated.
I think just leave the classics be. Or tell them in a completely different setting. Make it set in 2022. The fairy would have looked more in context with modern times, not 1940. They could have done a really cool retelling. They could have made most characters black that would be okay, maybe like a city telling of it. They kind of half assed it all over and it shows.
In all honesty.... I genuinely can’t believe you thought this was going to be a good movie. I knew automatically just by how it looked, just by knowing it was a remake/add on like literally every single movie coming out today, and that’s it. Of course it’s going to look good because it’s by Disney, all their movies are going to look good and they prove it with the live actions they make. Aladdin looked good but it was fucking ass, The Lion King remake looked good in a realistic sense but it was an ass movie. This is a remake in today’s time, not a remake from like Alice in Wonderland or The Jungle Book, a remake in THIS year. Literally every single add on or remake is ass because they don’t care. They only care about the money and they know people are going to watch it for nostalgia even if they know it’s ass. Literally everything today is just about money. They’re making a Hocus-Pocus two out of absolutely fucking nowhere...that’s clearly just for money just by the fact it's fucking HOCUS-POCUS TWO and how they marketed the new movie. In the trailer, they Instantly have the witches cheer to the audience that they're back and such with affects to excite you about the movie coming out. They’re making another Kung Fu Panda and another Enchanted movie after YEARS of the first one coming out, The Little Mermaid, Snow White, a fucking MUFASA movie and SOOOO much more. We're literally getting another Puss in Boots movie.... MOST of them will be ass because of the points I stated and how they get you to actually watch it, is the fact of nostalgia and the movie is pretty to look at.. and that's literally exactly how they got you to watch this movie my friend. That's exactly why you had hope for this movie. Nostalgia, pretty looking, and specific shots, lines, and music, in the trailer.
The only way to get Disney to stop making these bad remakes, is to stop watching them. Every time someone watches a remake they encourage Disney to continue this awful trend.
@@BurkeanMama literally though. People are going to watch it no matter what because they want to see how it turns out, people want to hear other people talking about it, they want to compare it to the old film, and there's literally nothing else to watch so... Lol
I believe the story should have taken Gepetto’s perspective because it is reflected in the message in the live action film. It is no longer for Pinocchio to be brave, truthful and unselfish, but for Gepetto to accept his son for who he is, even if he is still a puppet. Although it is up to you to decide which moral you like better, but the fact that it is Gepetto learning in this story but still takes the perspective of Pinocchio, the story suffers because it paints the wooden boy as a victim of circumstance rather than an active player in his own story.
The original movie was a key factor on why I swore to never drink alcohol or smoke a single cigarette in my life. I didn’t watch it that many times compared to Lion King or Tarzan but every time I watched Pinocchio, I became shocked that Disney actually had children take illicit substances but totally understood why they had it: They wanted to prevent kids from doing it.
Kids definitely shouldn't smoke or drink alcohol, their little bodies simply can't handle it even in small amounts (except for maybe, like, the absolutely tiny amounts of wine French kids are allowed to drink). Cigarettes are really bad even for adults because once you're addicted (which you're pretty much guaranteed to be after one or a few), it becomes a really expensive inconvenient habit that fucks up your lungs and teeth. Alcohol, on the other hand, is also dangerous when it becomes an addiction, but that usually only happens when the world shits on you and you can't find any other source of happiness, it's much less inherently addictive than nicotine. When I was a teen I was convinced alcohol was evil stupid poison, but now I love it lol (in safe amounts, of course, and if I ever thought it was becoming an addiction I'd seek help right away). Being properly tipsy, for me anyway, is like being on a fun roundabout while feeling like the most awesome person in the world and really relaxed and wanting to sing (and hopefully managing not to start talking too loudly without noticing lol).
There's no issue with updating certain movies if they came out a while ago and you want to fix plot issues, character development, racism, etc (ie Cinderella, Peter & Wendy), but that's not the purpose of this film.
Maybe they changed Monstro into a sea monster because in the original story he wasn't a giant whale as well, but a cross between a shark and a whale called the terrible dogfish.
If I had a nickel for every bad Pinocchio movie released in 2022, I'd have two nickels...which isn't a lot, but it's still weird that it's happened twice, right?
They missed the point at the very beginning when they changed Gepetto from a lonely man who had never married or had children into a widower who had lost his child.
I completely agree. In both the original book and movie, Gepetto is lonely and he wants a child or someone at least. He carves Pinocchio out of loneliness and Pinocchio is meant to mean a lot to him, Pinocchio is meant to be his first son.
My problems with this movie: 1. Pinocchio was a victim of circumstance which made him innocent of all wrong doing. 2. Sanitizing pleasure island, ruining the point of the original story. 3. Gepetto was badly acted. 4. Jiminy Cricket was a jerk in this version. 5. The blue fairy shows up once when she had a larger impact in the 1940 movie. 6. The ending. It doesn't even show Pinocchio become a Real Boy. 7. Pinocchio swimming away from Monstro.
I'm Italian, and had the original novel read to the class by my teacher in elementary school. We also went to Collodi, the town that gave Carlo Collodi (you know, the author of the story) his pen name. The place has murals all over with key moments from the novel (and, as far as I know, those murals are actually older than Disney's animated adaptation). The theme of the novel is pretty much the same as the original adaptation, that is that there are consequences to selfish actions and there's a reason why well adjusted members of society don't just run around giving into any and all impulses they may have, except, of course, the novel goes much more in depth. I have issues with the animated adaptation, even back then Pinocchio was kinda less of a little shit than he was in the novel (one of the first things he does after becoming alive is crushing the cricket to death 'cause he didn't like what the little bugger had to say; he did meet him later again, as a ghost), but the newer adaptation completely sands off any of the bad traits that Pinocchio has at the start and has to go through many misadventures to correct. There's missing the point, and then there's surgically removing the whole point to sell it on the black market, never to be seen again. Also why does the fairy not have blue hair in the animated movie? That was her thing in the novel; would have looked gorgeous if she did.
About the 1940 Disney movie, they probably changed Pinocchio into a “better person” to make him more likable. But the original Pinocchio did have flaws, at least he learned from them though. I don’t understand how him making mistakes makes him less likable.
The author who wrote the novel never liked kids, and made one of the worst in his character of Pinocchio, and originally planned to have the puppet die by hanging out in the woods! However, when he discovered people actually LIKED his story, he altered the ending and expanded it. I liked both the book and Disney adaptation, plus a few others I found on Pinocchio while growing up, because while they may be different, they still keep the plot of a naiive little boy who easily gets tricked and kidnapped by strangers, tries to lie his way out at first (because it's what kids do!), only to realize AND learn that only by telling the truth would he get help from the blue fairy; the adult who's helping Jimminey Cricket help Pinocchio to learn right from wrong. They show adult themes that was from a time period that did it anyway, but Disney meticulously altered it in such a way to show kids that smoking and drinking alcohol was a bad idea by keeping the magic element to it! For time constraints, it was left ambiguous for what happened to Lampwick, who would've been what Pinocchio had become had he continued to lie, cheat and be selfish in his actions. I don't mind how Walt Disney downplayed his naughtiness, because Pinocchio is supposed to be the childhood representation of ourselves. We come into this world naiive and carefree, because our parents took care of us in regards to food, shelter, clothing and especially love. Our own brains resembled Pinocchio learning through his mistakes and effectively realizing that not everything is seen through rose-colored lenses, and not everyone will be your friend. There are people who will take advantage of you, and even worse kidnap you under the guise of being a friendly old man who owns a theme park! Drinking and smoking in excess will sometimes quite literally, turn you into a 'jackass'. Actions have consequences, along with certain choices you make. Pinocchio first went with Honest John and the cat because they told him about life as an actor, making it sound more fun than sitting in a classroom all day listening to a teacher talk. Also, there are times when you have to put others needs before your own. That's what I learned from both the move and the books!
I absolutely hate the direction in hollywood, where characters r ALWAYS right, upstanding and good, but they r LITTERALLY TERRIBLE PEOPLE. Horrible people framed as good people who just always get dunked on by everyone else and it's never their fault IS THE WORST STORYTELLING EVER!! THEY ARENT EVEN GOOD PEOPLE. THEY R KARENS.
Having Giuseppe Battiston as Mangiafuoco, a quite well known and famous Italian actor, made us Italian feel quite proud I have to say, also because his performance was very good. Too bad the movie is what it is, I didn't enjoy it at all but a few things, not many unfortunately. I liked Geppetto's backstory, Mangiafuoco, how Honest John was voiced, the puppeteer girl was also nice though she wasn't that much relevant and I admit I liked the Coachman. More because it never looked "human" to me, neither in the movies nor in the book, so I thought it was a nice way of portraying it. Besides all the things I just listed, yeah, I didn't enjoy it at all.
I agree with this review 100%. In my opinion it was overall just ‘ok’. Like most Disney live action remakes they feel very lifeless and over the top with the music and filming, etc. But I feel that the story of Disney’s Pinocchio means so much to me and to a lot of people and that this remake will give us that feeling once more. And to me, I think it’s there, just not obvious. Sure, the characters were kinda lifeless and a lot of it felt like they were just suiting up to modern audiences - and that’s because they were. Imagine if pleasure island was only boys again. Everyone on Twitter would freak out! They would say things like ‘it’s 2022 why aren’t there any girls in the remake’ (that’s just something along the lines of what they would complain about). The story remained the same just done in a slow fashion to build out the runtime, so they ruins it the movie in the long term. But if you’ve read the original story of Pinocchio, you would know that he does not get what he wants, so in the Disney adaptation from the 40’s, I’m just glad we got the same story in the remake. Like I said, I agree with this review 100%, I don’t think it’s awful - just ok. They definitely could’ve done it better. It was made for the new generation to enjoy but the older people could get the same feeling, which is where it throws off the movie. By itself, it’s fine but doesn’t suit up to what it was when in comparison to the original. It’s a quick cash grab from Disney, and if you don’t like it then don’t watch. We all love the story of Disney’s Pinocchio from the 40’s, and so if that’s the best version then let’s all just watch that version. The feeling of Pinocchio was there, it was just portrayed poorly. (Please no hate, I’m just speaking to what I believe. If you disagree, then feel free to disagree, but I don’t want to argue with anyone because of our seperate opinions. I’m on board with everything ‘Smarty Pants’ said).
When you see them side by side, it's amazing how much better the 1940 hand drawn animation looks. Hollywood, for the past 20 years, has equated CGI as instantly being better than hand drawn, but this proves that, when it's done right, by master animators, nothing can compare.
Making Monstro some kind of hybrid creature instead of a sperm whale is dumb. How are you supposed to believe that the live-action version of Monstro is a threat when it is so implausible? Part of the appeal of the original animated Monstro is that it's plausible that such a thing could actually be a threat to Pinocchio since sperm whales are real.
I found it interesting that In the original Pinocchio Disney movie Pinocchio engages in naughty destructive behavior on Pleasure Island, smokes, drinks alcohol, talks back and even breaks stuff while in this remake, I haven’t watched the full reboot movie of Pinocchio Disney but what clips I have seen it looks like Pinocchio is uncomfortable being at Pleasure Island and doesn’t really engage in misbehavior, so why did he turn into a donkey if he isn’t engaging in misbehavior
This movie was somebody's fan fiction for a story they never read. For a movie they don't understand and most likely never watched fully. And threw in their OC because "My OC is so cool!". With an unhealthy splash of lazy narcissism, because "they could do so much better than Walt".
I appreciate that your critique involves key story moments and character development details. A lot of other reviews just use buzzwords like cgi bad and cashgrab when describing the Disney remakes. But this comparison here is really telling of the real truth.
How exactly is Disney making these remakes so bad over and over with the exact same problem every single time? They don’t know what made the original so well loved, and then chooses that thing to remove.
"Constantly the victim" and "doesn't have to learn and grow from his mistakes" seems to encapsulate our culture these days. And is anyone else tired of Disney calling CGI animation "a live action remake?" Unless you've trained lions to act out The Lion King, that's an animated film, just a different kind of animation from the original.
well considering we have one more Pinocchio movie but this time directed by Guillermo Del Toro and in stop motion animation, we can witness a probably good version of Pinocchio. Del Toro has proven he can do amazing with what he's given and he's a great story teller to boot. From the Netflix trailer they presented about a month ago has an underlying feeling of what seems like joy. what I mean is that the trailer makes Del Toros iteration of the wooden boy seem like a fun and exciting adventure that'll most likely stay true to it's dark roots.
The casting is not the main problem. The problem is that this is supposed to be underwater. In real life, the ocean when you’re under it is dark as hell the lower you go. How are we supposed to connect to the characters in such a darkly lit environment?
ESPECIALLY since there was an easy way to do this: 1. Coachman orders the henchmen he is riding to charge. 2. Pinoke dodges. 3. Coachman goes over the cliff!
@@swiifareSD Oh, I kinda forgot about that. But this was basically meant to be a remake of the original Disney version so he won’t save them in this version either.
I’m extremely happy that you mentioned the changes to monstro! Every RUclipsr I’ve seen has failed to mention the strange tentacles and weird “sleeps on top of the water so it looks like land” changes they made. Kudos to you, instant subscribe for the great work lol.
So they re-designed the fairy as a black lady to meet the modern Western demand for racial diversity, but then reduced her appearance in the movie to avoid hurting the movie's marketability in China too much.
Italian here. I was looking forward to Pinocchio, it is one of our masterpieces after all. And then.... the drag queen fairy. I noped really quickly after that. It's not Pinocchio, it's not Disney's Pinocchio - the classic one - it is woke Pinocchio. They can keep it, as i will keep my money.
What I think was the most disappointing is that Pinocchio didn´t need to be a 100% CGI character, the actor Benjamin Evan who voiced the character looked just like human Pinocchio when they were producing it he could have played the character in the movie with the use of make-up or motion-capture to make it look like he was made of wood. They wasted a perfect casting!
Pinocchio is a great children story and show how rules work and if you break them you will pay a price, innocent mistake or not. And shows how to get redemption by doing good or what is right. But In the remake that massage is lost and the point has become diluted to fail. I feel that Disney is trying to put a different message a lot of the show and movies that they make and now it no longer enjoyable. And asking myself why am I watch this, or hope it gets better.
Remember when the villain said: "Let's bring him to the Pleasure Island, where he won't be leaving like a kid anymore." For kids, this sounds like an attractive place, but as an adult now, you REALLY understand what that guy meant...
Modern Disney has lost _everything_ that originally made Disney great. They are just going through the motions, and they are too stupid to realize how awful they are. They don't want to entertain. They just want to push "THE MESSAGE", and are wholly incapable of doing anything creative.
No...the problem is mostly in that you can't turn a fuckin cartoon into live-action. There are exceptions, but the two styles are mostly incompatible. When you want to turn a cartoon into something live-action, then you need to radically adjust things. Movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit get away with this by claiming there are two separate worlds, and just have the toons look like toons even in our reality. But most just fall flat on their face. The visual styles just cannot be swapped, ever. Grittier, more realistically colored and proportioned animation can be translated with relative ease, but something like Pinocchio just doesn't fit in a physical world. Its fine for us to see something impossibly ridiculous in a crayon-world. It's a more difficult to accept (unless you're a moron) when something that ridiculous is in what seems like "our reality". Like the Jonah aspect of Pinocchio where they're stuck in the whale. Nothing works that way...and seeing it try to be real is just painfully stupid. There are other flaws in the movie anyway, but no matter what, it was doomed from the start. It's just not a story that translates to live action well, at all. And it never can be. On top of that, the original isn't actually all that good in the first place.
The modern' woke' idea of forcing black characters where they don't belong is cringe worthy. Whose idea was it it turn a beautiful white fairy into a rather homely black woman complete with short hair and a space between her teeth?
The problem is the story is motivated by ideology rather than telling a good story. The morality of the original is replaced by the morality of the current year which is sadly lacking.
Can we also talk about how there was ZERO reason for gappetto not to take Pinocchio to school himself. If he was so worried about it then what was stopping him from taking a 10 minute walk to drop his son off and going home. Oh right, the plot wouldn’t happeb
Definitely dodgy to make a little kid walk to school by himself, even just 10 minutes, but it was considered pretty normal in the old days. It was probably supposed to encourage independence or something, but yeah, so many things could go wrong on the way.
For a Normal kid sure, made sense to give them independence and trust nothing bad would happen (although in the movie it looks like there was a teacher going to get the kids with a ‘follow me’ rope) but a magical WOODEN boy? 😂
I’ll be honest I...didn’t hate it that much. Sure some points that you made were valid and I respect it. But in a way, I think that some of his changes could be understandable from a certain point of view. The thing with Pinocchio treatment in this version of the story is that, it isn’t about him becoming a real boy but more about being...true to his heart (yeah it sounds a bit cheesy), but Gepetto said so himself at the end of the movie, he wanted to have his son back but instead he got Pinocchio but then at the end he likes him just the way he is (the scene where he got kicked out of the school truly emphasize that, so in a way this change can make sense). And for Gepetto being a bit excentrique well...he was alone for several years living with a cat and a goldfish, how do you expect him to react? He finally got a child to call his son so of course he would be a bit paranoid with losing him. And as for Pinocchio not acting selfish...well he sure did act selfish when he listened to Honest John advice to join the puppet show only for his own selfish desire to become real to some people and I don’t really see a problem with him acting weary in Pleasure Island and I think that Monstro new design wasn’t all that bad. Now I agree with some people saying how the plot of the dancer kinda went nowhere and the donkey transformation scene could have been improved (although I do like the use of shadow when the kid transform into a donkey)
@@lop3938 Yeah. That's a bad thing-- they're willingly taking a culturally important children's story and bastardizing it for an audience they expect doesn't know the original. Instead of being a morality tale, this movie if anything tries to justify wrongdoing.
The real reason why this movie sucked was because Disney didn't want to offend people by exposing children to the truth and reality of the world. Censoring the hard truth is what killed the main focus of the whole story which is Pinocchio growing to be brave, truthful, and unselfish in order to become a real boy. Wokeness ruins, everything.
The whole point of the original Pinocchio story was that Pinocchio made mistakes, experienced the consequences of said mistakes, and eventually learned from them. This is what leads to him becoming a real boy by the end of the story. By making Pinocchio less flawed his character arc falls apart along with the rest of the movie.
It's way too soon to watch a movie with Tom Hanks after seeing him play Tom Parker in Elvis. I was struggling to look him in the eyes in Pinnochio without feeling sick to my stomach.
The first thing I asked was "does that whale have tentacles?" and I thought no one else noticed which pissed me off more so I appreciate you bringing it up lol
A more ominous trend is Disney's obsession with erasing morality (right and wrong) and replacing it with self indulgence and gratification. It's a shame to see Disney killing their own original classics this way.
Coming in here to promote the 1996 live action version, The Adventures of Pinocchio. Where Pinocchio is simultaneously sympathetic and an absolute dick. XD
I feel like the double whammy of Elvis and Pinocchio basically opened people's eyes to the fact that Tom Hanks is overrated, something I've felt and occasionally tried to say but get shouted down. Its not that he's not talented because he IS - its only when he started trying to morph into a male version of Meryl Streep - who herself is called overrated but just rolls with it and jokes about it to the point that the line has lost any bite - that he started getting cringy. Just off the top of my head, The Post, Saving Mr. Banks, Charlie Wilson's War, Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and The Polar Express were examples where I saw and went "he's trying way too hard." Most of the films I've most enjoyed his performances in or where he's left an impression on me are ones where - not unlike Jack Nicholson - he's basically playing a version of himself (Castaway, Sleepless in Seattle, Big, Toy Story, Catch Me if You Can, Apollo 13). I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan or Green Mile so can't comment, but the only role I think he ever really successfully "disappeared into" was Philadelphia, where if you didn't tell me I probably wouldn't have even known it was Hanks because he was so emaciated and his voice sounded so different to where he really deserved that Oscar win. And ironically that's a film role where, by his own admittance, he probably wouldn't even get away with today as a "straight actor playing a gay character." The only other example would be Forrest Gump, although it hasn't aged well and slipped into caricature. Its beloved and I loved it myself as a kid, but its just slipped into parody to the point where it comes off as cringy and stereotypical. I don't hate him or anything - again he CAN convey emotion and hit you right where it hurts with a performance, but he just comes off as phoning it in more and more and people just go "amazing!" and shut down anyone who suggests its anything other than brilliant.
Do you guys find it weird that Geppetto made clocks with characters that weren’t made for about another 100 or so years at the point in history that the story is set?
The reason why I think the Jungle Book is the only good live action remake is because it’s story was more compelling and the characters (while some were fine) had me interested. Here it just feels like the other remakes. Not as good as the original
It's the fact the Pinocchio from the start of the year (aka ✨gay✨ Pinocchio according to fans LOL) was less confusing then this movie. Like I enjoyed that crap more then this AND THIS IS BY DISNEY THEMSELVES
I agree with everything except how Pinocchio escaped from the cage to be free from Stromboli. I liked how in the remake Pinocchio had to get himself out instead of using his only lifeline with the blue fairy which could also feel like the writers are coping out because they don't know how to get Pinocchio out of the cage in the first place. (I'll be it Shrek 2 did it first) I like that Pinocchio hasn't realized just how much danger he was in due to his naive ways, until we get to pleasure island when by then it'd be to late. Everything else i do agree with, this was just how i saw that one specific scene.
If the fairy is a person of colour doesn't bother me, but don't put her in a cheap "fairy" costume and say it's "all inclusive". Take some inspiration from old lore or something that makes her feel and look like a creature of magic. Or give her braids or himba hairstyle.
Ok guys, I think we all missed something in the end, even I did, when Pinocchio and Geppetto we're walking towards the light, Pinocchio slowly turns into a real boy and we were just too blind to see it, just watch the scene again
The only parts of the "movie" that I enjoyed were the blue fairy (that character was surprisingly compelling to watch) and the coachman's ride to Pleasure Island. It's a shame that this film turned out to be atrocious... 😢💔
What about the Coachman’s song? Up to that point the movie was a Meh, but Luke Evans’ performance and his song really brought this movie up for me enough to call it Okay. There was a good amount of comedy in this and some things which were added I actually liked. The ending quote by Jiminy has a strong message for today’s society.
@@EpicJoshua314 Including Luke Evans' song, of course. 😉 His performance was great, but still this movie as a whole was nothing compared to the great original classic!
The whole movie reeks of "safe for modern audiences" vibes.
Rounded corners, and gluten free. 🤦🏼♀️
"Remember kids, nothing is ever your fault and you're always a victim to circumstances outside of your control"
There are even Disney Junior shows that go deep and send good messages, like characters having to own up to their mistakes, confront emotions like jealousy, and the list goes on!
@@princessmarlena1359 Hey, round is how pizza was when it came to America. /s
@@alyssam8977 Lion Guard being a good example.
Hated the Pleasure Island bit. They put CGI root beers in and it looked ridiculous. Also, Disney are so obsessed with avoiding any censure they removed the beer and smoking references. Both of which were the bad things Pinocchio did to justify his partial transformation into a donkey, in this version he’s ‘punished’ for being kidnapped and drinking root beer.
I didn’t like the CGI root beer either. Like WTH, is it going to be the norm to CGI props now?!! I know the actors had to do multiple takes so why couldn’t the director ask the prop department to try and engineer the root beers like those magic milk baby bottle toys, and add real foam on top?
Even if they wanted to get rid of drinking and smoking, they still should have had him do *something* bad. I don't understand why they think the movie is better if they just make it so nothing is ever the main character's fault. Honestly, I think showing the main character making mistakes would be a much better lesson for kids anyway, because it's good to acknowledge that yeah, sometimes the bad stuff that happens to you is absolutely your fault, and it doesn't make you a bad person, but does mean you need to change how you behave.
@@PixieoftheWood Yeah, I self admit that I think 'take personal responsibility' is often used to pretend collective responsibility doesn't exist . . . But personal responsibiltiy does also exist, and it's silly to remove it from the film if you're literally just duplicating the original story beats.
Those things are CGI too?
(Screams in frustration.)
Oh yeah. Noticed that too. They simply don't obey the laws of physics. You have a full pint of liquid in a huge glass, and the characters are just swinging them around not spilling a drop. Whenever you see actors pretenting to drink coffee or whatever, out of obvious empty containers, your eyes instinctively notice something is off. This is on a whole new level.
I’ve been reading Walt Disneys biography by Neal Gabler and what made Disney a pioneer in animation in the first place was due to how METICULOUS Walt Disney was about the animation his company produced. We’re talking redrawing finished animation multiple times. The animators had to look at their work and figure out how to make it better. These live action remakes are so lazy and soulless, Walt would be rolling in his grave right now. it really is a shame how Disney is completely ruining their reputation for a quick buck
Exactly!
101 Dalmatians got quite a reasonable remake. How did they go downhill from there?
Jungle Book remake? Unfunny.
Lion King remake? Lifeless.
Pinocchio? Meaningless.
Not sure about Mulan (which I've seen) or Lady & the Tramp (which I have NOT seen), but this is probably enough to tell me just how the Little Mermaid's remake is going to be:
- No more Under the Sea
- Lifeless realistic design, so there are going to be Uncanny Valley hyper-realistic fish everywhere
- Arial STAYS a mermaid...because Eric needs to accept her
- Ursula & the eels are boring as villains
- The gull is now female
- Flounder is literally a flounder -_-
@@amandamakin1542 I’m scared of how Sebastian is gonna look especially, like how are they going to make him realistic looking but also something familiar to the original?
@@riann7707 I swear, if it is going to be a realistic lobster doing the Crab Rave... 😑
@@riann7707 Ursula’s design is what I’m worried about after seeing Blue Genie.
Yes they made him a victim. Pinocchio is supposed to be guided by temptation at first because he doesn’t know any better. In the remake during pleasure island he is more hesitant and looks uncomfortable the entire time. In the original he gives in to temptation and starts acting like a naughty boy and enjoys it
He only gives up the alcohol and smoking when he's seeing Lampwick turn into a donkey.
i'm a naughty boy
We just can't have flawed and relatable characters anymore...
@@weston407 ~Naughty boys need *"Punishments"*
@@wyslanniknewworldorder9525 I feel like I should leave before someone starts getting spanked
"It's a complete and utter rehash of the original, but worse!"
Almost every Disney remake in a nutshell.
Edit: Now that I think about it, not all the remakes rehash the original. Just replace that line with "It just takes the original and makes it actively worse" I feel that is more accurate.
I think you're being dramatic.
Nope, it’s all of them
@@suezcontours6653 modern cg and live action have NOTHING on hand drawn animation. It’s pointless to remake any of them.
@@plooper14 Good thing you can just buy the original on Blu-Ray.
@@cliffturbo2146 People still use DVD's?
completely agree. if anything I was most interested in Gepettos back story. imagine if the movie was just called"Gepetto" and they showed his wife and child, and how the clocks were so special to the family and THEN something happened to the family. you're left with sad gepetto, going crazy almost. talking to himself, his cat, his fish. and they aren't CG animals that react. they are literally just an actual goldfish and cat that tom hanks is talking to with not response. and he starts making an actual wooden puppet and starts talking to it. And THEN the puppet comes to life after his deep longing. then the puppet wants to go to school. and gepetto isn't stupid he knows a walking taking puppet isn't going to be seen as well. so he's over protective, but gives in. AND THEN pinochio doesn't come home. he's striken with grief. (btw the live action, pinochio is gone for a DAY. and gepetto sellls all his clocks. like. overreaction much.) how about waiting a bit. IDK maybe the whole movie could have been from Gepettos perspective. His son is missing, he see's pinocchios name on stombolli's posters so he goes. but pinochios not there. you know? WE ALL KNOW PINOCHIOS STORY. gepettos perspective. his slight madness. SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING. live action they just told you. "the clocks are special." but if you focused on gepetto more, and SHOWED him selling the clocks. showed him DESPERATE. wanting to find Pinocchio. you got TOM FUCKING HANKS and you had him basically act by himself in a green room for the entire movie. hist accent wasn't bad. but he literally was talking to himself the ENTIRE movie. except for the ONE customer scene. THe ONLY INTERESTING SCENE IN THE MOVIE.
Omg Yes! I completely agree with this angle because it is reflected in the message. It is no longer for Pinocchio to be brave, truthful and unselfish, but for Gepetto to accept his son for who he is, even if he is still a puppet. Although it is up to you to decide which moral you like better, but the fact that it is Gepetto learning in this story but still takes the perspective of Pinocchio, the story suffers because it paints the wooden boy as a victim of circumstance rather than an active player in his own story. :)
That would have been a fantastic idea!! As you said, they had fucking TOM HANKS!! THE CAT AWAY GUY WHO TALKED TO A BALL NAMED WILSON ON A DESERTED ISLAND!! LIKE WHAT NOW DO YOU NEED FOR A FILM THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING!!
sorry for the caps but I feel it nessicary
On the other hand, cats are very expressive.. like my cat literally talks so much and is really communicative through actions and vocally, he has types of meows.. I feel like Geppedo would talk to his cat and the cat would communicate back, which keeps him from going fully insane because he loves his fur baby and sees it like a son pre ponoccio
@@chassiebazz92 He's also a certain jealous pullstring cowboy doll too.
But in the original cartoon, the cat & goldfish did respond to him talking. And yes, cats are very expressive, & goldfish do respond to you if you move your finger or look at them (they follow your finger & look like excited puppies).
It sounds like the CGI versions of them are unresponsive & lifeless.
We did get Malificent, which is sort of a remake of Sleeping Beauty, but they put a spin on it, & it did well as a movie.
101 Dalmatians remake had the animals actually fighting back; in the original, it was only a horse in a barn that lives with a cat called sergeant & a dog called Kernal (Colonel?) that fought back for them.
I don’t think Gepetto should’ve had a son before Pinocchio. In all versions (Except this version), part of the point was that Pinocchio was his first son and that’s what made him so special to him. Not that he had a son before him. But that would be okay too, I guess.
Everything I hated about the Pinocchio live action remake:
1. Pinocchio has the soul of Geppetto’s dead son. This makes Geppetto look even worse than in the animated movie. In the original I can forgive him his mistakes because I know he’s new at being a father and therefore doesn’t know yet how to be perfect at it but if he had a son before like in this remake, he should know that you have to take your child to school yourself! Also, this change makes Pinocchio look like a replacement which I hate. In the original he made him because he wished for a child so badly because he was lonely and never had one. In this version he basically wishes for a replacement son! Thanks, I hate it!
2. Geppetto had a deceased wife but it’s not the blue fairy. I had the theory that the blue fairy in the original is actually the spirit of Geppetto’s dead wife and grands his wish because of that. This would be so much easier in my opinion because I don’t understand why some fairy helps him and can give him the soul of his dead son and not his wife. In this version my theory can of course not be true because it’s said he made the clocks for his wife who apparently was German but the blue fairy in this version is certainly not German, so my theory cannot be true. And I really don’t get why some fairy helps him and not his wife!
3. Geppetto still doesn’t take Pinocchio to school himself! Why don’t they finally fix that? This is one of the few things of the animated version that actually should be fixed! So why don’t they finally fix that? They should learn from the 2019 Italian version!
4. Pinocchio goes to school and is kicked out because he is a puppet. What????? Why?????? He should ditch school and go to the theater instead because he should be naughty at the beginning and make mistakes because this is a story about redemption!!!! Seriously, this destroys the entire moral of the story if he is completely innocent at the beginning! In this version it’s completely justified that he goes to the theater instead of taking the easy road to success! The entire moral of the story that you shouldn’t misbehave and should go to school instead of taking the easy road is lost! Thanks, I hate it!!!!!
5. He only reluctantly agrees to go to the theater, very reluctantly. Come on! He should be enthusiastic about being an actor and about taking the easy road to success! Here, he only agrees to be an actor because he had no other choice! The teacher even said puppets belong in the puppet show! So, he really had no other choice than to go there instead of going there to take the easy road to success like in the original! Ugh!!!! Thanks, I hate it!!!!!!
6. The ballerina in the theater seems like his love interest! Thanks, I hate it!!!!!! He is far too young to have a girlfriend and Pinocchio is a story about the love between father and son not romantic love!!!! And it should stay that way! This love interest only distracts from that and adds nothing to the story! It’s completely unnecessary!!!
7. He escapes the cage by lying! That’s a very bad moral! In the original he learns that lying is bad and that it doesn’t help him! Here, they make it seem like lying helps you out! How can you convey such a bad moral????
8. He is captured to go to Pleasure Island and he only very reluctantly agrees to go with them! Once again, the entire moral of the story is lost!!!! He should at least agree to go with them himself and not say that he doesn’t wanna go there on the coach! like that he seems even more innocent! The whole moral is lost! He should change from a bad boy to a good boy!!! That’s the entire point of the story! Here, the development is nonexistent!
9. On the Island he disagrees with everything the children do wrong, and he refuses to misbehave! Like that he really doesn’t deserve to be turned into a donkey! And once again the entire moral of the story about misbehaving is lost because he doesn’t even misbehave! He is perfect at the beginning and perfect at the end! There is no development! Thanks, I hate it!!!!
10. Stromboli is sent to prison and the ballerina takes over the theater. But I don’t understand for what Stromboli is send to prison because he didn’t really commit a crime! It’s not illegal to imprison a puppet so for what did they put him in prison?
11. He loses the ears and tail when he decides not to go the theater again but to search his father. Seriously? That’s all it takes to break the curse? In the original he breaks the curse by sacrificing his life for his father! Here, he breaks it by deciding to do something that he should do anyway and which he was already doing! Thanks, I hate it!
12. They find Geppetto before he is swallowed by the whale and he and Pinocchio are swallowed at the same time. Like that the reunion scene is not as emotional as in the animated movie or the book! Especially since they were only separated for a day not over a year like in the book or at least a few weeks as in the animated movie (because spider webs can’t grow overnight, he had to have been away for at least a few weeks). Like that the touching reunion scene is missing which is my favorite scene in most versions! (It’s especially touching in the 2019 version) Everything that is tragic is taken away especially if Geppetto was only in the whale for two minutes instead of over a year or at least weeks! Thanks, I hate it!
13. The story takes place on only two days! That’s too much story for such a short time! And besides they have no idea what’s the difference between narrated time and reading time!
14. And now the worst part: the ending! They messed up absolutely everything! Pinocchio doesn’t sacrifice himself for his father and doesn’t prove himself doing so! Instead Geppetto is the one who dies and is brought back without a proper explanation just by Pinocchio’s magical tears! Ok, first off, that’s stolen from tangled! And secondly, Pinocchio should die by sacrificing his life for his father to prove himself, become a real boy and break the curse! There is absolutely no reason for Geppetto to die and especially not to be brought back completely without a proper explanation!!! In the original the revival is justified because Pinocchio is transformed into a real boy because he sacrificed himself! Here, there is no real explanation how Geppetto was even brought back except through the tears which are now magical without an explanation! They messed up everything about the ending!!!! Everything!!!! You can’t even say it’s from the book, there it was completely different: In the book, Geppetto was only very ill, he never died, and Pinocchio has to go working to help him! Here, Pinocchio does nothing for his father! He doesn’t even save him from the whale because Geppetto dies, and Pinocchio doesn’t sacrifice himself! Ugh, this should be the great moment: this is where he changes and puts someone else’s needs before his for the first time after all he did! Here, this great moment is completely missing!!!!! This ruins the entire story! There is absolutely no development from a bad boy to a good one! Thanks, I hate it!!!!
15. And he doesn’t even turn into a real boy at the end!!! Are you kidding me?????? That’s what the entire story of Pinocchio is about! It’s about a puppet who transforms in to a real boy because of his love for his father!!! How can you miss that??? How can you change something important as that??? At first I thought I could forgive some mistakes but not with that ending!!! After that ending I knew I hated that movie!!! It’s the worst live action remake ever!!! Thanks, I hate it!!!
Edit: A couple more Things I hated that I forgot to add:
16. I also hated that They Cut the Song little wooden head because it's such a cute Song that Shows how much Geppetto loves Pinocchio and how much He wishes to have a son. The New Songs aren't good in my opinion and don't Show the Love of a father that well.
17. I also hated that The Scene where Pinocchio Burns His Finger was so short and was almost completely Cut. Because this Scene is actually symbolic: At First in the Story Geppetto saves Pinocchio by stopping the fire and later their roles are reversed because later Pinocchio saves Geppetto from drowning at the end. The book equivalent of this Scene is the Scene where Pinocchio Burns His feet Off and Geppetto Takes Care of him and makes him New feet. Then at the end of the book their roles are reversed and then Pinocchio Takes Care of His father. Disney changed the Part of taking Care of each other to saving each other's lives. So the Scene where He Burns His Finger is actually a pretty important Scene that is symbolic and it shouldn't have been Cut down so much. But then again the Remake also completely ruined the ending so the role reversal is completely non existent. Another reason to hate this Remake. It ruined absolutely everything!!!
Please write a book.
I mean it in a good way. This is a good read!
@@TylerMcNamer thank you. I once wrote my own Version of pinocchio but I'm not completely satisfied with it.
I can understand that you may not enjoy the movie, appreciated the effort to explain what you didn't like. but please: calm down, take a deep breath.
Dang. I thought this was going to be something good, like an actual recreation of the actual Disney version from back in the days, but nope. You're right. They DID remove a lot of vital stuff. Personally, I thought it was just, alright. It felt like a waste (Why don't we just get something entirely new already, like an entirely new IP or a sequel. Speaking of, if this movie was just one of those obscure direct to video sequels from the early and late 2000s (like the Lion King 1 and a Half) they were releasing for the first time (not live action), then maybe, just MAYBE, I could cut them some slack.) This has no excuse.
Agree
my favorite part was when Pinocchio said "its horse shitting time" and smelled a pile of horseshit. truly one of the Pinocchio movies of all time
LMAO
HAHAHA YOU PEOPLE ARE SO FUNNY YOU SHOULD WRITE THESE MOVIES
@@cajunking5987 Are you morbing or malding? Hard to tell
why does this sound like the next iteration of power rangers?
"Nothing is his fault." And that's what they've done with all the remakes. Mulan didn't have to risk anything in an effort to save her father. In the cartoon she knew she could die, but was willing to risk it to keep her dad safe. She had to work to learn her gift was using her creativity. In the new one, she was a superhero. She couldn't lose and her only issue was how to get stupid people out of her way. Here Pinocchio is just a good kid in a bad situation, so he has nothing to learn. It's like writers today don't understand character development. (And maybe this explains why so many real people don't understand how to progress in their own lives?)
I agree with all the Mulan stuff (seriously, that movie needs to be thrown in the trash... No wait, that's an insult to the trash) but I actually disagree about the Pinocchio take. In this new version the lesson wasn't learned by Pinocchio, it was learned by Geppetto. Pinocchio was always good enough and didn't need to change to be seen as a "real boy" and as a person with Autism I appreciate the change tbh. But I can see how it would be a let down to see Pinocchio be so innocent if you went in expecting him to be the easily tempted boy in the animation. If he was just as selfish in this version though, the new ending wouldn't have worked and I really think the new moral is a better one.
@@3v1l73ddy I agree
@@3v1l73ddy boring. It completly ignore what both Collodi and the original cartoon wanted to tell. If they want to actually tell a story about Geppetto and a possible development from his side, Than they should've made a movie ABOUT GEPPETTO, exploring his character for good and exploring what the presence of pinocchio has done to him. Geppetto in this movie is barely a character, so the whole "actually is Geppetto the one that has to learn the lesson" end up being both cheap, pretentious and, even worse, makes him guilty of pinocchio's disadventures, almost like saying that if Geppetto said "I love you Pinocchio even If you are just a wooden boy" (which was something that he already felt IN THE ORIGINAL CARTOON, in which he never show too much interest into having Pinocchio turning a human) nothing bad would've happened. Is awful, just like the MODERN morals Disney is trying to push in the current years
I have autism too. The remake doesnt teach good lessons. Its weak sauce.
The original Chinese play the Mulan animated movie was based off of was essentially what you described actually. And the live action Mulan was, if memory serves, designed with the Chinese market in mind(which it then absolutely failed to capture lmao)
The whole idea of "women barred from service and executed for shaming men" was not, IIRC, present in the original stories. In fact, Mulan had a female warrior princess general friend as well, again if memory serves. That was all Disney. However, so was the live action remake so...
Modern Disney will not show their characters misbehaving. I found out when they where making this film I knew they won’t show him drinking, smoking or behaving badly or selfishly. I was surprised they added in the donkey scene, even if it was cheesy.
The weird thing about these remakes is, that they're usually made by people with experience - but feel like some newbie's first try? I mean, when comparing scenes and character arcs, the remake almost always feels hollow or just plain bad. It's like they just understand people liking them and absolutely not why they work or were so rememberable in the first place.
I would say studio mandates, sure have a well know director but the studio has all the power.
Honestly I think that's the answer right there. You have a bunch of talented creative people have been told to recreate, as nearly as possible, somebody else's creative vision. Then you tell them to do it on movie after movie.
Keep in mind too, as much as we might have nostalgia for these old films. We sometimes lack historical context. The boys drinking beer and chomping cigars, for instance, is both offensive to modern sensibilities . . . but we also lack the zeitgeist of the 1940s audience. A lot of the adults at the time grew up in an America where Alcoholism was so bad that prohibition got passed.
IIRC stuff like childhood Alcoholsim would have been well known when disney was a young boy. So that would definitely shape an audience would respond to that.
With more creative freedom, you could set up a difference sequence of vices, Pinnochio succumbing to peer pressure to steal something, or do something cruel, for instance. But that would require breaking from the mandated plot beats.
The idea is not about making money or capitalizing on nostalgia. These movies are about proselytizing. Disney wants to change the way we think about kids, make us feel bad about being white, and eliminate any notion that there's such things as objective reality and normalcy. Pinocchio is their latest attempt to make new converts to their woke religion and folks don't want it. They want to be entertained. Disney better get back to doing that.
The are written by people with "experience". But rarely is that experience actually good. And if they have done something good its usually lime 1 or 2 things from like 20 years ago, not a consistent body of work. Writing 1 good script is almost a fluke amongodern writers rather than evidence thst they know what they are doing. This was written by Robert Zemeckis and Chris Weitz. In looking at their imdb it looks like the only good thing Zemeckis ever wrote was the first Back to the Future and the only good thing Weitz ever wrote was Antz. That's 2 genuinely good scripts out of over 40 writing credits between them. So yeah, these people have usually written things, but they are rarely any good.
Pleasure island is such a huge slip up in this specifically because they removed smoking and drinking. Yes the kids overindulge on food and sweets, and yes the kids break things, but the adults in charge have assured them they're in a place where that's ok. It's like arresting someone for going to a carnival with a smash room. They're simply following the rules given to them. The only things universally not ok for children to do are smoking and drinking, and they don't do those things here.
Exactly, they're taken to a theme park where those are the terms of the theme park. The kids know it's a facsimile of a school they're smashing, not a real school so... so what?
@@beetyrant9511 My guess is that there was a mandate that came down to keep Pleasure Island, or else they reached that point in production and an exeuctive was like 'woah that's not bueno!!' and didn't really have the resource to completely rewrite around it.
Part of the problem too is that while the general thrust against vice is good. The details have kind of changed with time.
Nobody in 1940 was going to have an outrcry about it because horrifically high rates of Alcoholism, including childhood alcoholsim, across the nation were still a thing in living memory. There's a reason prohibition seemed like a good idea. And it did in fact seem to break the worst of the wildly excessive drinking even after it was repealed.
It made sense to moralize about it in a children's movie back then. Today it would probably be more pressing to talk about, I dunno, doing cruel things out of peer pressure or to get attention?
It's also bad for children (or anyone) to be cruel to people, selfish, telling harmful lies etc, but I don't know how that could have been incorporated into Pleasure Island, and not every kid wants to be that kind of naughty
@@Bustermachine Exactly, I love alcohol (in safe amounts) but when I was in my early teens I was convinced it must be some evil poison that only stupid people ever drank. Kids' shows can warn against getting dangerously drunk and against underage drinking without denouncing alcohol entirely. The cartoon series The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog also handled the issue in this kind of extreme way with its Sonic Says segments. Like basically "Only dumb butts drink liquor, ever." Wtf? 😂 But I'm only 25 and only a novice history student, so maybe I'm not aware of how bad issues with alcohol were further back in history, as you touched upon.
Even Stromboli throwing Pinocchio in the cage was less terrifying because Fabiana was there so working with Stromboli didn’t feel as depressing. In the original Pinocchio felt alone with a madman who wasn’t afraid to use Pinocchio as firewood.
In the book the puppet master is found to be kind after Pinocchio is willing to sacrifice himself to save another puppet who can speak to him .
My 7 year old thought it was horrible she immediately wanted to watch the original and she was blown away by it and was sitting there with tears in her eyes and she said “ why did they do that? They ruined a perfect story he’s supposed to be a real boy!”
If your 7 year old actually said that, she's very observant. Sounds more engaged with the story than me when I was 7, I loved Scar and the hyenas in The Lion King for their designs and couldn't yet grasp the concept of good guys and bad guys or a lot of what was actually happening in the plot lol. Loved all those movies though.
See, Disney? Even a seven year old knows that movie is garbage! No one seems to understand that children understand a lot more than we give them credit for! Why not actually make a movie where you can grow and LEARN something? Try THAT instead of ruining classics!
Sounds a bit like r/thathappened but, yeah. I am pretty forgiving of average or mediocre movies, I could praise even Boss Baby for the main boy's imagination being illustrated in an interesting way, but this movie... I was bored. It wasn't bad in a funny way.
I personally don't care for Gepetto having had a family previously that tragically died, especially the kid. I always recognized him as a little old man that lived his life and just didn't prioritize seeking romance or a family when he had his hobbies to pursue and kids around him to entertain and see grow up, and now that he's in his twilight years, he wishes for company. But I guess it doesn't necessarily make the movie worse, unless they frame the creation of Pinnocchio as "replacing" the child that he lost. If so, _yikes._
They did kinda frame it that way and yes it was creepy lol
@@3v1l73ddy _Godamnit why do I even bother giving these movies the benefit of the doubt_ FBSBDHSHDH
I absolutely agree with everything you said. He doesn't learn anythingm because he isn't easily tempted or naive! Takes away the whole point of the story.
It's interesting seeing young people have to experience what my generation did with the Disney *Straight to VHS* sequel era.
This is Disney at it's finest.
Pumping out cheap, quick production cash grabs and throwing them on their streaming service since DVD sales mean nothing to them now.
But their previous cheap Live Action remakes of their films did made it in to theaters.
@@retrofan4963 It was just a transition time until they figured out how to really make money out of it.
Lion King 2 is the only good one
@@hassanalkhalaf1115 Aladdin king of thieves was good too.
Hey if nothing else Second Rate was a great villain song in Return of Jafar.
Also, why was Monstro a sea monster in the remake? In the original he was a whale, is the sea monster design more accurate to the source material?
Pretty sure that's what they were going for.
Yes.
In original he was a shark. Maybe they don't want to give whales bad reputation
They still call it a Whale in the film. 🐳 it made no sense to change him.
Also in the original he is actually TERRIFYING.
Here? It’s like an even worse version of the shark from the original Jaws.
Having a live action movie faithful to the original isn't too bad in terms of nostalgia and such, but at the same time it makes you think it's better to see the original 😅 I, for example, have loved Beauty and the Beast since childhood, but even so, I didn't feel so keen to see the live action, at the same time I had nothing against it, so it varies depending on how you see it although most would agree that it's bad to take away something that is part of the essence of the story(The Lion King for example shocked me with the very few scenes I got to see, I don't want to see real animals with no expression 😌)
God the lion king remake is the worst one in my opinion the lack of expressions killed it for me.
the beauty and the beast one gives me nightmares. 100% soulless
Yeah, the live action doesn't capture the same emotions the animation can do.
@@bearerofbadnews1375 I think it was still good though, it was cool seeing the movie in a realistic way :3 sure the expressions could've been better but I think some of the dialogue is pretty good in comparison to the first
Emma Watson was not my choice for Belle. She looks like a boy and Belle should be the most beautiful woman in Paris
I absolutely agree. I shouted at the TV after watching it. The effects are great, lovely story but completely missed the point. The problem is that in the modern age no one can be wrong, just the victim. This means that every person or child is now entitled to being treated as a person who has nothing to learn.
Jining Cricket is kinda useless in this seeing as Pinocchio seems to already have a conscience in the movie with all the times he second guesses himself, especially at Pleasure Island.
This movie was completely unnecessary. Just look at the beautifully done italian Pinocchio movies: each and every one of them has its own way of conveying the ACTUAL story of Pinocchio in an absolutely unique way. No character is ruined, no parts of the plot forgotten or changed in any way. They simply stay faithful to the original book by Collodi, and his already beautiful and complete story.
Although I think Disney’s 1940 Pinocchio was very good, the live action is an absolute no for me.
"Maybe Pinocchio became a real boy at the end. Maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter what his body is made of. What matters is what he believes aka identifies as." It's clear as day why Disney left the ending ambiguous.
yep, got to push the agenda
👀 glad I’m not the only one honestly lmao. Like WTF?
Where does that quote come from? I'm having a hard time finding it online.
@@darkestccino5405 at the end of the film
I think you’d be equally pissed if he TRANSformed anyway 😂😂
To me, the key to this story is the theme of becoming a “real boy”. What does it mean to “become real”?
Like a Grimm’s fairytale, the original Pinocchio was very dark in some of its storytelling, but it was coming from a time period of dark events. According to Wikipedia, the original author was the eldest of ten children, with seven dying when he was young. He grew up mostly raised by his grandmother because of both of his parents worked, and created sketches/stories centered on Italian politics when he was older. Wikipedia says he eventually started translating French fairy tales into Italian as his focus shifted to children’s literature, and he used this method of storytelling to express his own convictions. In a time period where children were threatened on every side and might not even make it to adulthood, it makes sense to me that authors wrote darker stories to try and help children understand the importance of their choices (even if it wouldn’t be my first pick for my future kids).
In the story, a fox and a cat are used to depict two bad influences, and these animals are typically known for slyness, cunning and sneakiness. A fragile creature such as a cricket is used to depict the small voice which tries to warn Pinocchio of moral danger. Pleasure Island offers all the ideals of worldly pleasure, and yet it cannot make Pinocchio a real boy. Even though it’s super creepy, I think the symbolism of this story is important in every century; after all, Aren’t we all trying to become “real people”? People who are no longer breakable? People who can’t be bought? People who are honest, intelligent and kind? I’ve only seen parts of Disney’s remake, but if they failed to depict this message, then I feel deep regret for a missed opportunity.
I enjoyed reading your comment. You have great insight. Disney does not care about depth; they only care about social agendas at this time. They screwed up.
I actually didn’t like this 2022 version of Lampwick:
The 1940s version was a delinquent and a bad influence, But his friendship with Pinocchio felt more genuine. I have a few notes below that indicated this
1. Some of his lines when interacting with Pinocchio:
- “You’re having a good time ain’t ya?”
- “This is the life, huh Pinoky?”
- “What’s the matter, Slats? Losing your grip?”
2. He refilled both his AND Pinocchio’s beer glasses after Jiminy storms off
He genuinely wanted to share his fun at pleasure Island with Pinocchio And even expressed concern for him to some extent during the pool hall scene; I think this made him all the more likable and made me feel even more Sorry for him following his donkey transformation
The 2022 live action version of Lampwick however comes off as a selfish jerk:
1. He swipes Pinocchio’s root beer during the boat ride
2. He comes off as disrespectful and arrogant to Pinocchio during the billiard hall scene (He supports cheating, e.g. “you gotta do what you gotta do to win”)
3. Because Pinocchio already doesn’t feel good about engaging in Pleasure Island’s activities, half the time he and Lampwick always seem to be at odds with each other
I don’t mean to sound dark, but these points I made about the live action one made his transformation feel rather cathartic
Overall, I prefer the animated version over the live action one
Root beer? ROOT BEER?! Was root beer even around then? They were drinking BEER! Why did they change that?!
@@saphiriathebluedragonknight375 Because children drinking alcohol doesn't fly in 2022 I guess
@@TuesdaysArt Even though it taught kids why they shouldn't drink alcohol.
@@saphiriathebluedragonknight375 Making children fear root beer and candy is MUCH better /s
I actually sorta did like lampwick in the 1940 one, voiced by movie kid actor Frankie Darrow, whu played a number of these.
I laughed when Lampwick transformed into a donkey Because he was both over the top and casual about it at the same time That's how AWFUL The Disney Remake of Pinnochio is
Never offer your kids root beer unless you want to make them think you're trying to turn them into donkeys. WTF was up with that on Pleasure Island of all places? It's literally supposed to be where you go to do bad stuff. Instead we get root beer and candy.
I did really love Honest John and Gideon. They were very well animated and voiced.
The worst part is how obviously on purpose it was announced. "Yay!! Free ROOT beer" like, they is disney is being like "don't worry! It's not real beer, deer parents" AND "Haha fuck you. You thought this would be fun??" At the same time.
To be fair, root beer and candy are pretty bad for people and cause obesity and diabetes LOL I'm not even joking.
they shouldve shown the drinking and smoking and shit like kids arent dumb in fact i think theyre more exposed these days to these behaviors. just fuckin show what really happens in the land of toys. the vices, children transmogrifying into donkeys and all that shit, why not
@0seconds Exactly! Also, I get that it's there so parents won't be offended, but in the story, it makes no sense why the kids would know that given how Pleasure Island works. You can't say it's because they've been here before, because t's implied that the kids only go there once before theyr'e transformed, hence they never come back as boys/girls. It at least would've made more sense if the coachman had said it.
Out of all the Disney LAR's, the absolute worst ones (for me at least) were Dumbo and Mulan, but Pinocchio is certainly the most frustrating for me, because anything good I can say in its defense is immediately countered with a "but...". They didn't just copy-paste the original and make it redundant, but the changes they made directly take away from the point. They added some new stuff that I kinda liked, but it ultimately goes nowhere and is just yadda-yadda-ed away just as quickly. The Pleasure Island scene looks fairly good, and the peer pressure villain song works really well, but their insistence on drinking *root* beer kinda lessens the impact and takes away from the point--also the fact they included GIRLS on the island as well sorta takes away the idea of it being a punishment for naughty boys. And by the ending they've completely neutered the entire point of the story.
If Lion King didn't kill off this idea, if Mulan didn't kill off this idea, I feel like, even if Pinocchio doesn't seal the deal, this should at least be the point where Disney starts to seriously consider how much impact these movies are realistically--let alone how much staying power they'll have in the future other than punchlines the way the Disney Sequels of yore have been. I'd say this one is probably on the better side of mediocre but that's only because I'm grading on a curve and I'd prefer seeing some of these remakes try something new and different--like Christopher Robin or Cruella.
To me, the visuals are uncanny. Seeing a stylized Pinnochio over such realistic gravel gives me alvin and the chipmunks vibes. At the point of them doing this because money, if they actually cared, theyd be way better off making original stuff. When they do, ppl often love it way more than cash grab remakes. Sorry for this rant xD
Totally agree. Can't see disney doing much original things while the remakes make money though
@@argentechgames The good news is that Disney making an original film with (Wish).
The only thing i liked about this movie is how nice it looked, the animation as stunning, the visuals bright, compelling and cohesive, it's so refreshing to see a disney remake actually look nice as opposed to dull really ugly ones like that beauty and the beast 2017 sh*tshow
But despite its flaws, i really didn't hate this movie like I loathed beauty and the beast, the lion king, or mulan, it was enjoyable if you turned off your brain and didn't think of the miss that was the absence of character developpment
also i think it's creepy that they made pinocchio some kind of replacement son to gepeto ? i think it should've been better to have the wife die without having children though she always wanted to, and to pay her hommage gepeto would create this wooden boy
The Lion King looked so lifeless. This suffered too many changes to the story. At least it didn't suffer from BOTH like the Watership Down remake did. That was both lifeless & had a dumb story change.
Personally loved the Beauty and the Beast movie, I felt like they gave Belle and her father a lot more character development with going into her backstory and what-not , as well as the darker tone fit well with it. Plus some of the songs like Gaston, I personally think is better than the original because you can really see how much of the town absolutely loves him and sees him as a hero. The changes that movie made at least added something but with Pinocchio they made so many changes that changed the whole plot and added nothing to really make it any better in my opinion. I’ll agree that the animation is gorgeous but they literally ruined what made the Pinocchio original great.
there was only one thing I liked about this movie....Because everything else was PURE Dog Shit....And that thing is Pinocchio.....He actually Looks like the original animated Pinocchio. Everything else is dog shit as I have already stated.
I think just leave the classics be. Or tell them in a completely different setting. Make it set in 2022. The fairy would have looked more in context with modern times, not 1940. They could have done a really cool retelling. They could have made most characters black that would be okay, maybe like a city telling of it. They kind of half assed it all over and it shows.
In all honesty.... I genuinely can’t believe you thought this was going to be a good movie. I knew automatically just by how it looked, just by knowing it was a remake/add on like literally every single movie coming out today, and that’s it. Of course it’s going to look good because it’s by Disney, all their movies are going to look good and they prove it with the live actions they make. Aladdin looked good but it was fucking ass, The Lion King remake looked good in a realistic sense but it was an ass movie. This is a remake in today’s time, not a remake from like Alice in Wonderland or The Jungle Book, a remake in THIS year. Literally every single add on or remake is ass because they don’t care. They only care about the money and they know people are going to watch it for nostalgia even if they know it’s ass. Literally everything today is just about money. They’re making a Hocus-Pocus two out of absolutely fucking nowhere...that’s clearly just for money just by the fact it's fucking HOCUS-POCUS TWO and how they marketed the new movie. In the trailer, they Instantly have the witches cheer to the audience that they're back and such with affects to excite you about the movie coming out. They’re making another Kung Fu Panda and another Enchanted movie after YEARS of the first one coming out, The Little Mermaid, Snow White, a fucking MUFASA movie and SOOOO much more. We're literally getting another Puss in Boots movie.... MOST of them will be ass because of the points I stated and how they get you to actually watch it, is the fact of nostalgia and the movie is pretty to look at.. and that's literally exactly how they got you to watch this movie my friend. That's exactly why you had hope for this movie. Nostalgia, pretty looking, and specific shots, lines, and music, in the trailer.
The only way to get Disney to stop making these bad remakes, is to stop watching them. Every time someone watches a remake they encourage Disney to continue this awful trend.
@@BurkeanMama literally though. People are going to watch it no matter what because they want to see how it turns out, people want to hear other people talking about it, they want to compare it to the old film, and there's literally nothing else to watch so... Lol
These are all true statements... sadly.
I thought the movie was okay
@@animezilla4486 I'm glad you enjoyed it, I was stating MY opinion on the movie so, not tryna make you not like it or whatever
I believe the story should have taken Gepetto’s perspective because it is reflected in the message in the live action film. It is no longer for Pinocchio to be brave, truthful and unselfish, but for Gepetto to accept his son for who he is, even if he is still a puppet. Although it is up to you to decide which moral you like better, but the fact that it is Gepetto learning in this story but still takes the perspective of Pinocchio, the story suffers because it paints the wooden boy as a victim of circumstance rather than an active player in his own story.
And that is probably the biggest flaw of this movie.
The original movie was a key factor on why I swore to never drink alcohol or smoke a single cigarette in my life. I didn’t watch it that many times compared to Lion King or Tarzan but every time I watched Pinocchio, I became shocked that Disney actually had children take illicit substances but totally understood why they had it: They wanted to prevent kids from doing it.
Kids definitely shouldn't smoke or drink alcohol, their little bodies simply can't handle it even in small amounts (except for maybe, like, the absolutely tiny amounts of wine French kids are allowed to drink).
Cigarettes are really bad even for adults because once you're addicted (which you're pretty much guaranteed to be after one or a few), it becomes a really expensive inconvenient habit that fucks up your lungs and teeth. Alcohol, on the other hand, is also dangerous when it becomes an addiction, but that usually only happens when the world shits on you and you can't find any other source of happiness, it's much less inherently addictive than nicotine.
When I was a teen I was convinced alcohol was evil stupid poison, but now I love it lol (in safe amounts, of course, and if I ever thought it was becoming an addiction I'd seek help right away). Being properly tipsy, for me anyway, is like being on a fun roundabout while feeling like the most awesome person in the world and really relaxed and wanting to sing (and hopefully managing not to start talking too loudly without noticing lol).
Think the only obvious good point of the film was all the CGI ANIMALS 🤣
They were more expressive than anything from Lion King.
There's no issue with updating certain movies if they came out a while ago and you want to fix plot issues, character development, racism, etc (ie Cinderella, Peter & Wendy), but that's not the purpose of this film.
They completely missed the point of Mulan as well. Missing the point of classic Disney seems to be the point of modern Disney.
Maybe they changed Monstro into a sea monster because in the original story he wasn't a giant whale as well, but a cross between a shark and a whale called the terrible dogfish.
Monstro more resembles the sea monster in Collodi’s book. That’s why 🙂
If I had a nickel for every bad Pinocchio movie released in 2022, I'd have two nickels...which isn't a lot, but it's still weird that it's happened twice, right?
They missed the point at the very beginning when they changed Gepetto from a lonely man who had never married or had children into a widower who had lost his child.
I completely agree. In both the original book and movie, Gepetto is lonely and he wants a child or someone at least. He carves Pinocchio out of loneliness and Pinocchio is meant to mean a lot to him, Pinocchio is meant to be his first son.
My problems with this movie:
1. Pinocchio was a victim of circumstance which made him innocent of all wrong doing.
2. Sanitizing pleasure island, ruining the point of the original story.
3. Gepetto was badly acted.
4. Jiminy Cricket was a jerk in this version.
5. The blue fairy shows up once when she had a larger impact in the 1940 movie.
6. The ending. It doesn't even show Pinocchio become a Real Boy.
7. Pinocchio swimming away from Monstro.
I'm Italian, and had the original novel read to the class by my teacher in elementary school. We also went to Collodi, the town that gave Carlo Collodi (you know, the author of the story) his pen name. The place has murals all over with key moments from the novel (and, as far as I know, those murals are actually older than Disney's animated adaptation).
The theme of the novel is pretty much the same as the original adaptation, that is that there are consequences to selfish actions and there's a reason why well adjusted members of society don't just run around giving into any and all impulses they may have, except, of course, the novel goes much more in depth.
I have issues with the animated adaptation, even back then Pinocchio was kinda less of a little shit than he was in the novel (one of the first things he does after becoming alive is crushing the cricket to death 'cause he didn't like what the little bugger had to say; he did meet him later again, as a ghost), but the newer adaptation completely sands off any of the bad traits that Pinocchio has at the start and has to go through many misadventures to correct. There's missing the point, and then there's surgically removing the whole point to sell it on the black market, never to be seen again.
Also why does the fairy not have blue hair in the animated movie? That was her thing in the novel; would have looked gorgeous if she did.
About the 1940 Disney movie, they probably changed Pinocchio into a “better person” to make him more likable. But the original Pinocchio did have flaws, at least he learned from them though. I don’t understand how him making mistakes makes him less likable.
The author who wrote the novel never liked kids, and made one of the worst in his character of Pinocchio, and originally planned to have the puppet die by hanging out in the woods! However, when he discovered people actually LIKED his story, he altered the ending and expanded it. I liked both the book and Disney adaptation, plus a few others I found on Pinocchio while growing up, because while they may be different, they still keep the plot of a naiive little boy who easily gets tricked and kidnapped by strangers, tries to lie his way out at first (because it's what kids do!), only to realize AND learn that only by telling the truth would he get help from the blue fairy; the adult who's helping Jimminey Cricket help Pinocchio to learn right from wrong. They show adult themes that was from a time period that did it anyway, but Disney meticulously altered it in such a way to show kids that smoking and drinking alcohol was a bad idea by keeping the magic element to it! For time constraints, it was left ambiguous for what happened to Lampwick, who would've been what Pinocchio had become had he continued to lie, cheat and be selfish in his actions. I don't mind how Walt Disney downplayed his naughtiness, because Pinocchio is supposed to be the childhood representation of ourselves. We come into this world naiive and carefree, because our parents took care of us in regards to food, shelter, clothing and especially love. Our own brains resembled Pinocchio learning through his mistakes and effectively realizing that not everything is seen through rose-colored lenses, and not everyone will be your friend. There are people who will take advantage of you, and even worse kidnap you under the guise of being a friendly old man who owns a theme park! Drinking and smoking in excess will sometimes quite literally, turn you into a 'jackass'. Actions have consequences, along with certain choices you make. Pinocchio first went with Honest John and the cat because they told him about life as an actor, making it sound more fun than sitting in a classroom all day listening to a teacher talk. Also, there are times when you have to put others needs before your own. That's what I learned from both the move and the books!
The original book was published in 1883, and the Disney movie was released in early 1940.
I absolutely hate the direction in hollywood, where characters r ALWAYS right, upstanding and good, but they r LITTERALLY TERRIBLE PEOPLE. Horrible people framed as good people who just always get dunked on by everyone else and it's never their fault IS THE WORST STORYTELLING EVER!!
THEY ARENT EVEN GOOD PEOPLE. THEY R KARENS.
Having Giuseppe Battiston as Mangiafuoco, a quite well known and famous Italian actor, made us Italian feel quite proud I have to say, also because his performance was very good. Too bad the movie is what it is, I didn't enjoy it at all but a few things, not many unfortunately.
I liked Geppetto's backstory, Mangiafuoco, how Honest John was voiced, the puppeteer girl was also nice though she wasn't that much relevant and I admit I liked the Coachman. More because it never looked "human" to me, neither in the movies nor in the book, so I thought it was a nice way of portraying it. Besides all the things I just listed, yeah, I didn't enjoy it at all.
I hated how pointless they made jiminy
I did like the adorable live action puppet though
they should have just gone with a more accurate version based off on the books... oh boy there is so much material there!
This movie reminds me of my ex. Beautiful to look at, but completely soulless and vapid.
I agree with this review 100%. In my opinion it was overall just ‘ok’. Like most Disney live action remakes they feel very lifeless and over the top with the music and filming, etc. But I feel that the story of Disney’s Pinocchio means so much to me and to a lot of people and that this remake will give us that feeling once more. And to me, I think it’s there, just not obvious.
Sure, the characters were kinda lifeless and a lot of it felt like they were just suiting up to modern audiences - and that’s because they were. Imagine if pleasure island was only boys again. Everyone on Twitter would freak out! They would say things like ‘it’s 2022 why aren’t there any girls in the remake’ (that’s just something along the lines of what they would complain about). The story remained the same just done in a slow fashion to build out the runtime, so they ruins it the movie in the long term. But if you’ve read the original story of Pinocchio, you would know that he does not get what he wants, so in the Disney adaptation from the 40’s, I’m just glad we got the same story in the remake.
Like I said, I agree with this review 100%, I don’t think it’s awful - just ok. They definitely could’ve done it better. It was made for the new generation to enjoy but the older people could get the same feeling, which is where it throws off the movie. By itself, it’s fine but doesn’t suit up to what it was when in comparison to the original. It’s a quick cash grab from Disney, and if you don’t like it then don’t watch. We all love the story of Disney’s Pinocchio from the 40’s, and so if that’s the best version then let’s all just watch that version. The feeling of Pinocchio was there, it was just portrayed poorly.
(Please no hate, I’m just speaking to what I believe. If you disagree, then feel free to disagree, but I don’t want to argue with anyone because of our seperate opinions. I’m on board with everything ‘Smarty Pants’ said).
with how realistic the animals look, you would think pinocchio would look a bit more realistic instead of how he looks in the animated classic
Keegan Michael felt like the only one who actually tried
He voiced honest john
Amazig howhe gets the massive roles in huge companies, I rem him from some wacky YT videos
tbh in my opinion, the only thing that had me invested in the movie was honest john.
When you see them side by side, it's amazing how much better the 1940 hand drawn animation looks. Hollywood, for the past 20 years, has equated CGI as instantly being better than hand drawn, but this proves that, when it's done right, by master animators, nothing can compare.
I wish Honest John and Gideon had more Screentime in this Movie.
IKR they had two scenes and that’s it😤
Making Monstro some kind of hybrid creature instead of a sperm whale is dumb. How are you supposed to believe that the live-action version of Monstro is a threat when it is so implausible?
Part of the appeal of the original animated Monstro is that it's plausible that such a thing could actually be a threat to Pinocchio since sperm whales are real.
Monstro actually resembles his original incarnation, the terrible dogfish, from the original Pinocchio story. So I would let that one slide a little.
I found it interesting that In the original Pinocchio Disney movie Pinocchio engages in naughty destructive behavior on Pleasure Island, smokes, drinks alcohol, talks back and even breaks stuff while in this remake, I haven’t watched the full reboot movie of Pinocchio Disney but what clips I have seen it looks like Pinocchio is uncomfortable being at Pleasure Island and doesn’t really engage in misbehavior, so why did he turn into a donkey if he isn’t engaging in misbehavior
This movie was somebody's fan fiction for a story they never read. For a movie they don't understand and most likely never watched fully. And threw in their OC because "My OC is so cool!". With an unhealthy splash of lazy narcissism, because "they could do so much better than Walt".
I appreciate that your critique involves key story moments and character development details. A lot of other reviews just use buzzwords like cgi bad and cashgrab when describing the Disney remakes. But this comparison here is really telling of the real truth.
How exactly is Disney making these remakes so bad over and over with the exact same problem every single time? They don’t know what made the original so well loved, and then chooses that thing to remove.
As long as people still pay to see them they will continue
"Constantly the victim" and "doesn't have to learn and grow from his mistakes" seems to encapsulate our culture these days.
And is anyone else tired of Disney calling CGI animation "a live action remake?" Unless you've trained lions to act out The Lion King, that's an animated film, just a different kind of animation from the original.
well considering we have one more Pinocchio movie but this time directed by Guillermo Del Toro and in stop motion animation, we can witness a probably good version of Pinocchio. Del Toro has proven he can do amazing with what he's given and he's a great story teller to boot. From the Netflix trailer they presented about a month ago has an underlying feeling of what seems like joy. what I mean is that the trailer makes Del Toros iteration of the wooden boy seem like a fun and exciting adventure that'll most likely stay true to it's dark roots.
I’m tired of Disney changing the original classics for these remakes. Some are great and some are just plain awful. I’m scared for the little mermaid
The Little Mermaid live-action is going be a total ship-wreck of a disaster thanks to that horrible casting decisions of Ariel and Ursula.
Same. Underwater is a whole ‘nother level of uncanny, like have you seen Flounder? That trailer got ratio’ed at 1.5 *MILLION* dislikes!!! Big OOF!
@@tiamystic Wait, Flounder was in the trailer?
@@TuesdaysArt Yeah, he’s hyper-realistic to what a real flounder looks like. Imagine a realistic crab singing Under the Sea 😬
The casting is not the main problem.
The problem is that this is supposed to be underwater. In real life, the ocean when you’re under it is dark as hell the lower you go. How are we supposed to connect to the characters in such a darkly lit environment?
I just can't believe that Pinocchio left all the children to die as donkeys. Why didn't the movie change that from the original?
ESPECIALLY since there was an easy way to do this:
1. Coachman orders the henchmen he is riding to charge.
2. Pinoke dodges.
3. Coachman goes over the cliff!
Pinocchio can’t do anything to save them in all versions.
I like that idea but can he do?
What exactly were you expecting him to do here? The transformation already occurred. There was no saving any of them.
@@swiifareSD Oh, I kinda forgot about that. But this was basically meant to be a remake of the original Disney version so he won’t save them in this version either.
I’m extremely happy that you mentioned the changes to monstro! Every RUclipsr I’ve seen has failed to mention the strange tentacles and weird “sleeps on top of the water so it looks like land” changes they made. Kudos to you, instant subscribe for the great work lol.
So they re-designed the fairy as a black lady to meet the modern Western demand for racial diversity, but then reduced her appearance in the movie to avoid hurting the movie's marketability in China too much.
Italian here. I was looking forward to Pinocchio, it is one of our masterpieces after all. And then.... the drag queen fairy. I noped really quickly after that. It's not Pinocchio, it's not Disney's Pinocchio - the classic one - it is woke Pinocchio. They can keep it, as i will keep my money.
What I think was the most disappointing is that Pinocchio didn´t need to be a 100% CGI character, the actor Benjamin Evan who voiced the character looked just like human Pinocchio when they were producing it he could have played the character in the movie with the use of make-up or motion-capture to make it look like he was made of wood. They wasted a perfect casting!
Pinocchio is a great children story and show how rules work and if you break them you will pay a price, innocent mistake or not. And shows how to get redemption by doing good or what is right. But In the remake that massage is lost and the point has become diluted to fail. I feel that Disney is trying to put a different message a lot of the show and movies that they make and now it no longer enjoyable. And asking myself why am I watch this, or hope it gets better.
Everyone misses the point of Pinocchio, if they made a movie true to the original story it would be a horror film
Remember when the villain said: "Let's bring him to the Pleasure Island, where he won't be leaving like a kid anymore."
For kids, this sounds like an attractive place, but as an adult now, you REALLY understand what that guy meant...
Modern Disney has lost _everything_ that originally made Disney great. They are just going through the motions, and they are too stupid to realize how awful they are. They don't want to entertain. They just want to push "THE MESSAGE", and are wholly incapable of doing anything creative.
No...the problem is mostly in that you can't turn a fuckin cartoon into live-action. There are exceptions, but the two styles are mostly incompatible. When you want to turn a cartoon into something live-action, then you need to radically adjust things. Movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit get away with this by claiming there are two separate worlds, and just have the toons look like toons even in our reality. But most just fall flat on their face.
The visual styles just cannot be swapped, ever. Grittier, more realistically colored and proportioned animation can be translated with relative ease, but something like Pinocchio just doesn't fit in a physical world. Its fine for us to see something impossibly ridiculous in a crayon-world. It's a more difficult to accept (unless you're a moron) when something that ridiculous is in what seems like "our reality". Like the Jonah aspect of Pinocchio where they're stuck in the whale. Nothing works that way...and seeing it try to be real is just painfully stupid.
There are other flaws in the movie anyway, but no matter what, it was doomed from the start. It's just not a story that translates to live action well, at all. And it never can be.
On top of that, the original isn't actually all that good in the first place.
The modern' woke' idea of forcing black characters where they don't belong is cringe worthy. Whose idea was it it turn a beautiful white fairy into a rather homely black woman complete with short hair and a space between her teeth?
The problem is the story is motivated by ideology rather than telling a good story. The morality of the original is replaced by the morality of the current year which is sadly lacking.
Can we also talk about how there was ZERO reason for gappetto not to take Pinocchio to school himself. If he was so worried about it then what was stopping him from taking a 10 minute walk to drop his son off and going home.
Oh right, the plot wouldn’t happeb
Definitely dodgy to make a little kid walk to school by himself, even just 10 minutes, but it was considered pretty normal in the old days. It was probably supposed to encourage independence or something, but yeah, so many things could go wrong on the way.
For a Normal kid sure, made sense to give them independence and trust nothing bad would happen (although in the movie it looks like there was a teacher going to get the kids with a ‘follow me’ rope) but a magical WOODEN boy? 😂
I’ll be honest I...didn’t hate it that much. Sure some points that you made were valid and I respect it. But in a way, I think that some of his changes could be understandable from a certain point of view.
The thing with Pinocchio treatment in this version of the story is that, it isn’t about him becoming a real boy but more about being...true to his heart (yeah it sounds a bit cheesy), but Gepetto said so himself at the end of the movie, he wanted to have his son back but instead he got Pinocchio but then at the end he likes him just the way he is (the scene where he got kicked out of the school truly emphasize that, so in a way this change can make sense).
And for Gepetto being a bit excentrique well...he was alone for several years living with a cat and a goldfish, how do you expect him to react? He finally got a child to call his son so of course he would be a bit paranoid with losing him.
And as for Pinocchio not acting selfish...well he sure did act selfish when he listened to Honest John advice to join the puppet show only for his own selfish desire to become real to some people and I don’t really see a problem with him acting weary in Pleasure Island and I think that Monstro new design wasn’t all that bad.
Now I agree with some people saying how the plot of the dancer kinda went nowhere and the donkey transformation scene could have been improved (although I do like the use of shadow when the kid transform into a donkey)
same
Yeah same
The problem is that this is an adaptation of a culturally important piece of foreign media, and fundamentally changing the theme is bad.
@@williamchristy9463 No. It’s just different in a way.
@@lop3938 Yeah. That's a bad thing-- they're willingly taking a culturally important children's story and bastardizing it for an audience they expect doesn't know the original. Instead of being a morality tale, this movie if anything tries to justify wrongdoing.
The real reason why this movie sucked was because Disney didn't want to offend people by exposing children to the truth and reality of the world. Censoring the hard truth is what killed the main focus of the whole story which is Pinocchio growing to be brave, truthful, and unselfish in order to become a real boy.
Wokeness ruins, everything.
The whole point of the original Pinocchio story was that Pinocchio made mistakes, experienced the consequences of said mistakes, and eventually learned from them. This is what leads to him becoming a real boy by the end of the story. By making Pinocchio less flawed his character arc falls apart along with the rest of the movie.
It’s the whole trope of “It’s not you, it’s society that’s to blame for your troubles”
@@Locke350 But the point of Pinocchio was that he was a little crud who needed to understand that actions have consequences
@@annieandelsieofarendelle3294 I was talking about the moral change in the remake.
@@Locke350 I know so why did they change it?
It's way too soon to watch a movie with Tom Hanks after seeing him play Tom Parker in Elvis. I was struggling to look him in the eyes in Pinnochio without feeling sick to my stomach.
Geppetto was trying to force Pinocchio to sing, “here comes Santa Claus.”
The first thing I asked was "does that whale have tentacles?" and I thought no one else noticed which pissed me off more so I appreciate you bringing it up lol
“It’s not always about the money ha-ha!”
“It’s about the money.”
A more ominous trend is Disney's obsession with erasing morality (right and wrong) and replacing it with self indulgence and gratification. It's a shame to see Disney killing their own original classics this way.
Coming in here to promote the 1996 live action version, The Adventures of Pinocchio. Where Pinocchio is simultaneously sympathetic and an absolute dick. XD
I feel like the double whammy of Elvis and Pinocchio basically opened people's eyes to the fact that Tom Hanks is overrated, something I've felt and occasionally tried to say but get shouted down. Its not that he's not talented because he IS - its only when he started trying to morph into a male version of Meryl Streep - who herself is called overrated but just rolls with it and jokes about it to the point that the line has lost any bite - that he started getting cringy. Just off the top of my head, The Post, Saving Mr. Banks, Charlie Wilson's War, Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and The Polar Express were examples where I saw and went "he's trying way too hard." Most of the films I've most enjoyed his performances in or where he's left an impression on me are ones where - not unlike Jack Nicholson - he's basically playing a version of himself (Castaway, Sleepless in Seattle, Big, Toy Story, Catch Me if You Can, Apollo 13). I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan or Green Mile so can't comment, but the only role I think he ever really successfully "disappeared into" was Philadelphia, where if you didn't tell me I probably wouldn't have even known it was Hanks because he was so emaciated and his voice sounded so different to where he really deserved that Oscar win. And ironically that's a film role where, by his own admittance, he probably wouldn't even get away with today as a "straight actor playing a gay character." The only other example would be Forrest Gump, although it hasn't aged well and slipped into caricature. Its beloved and I loved it myself as a kid, but its just slipped into parody to the point where it comes off as cringy and stereotypical. I don't hate him or anything - again he CAN convey emotion and hit you right where it hurts with a performance, but he just comes off as phoning it in more and more and people just go "amazing!" and shut down anyone who suggests its anything other than brilliant.
Do you guys find it weird that Geppetto made clocks with characters that weren’t made for about another 100 or so years at the point in history that the story is set?
I think it was paying homage to the director’s other movies?
They really CG'd a cat. Just get a cat and a trainer, you don't have to flaunt your cash.
Watch the live action *ITALIAN* film that was released a few years before this cash grab. You will not regret it.
The reason why I think the Jungle Book is the only good live action remake is because it’s story was more compelling and the characters (while some were fine) had me interested. Here it just feels like the other remakes. Not as good as the original
Why does everyone still think Robert Zemeckis is a "good" director? He lost whatever he had years ago.
Just saw the movie and I Agree it looks good but feels very soulless and hollow.
It's the fact the Pinocchio from the start of the year (aka ✨gay✨ Pinocchio according to fans LOL) was less confusing then this movie. Like I enjoyed that crap more then this AND THIS IS BY DISNEY THEMSELVES
“One of the most iconic characters” is really pushing it lmao
I can't believe I actually miss the live action remake from the 90's starring Jonathan Taylor Thomas
I agree with everything except how Pinocchio escaped from the cage to be free from Stromboli. I liked how in the remake Pinocchio had to get himself out instead of using his only lifeline with the blue fairy which could also feel like the writers are coping out because they don't know how to get Pinocchio out of the cage in the first place. (I'll be it Shrek 2 did it first)
I like that Pinocchio hasn't realized just how much danger he was in due to his naive ways, until we get to pleasure island when by then it'd be to late.
Everything else i do agree with, this was just how i saw that one specific scene.
Honest John was really the best part of the movie, and it sucks that he wasn't in more of it.
Keegan Michael felt like the only one who actually tried
I’ll recommend the Italian adaptation of Pinocchio (2019) it is way better than Disney’s garbage
If the fairy is a person of colour doesn't bother me, but don't put her in a cheap "fairy" costume and say it's "all inclusive". Take some inspiration from old lore or something that makes her feel and look like a creature of magic. Or give her braids or himba hairstyle.
Right! There were dozens of looks that would have worked to make her look mystical and beautiful, not just thrown on screen.
Ok guys, I think we all missed something in the end, even I did, when Pinocchio and Geppetto we're walking towards the light, Pinocchio slowly turns into a real boy and we were just too blind to see it, just watch the scene again
It doesn’t even matter.
The ending doesn’t make sense and is not earned.
The only parts of the "movie" that I enjoyed were the blue fairy (that character was surprisingly compelling to watch) and the coachman's ride to Pleasure Island. It's a shame that this film turned out to be atrocious... 😢💔
What about the Coachman’s song? Up to that point the movie was a Meh, but Luke Evans’ performance and his song really brought this movie up for me enough to call it Okay.
There was a good amount of comedy in this and some things which were added I actually liked. The ending quote by Jiminy has a strong message for today’s society.
@@EpicJoshua314 Including Luke Evans' song, of course. 😉 His performance was great, but still this movie as a whole was nothing compared to the great original classic!
Wish she wasnt bald tho...ugh
Onevaint gotta ve white to hv nice flowing locks...looks off too me
Whoever animated that fox did a great job.