It wasn’t that he wasn’t noble in the original either, he was just impressionable and had no real idea what was right and wrong because he lacked the proper conscience.
@@joshslater2426 He was naughty at first in the original though. Even if it came from ignorance rather than malice. He refused to listen to Jiminy and when he suffered the consequences he tried to lie his way out. On Pleasure Island, he still refused to listen to Jiminy and kept on drinking and smoking. It wasn't until he saw how his actions affected his loved ones (Geppetto went missing because Pinocchio disobeyed him) when he started to listen to his conscience.
They are literally destroying the legacy of the company piece by piece. I don’t necessarily think there aren’t creative people left in the company, but there definitely is no creative management anymore.
Also...I wonder why change the original setting of Geppetto's village. In the cartoon, it was never specified where we were, but judging by the architecture of the houses, it looked like Bavaria, or in any case a European area strongly influenced by German culture (at most, if we wanted to think of a small Italian village, we could say we were in Trentino South Tyrol). Instead, in the film there is a sort of imaginary "Tuscany" that seems to wink at the setting of Collodi's book, but it seems strange to have changed this detail, while the rest - such as Pinocchio's clothes for example - communicate " Germanness" at full volume.
The lack of care, the lack of respect for the original movies and the lack of actually wanting to understand their movies so they can make an actually good live action that actually makes dang sense. Just makes this live actions more annoying and frustrating No wonder why Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio was far more supported and loved than this movie, not only it was animated, but it was stunningly made visually and story wise. Actually giving a good story and an actual message in a beautiful way
Another problem with Pinocchio live action is the lack of going back to source material. Heck even the cheap knock off animated fairy tales of the 90’s use the source material to try to stand out. But if theirs a live action Pinocchio worth watching. It’s the one with Johnathan Taylor Thomas. In that one I liked that the character of the fox and cat are portrayed by human actors who have the characteristics of the fox and cat.. and get turned into a fox and cat at the end for karma.
Not only the worst Disney movie of that year it was the worst movie not only the worst movie but the worst Pinocchio movie the stop motion was the excellent And the low budget Russian one was interesting because it was so bonkers Where is Disney's Pinocchio was unappealing and a retread while removing all the best parts of the original Disney Pinocchio
The Live action remake feels more toned down, in the Original movie the kids where actually doing bad things, like breaking and stealing, and even smoking and drinking actual beers, instead of Root Beer, also the villains were way more terrifying in the original, The Slave owner was a genuine menace and was terrifying, he got real pleasure from all the bad things he did to the children
Not to mention the Monstro scene. In the original, the scene was terrifying because Pinocchio was being chased by a gargantuan demon-whale, but the remake takes away all the tension from the scene by giving Pinocchio the power to easily escape by turning his feet into a propeller.
@vetarlittorf1807 How are remake directors making the movies more "serious" again? Mind you, this was from the same guy who gave us a movie where the main protagonist was in danger of FADING OUT OF EXISTENCE and it actually being terrifying!
@@vetarlittorf1807 My point is that Robert Zemeckis is capable of quality filmmaking. Also that a lot of filmmakers these days seem to think they're making the old Disney movies more "serious" by making them in live-action, even though they're really not.
The problem with this Pinocchio is that the protagonists nowadays aren't allowed to be wrong and learn their lessons and often have this holier than thou air about them. It is as if learning to recognize their mistakes, to be wrong and correct these mistakes is a horrible thing to do. And IIRC, apparently Walt Disney himself had a lot of trouble animating the original Pinocchio. It was excruciating hard to get it right until they tried to animate it as a regular kid. Less "realistic" in a sense of "let's give up animating a puppet". It was when it finally worked.
Yeah, what these creators seem to miss is that it's the flaws of the original characters that actually help to give them character and dimension. Taking away those flaws makes the characters flatter than a piece of paper that got run over by a steamroller. Also, it means there's practically nothing to teach kids.
Other than maybe Cinderella, ALL of the Disney live-action remakes completely miss the point of the movies they're adapting. They don't understand what made the classics so good, so they try to "improve" them by adding superficial changes based on corporate check boxes (and no, I'm not just talking about woke stuff). The remakes show that Disney no longer understands fantasy, moral values or spiritual storytelling. Hence each and every one of them is corporate sewage. No, worse, they're an act of cinematic terrorism.
Christopher Robin doesn't miss the point of the original Pooh movies. But to be fair, that's not really a remake, it's more of a sequel in a different medium.
Actually, Lady and the Tramp remake is great too. I say great as the reputation of these remakes are low, but this remake has more to offer. The Tramp goes to a Kuzco like arc with his opinions on family, and honestly, the plot got better rather than worse like other remakes. Also they used actual dogs rather than CGI abominations, only CGIing the mouths like with other classic dog movies like the buddies movie with films like Air buddies and Santa buddies.
@@artbytesia I mean, I get it, but sometimes, weird ideas can work with investment. Some movies like Hercules and The Emperor’s New Groove feel like they wouldn’t work, but they do perfectly due to actually utilizing the creative freedom of animation and the great soundtrack and cast. The Jungle Book honestly didn’t feel like a movie that would work in live action, but they were dedicated to making it work with the villains being more menacing and new themes. So yes, Lady and the Tramp live action is good. They kind of weakened the Siamese cats Si and Am (they’re now Devon and Rex with a Jazz villain song, which is almost okay but the weakest song in the movie), but everything else got legitimately better.
@juanca2567 Yeah, you're right, they can. It just depends on the execution. Take, for instance, the Hans twist from Frozen. The idea of the supposed Prince Charming being the bad guy was a good idea on paper; the main issue was that it was executed in a way that made it feel forced, unnatural, and stupid.
What I loved about the 1940 film was the fact that even all the mistakes he made and the wrong paths he took, when it came to his father Pinocchio was determined to do anything to save him (the only time when he actually made a choice by himself without external influence)
You should actually review Netflix's Version of Pinocchio Guillermo Del Toro. It's not only a good film but it also stays true to the story of the sad dark elements that made Pinocchio really good from the Pleasure Island Scene to the Whale, and even the Circus are completely different from the 1940 one version.
Imagine if they'd made this a Muppet movie instead, with Gonzo as Pinocchio, Pepe as Jiminy Prawn Shrimp, Kermit as Stromboli, and Miss Piggy as the Blue Fairy. Geppetto would be played by a human, although I'd cast Paul Giamatti instead of Tom Hanks, and the rest of the cast would be an even mix of Muppets and people. And instead of turning into a "real boy," Gonzo would turn from a stiff wooden puppet into a "real weirdo," big party at the end and roll credits.
Kermit doesn’t seem like the Stromboli-type character. I’d cast Animal or J.P. Grosse, Scooter’s Uncle, in the part instead, especially since the later is the owner of the theater the Muppets perform their show in and is the rich tycoon personality. I’d say either of those characters fit Stromboli more than Kermit.
@hunterolaughlin I know, but I couldn't think of any other major character to cast him as, except the wicked coachman, which should probably be Uncle Deadly or another human cameo, possibly Willem Dafoe. I think Kermboli could work though, if his puppet theater looked like a mini version of the classic Muppet Show theater. Put Statler and Waldorf in the audience. Being a Muppet movie, I think it's OK to take liberties with the source material as long as it's funny and still recognizable as a retelling of Pinocchio. Even the Disney movie bears little resemblance to the original story.
Story-wise, I think the live action could have been good if they took the original story, and add a third run in with Honest John and Gideon. The first encounter could have Honest John would have him suggest the theater as a way to help support Pinocchio’s father. The second encounter, Pinocchio could be hesitant of trusting Honest John, but Honest John could say he didn’t know what would happen at the theater. He offers the ticket to Pleasure Island as an apology. Then, after Pinocchio learns his father is in trouble, Pinocchio meets Honest John one last time. Having experienced Honest Johns lies, and knowing his Father needed him, Pinocchio refuses to listen to Honest John and goes to save his father.
One thing that bothered me more than it probably should’ve is that Pinocchio’s hair was also made of wood instead of being made of a soft material like it was in the original. Like did they not want to animate his hair bouncing around?
I remember the hate this movie had back in 2022. As expected by a Disney remake, they toned down how scary the villains were, pointlessly changed parts of the story, added new characters that didn’t add anything, and worst of all he doesn’t turn into a real boy in the end. Once again, Disney missed the point of their own story and watered it down, but two years later and I’m not 100% convinced they’ve learned anything.
I remember being a little excited when I saw the announcement for the new Pinocchio movie coming out (along with 3 others), than got absolutely devastated once I had seen it, Pinocchio is my favorite movie (also killer klowns from outer space) so it was horrifying to watch it crumble like this.
Bob Iger really should watch two episodes that could teach him something very important: 1) Neptune's Spatula from SpongeBob SquarePants. In this, when SpongeBob pulls Neptune's golden spatula from a greasy griddle, Neptune has a hard time believing that a cleaning sponge could be fry cook material, so he challenges him to a cooking competition, and whoever makes the most Krabby Patties in a certain time wins. Neptune ends up making a thousand patties while SpongeBob only makes one. But here's the catch: All of the patties Neptune made with his magic powers taste TERRIBLE, while the one patty SpongeBob made tastes so delicious Neptune literally eats it twice. And that's because SpongeBob put his heart and soul into making it as good and tasty as possible. Heck, he even tells Neptune that "perfect patties are made with love, not magic." 2) The Super Speedy Cider Squeezy 6000 from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. In this, the Flim Flam brothers challenge the Apple family to a cider-making competition to see who gets to be the sole supplier of cider in Ponyville. When the Mane 6 join the competition to help the Apples, they pull a good ways ahead of the brothers, so the brothers make their machine go faster, but this gives it enough power to suck up whole trees rather than just apples, which causes every apple to be crushed before they get to the quality control, rendering the machine unable to actually make cider. To get around this, the brothers turn off the machine's quality control, so every apple, whether rotten or crushed, gets accepted and made into cider. This in turn allows the brothers to win by a landslide...but at a price. All of the barrels they produce as a result of turning off the quality control are filled with icky, rotten, stick-and-rock-filled sludge that no one wants to drink, which gets them run out of town, leaving the Apples, who put in the time to make high-quality and hoof-licking-good cider, the true winners. In case you didn't get it, Mr. Iger: QUALITY! BEATS! *QUANTITY!*
I agree with the Spongebob example but not the mlp One because Strawman Has a Point: The Ponyville citizens were supposed to be proven wrong for supporting Flim and Flam's machine-made cider and dismissive of the Apple's lower volume but higher quality product and methods. But the Apples were established as never being able to produce enough to meet demand while the machine did produce adequate amounts of comparable if not equal quality, failing only due to Flim and Flam grabbing the villain ball as opposed to the method being inferior. It's hard to fault consumers for siding agains a producer unwilling to compromise and meet demand, the quality reasons being moot if they can't produce enough to let them enjoy said qualitygotta be honest here... I wasn't a fan of this episode back then, and right now, I think I like it even less than before. It's about Applejack and her family's apple cider season, something everypony in Ponyville looks forward too. Unfortunately, every year they run out of cider before they can sell it to everypony, which they justify with "quality over quantity". Things get even more complicated when two business ponies, The Flim Flam Brothers, present a machine that produces three times more cider than the Apple Family, and they try to make a deal to work together so they can get 75-25% of the earnings. The Apple refuse and decide to challenge them to a competition to see who can make the most cider. The winners get the farm and the cider business, while the losers have to leave Ponyville. Now, I wanna start with the moral of the episode. I honestly think quality is always better than quantity, and I admire that the Apples have integrity to their work. There's just one little problem... quality doesn't really matter when you don't get to taste the product itself. It's established on the episode that the Apples always run out of cider before everypony can even taste it, and it happens every year. We are supposed to see the customers as unreasonable for complaining about this, but it's really hard not to see where they're coming from. You can always claim that things take time to get them right, but how much water does that statement hold when you can't even sell the product people are paying you for. As Spongebob can make millions of krabby patties in one sitting they no.limes of costumers wating and some don't even get a Patty because their all out
@@nicholassims9837 Yeah, there is a bit of an issue with how the lesson was handled in MLP for most of it. But I think the lesson works well at the end because Flim and Flam rushed things and turned off the quality, which is what led to the bad cider. Disney can be like that too. When they focus more on putting out more movies--which they have--and decide not to care about the quality--which they also have--then they end up churning out a lot of bad stuff. Just like the brothers.
I've never seen a movie that got as many things wrong about the original as this one. It's like they watched the 1940 version and rewrote each scene to completely miss the point of the original.
I will give Zemeckis credit for making some good movies in the 21st century. Polar Express is my all time favourite Christmas movie, and his take on A Christmas Carol is also pretty good. If you look past the animation, which is possible, you get some enjoyable movies. Only problem is that they’re Christmas movies; very little of his others have really worked out.
It’s the fact it goes darker than it really needed to be. The Coachman is quite possibly Disney’s most evil villain. The songs also catchy, the main characters are likeable, and it was even a visually impressive movie.
@@DiegoMatos-u6u In defense, I don’t think the Disney Princesses in that film were meant to be serious versions of themselves, but instead parody versions.
@@hunterolaughlin but it feels disrespectful like Cinderella breaking her glass slipper when Vanellope came which disrespects the first Cinderella movie.
This is why I hate the live-action remakes. Movies like Mulan, Dumbo, The Little Mermaid and this one make the protagonists so perfect that they don't want to show us how flawed they are, which makes them relatable. I mean, they don't have to be immoral and despicable like any Seth MacFarlane character, as long as they are tolerable and charming. Seriously, I know Disney is a kid-friendly company, but sometimes they have to take risks to be entertaining. Removing references to smoking and alcohol is as dumb and unrealistic as replacing real guns with laser guns in any superhero cartoon. Hell, most children learned swear words from their parents than from movies or television. I don't know what kind of idiot chose Michael Eisner's errand boy (Bob Iger) as the new CEO of Disney, who corrupted the entire company with his wussy ideology.
@@aidanhever3369 Don't tell me you think Michael Eisner was any different than Iger. Eisner is the one who killed Disney's values. Iger is just a symptom of it. The Disney Renaissance was successful because Roy E. Disney and the Disney family still owned the company. Roy helped maintain the company's identity as a haven for artists where stories come first and business comes second. Also, you forgot to add The Jungle Book remake into your list. That movie also made Mowgli a Mary Sue.
This one is by far my least favorite live action remake. With every remake, I Can at least find SOMETHING to be nice about. This one? I have NOTHING positive to say. It’s badly directed. Badly acted. Badly conceived for live action. Badly animated. And missed the point of every single character and theme on a scale that no other live action remake has done. And yes…that includes Mulan and the Little Mermaid. I absolutely despise everything about it. And there is no excuse given Tom Hanks being the lead and Robert Zemeckis being the director. That’s what pisses me off more than anything.
If you want Disney to stop making soulless remakes, DON’T watch the new Snow White, no matter how tempted you are to hate-watch it. Disney won’t care if you hate it as long as they get money
I haven't watched any Disney live-action remakes for years, unless you count Christopher Robin (which I don't). I couldn't be prouder of my decision to boycott them.
Live action remakes from original animated films could make it worked if they don’t bastardizing the source material even cramming with today’s content even diversity issues during its production. Disney needs to be careful of what they’re doing before many fans will be disappointed even devastating. Great vid.
@@vincenthoule5643 I agree, Aldone keeps talking about too much Disney, Disney, Disney, Disney, Disney, I already learn a lesson of when people are busy, I can’t distract them.
I haven't seen this movie and never will, but one thing that really frustrates me about the haters of the movie is that after this movie came out, everyone practically started to WORSHIP the original and treat it like it's literally 100% flawless and doesn't even have any minor flaws, not even nitpicks! Just WHY? I mean it's one thing to call the original a masterpiece, but to act like the original is LITERALLY PERFECT and treat it like God? Honestly if you ask me, that's much more likely to ruin the original than any amount of bad remakes could do.
I have this theory that Lampwick kicking the pool table that blocks the Coachman to catch Pinocchio is his last once of humanity and decided to save his friend
I think even in the animated film the “stupid little boys” turned donkeys still retain their human kinds considering how one was able to respond to the Coachman’s question when asked his name but only could bray instead due to loss of voice and the other one, Alexander, could still verbally communicate along with a few other donkeys and they look visibly sad when they’re being packed into crates and loaded onto the ship, so they’re aware of what’s happening to them and what the Coachman’s intentions are. I think Lampwick braying and going crazy after his transformation isn’t him losing his sanity, but him simply panicking and not having any idea of what to do in the horrifying situation he was in or with his new form, which, let’s be honest, you’d pretty much react the same way if you were in his position and were transforming into a donkey without any idea of the cause or if there’s any cure or way of stopping the transformation. Even in the Carlo Collodi novel, Pinocchio, who fully transforms into a donkey unlike in the Disney version where he only grows ears and a tail (and brays, but not as frequently), and is sold to the circus still maintains his conscience when he thinks over the circumstance he’s in. So I don’t think turning into donkey causes any boy to loose his original human mind in the world of Pinocchio.
The messaging of "It's not your fault, you're born a good person, it's society's reason you made bad decisions" is CRAZY and should never be taught to kids. Parents have to go through HELL in order to install concepts such as consequence and self-discipline to their children, and creating more of the self-entitled would not ever be good.
I swear, Disney is making these movies for two reasons: to make some easy money without having to take risks, and to sanitise their old stories so they can try and erase the fact that 1940's movies like Peter Pan and Dumbo were racist, or other old movies weren't diverse, or in the case of Pinocchio, making Pinocchio a model child who's always perfectly well behaved, because they seem to think every character portrayed on screen needs to be a perfect role model, and that flawed people are somehow scary or bad for children. I mean, for crying out loud, in Beauty and the Beast, they couldn't even have Gaston be a full on bad guy, he needed to have some tragic backstory, and all the villagers were just under a spell or whatever. It's so cowardly. It kind of reminds me of how they've photoshopped the cigarettes from Walt Disney's hands in the theme parks, to try and pretend like he wasn't a chain smoker, as if seeing the man as a flawed human will somehow damage their entire brand. It's bizarre, really.
Thanks for making this video and trashing this remake. Part of me wishes this film could have been released in theaters just so it could have deservedly bombed even harder than the 1940 version and I wish Disney could remove this movie from existence especially for the ending. It's just sad you would think Disney would put more time and effort into an adaptation of the film that gave them their theme song. My only disagreement is that I find Keegan Michael-Key's portrayal of Honest John as really annoying and maybe go as far as to say he's the bane of my existence and don't get me started on those contemporary reference jokes. It also doesn't help that is my least favorite character design of all time and this is coming from someone who loves foxes and the 1940 version of the character. I'm willing to bet they didn't include Honest John and Gideon in any further scenes because the animators thought the designs were too ugly and/or were too lazy to animate another scene with those characters.
I want to bring this up considering many are probably going to think this considering Disney’s other live-action remake that did something similar, but even though Pleasure Island having girls included in the mix of boys may look like forced diversity in the same manner as having girls among the Lost Boys in the Peter Pan remake, believe it or not, there’s actually been retellings of Pinocchio, book or film that actually have included girls going with the bad boys to an Pleasure Island-esque place. Disney’s is not the first version to do so. I remember watching an animated film adaptation of Pinocchio that was closer to the original story by Carlo Collodi that was released in the early 70s that actually showed girls along with boys in the Coachman’s wagon and going in the Land of Toys, Pleasure Island’s original name in the novel. So instead of accusing Disney of forced diversity, keep in mind that they aren’t the first to include girls going to Pleasure Island or The Land of Toys, whatever you prefer to call it and that other adaptations have done this. Even though it won’t excuse the remake from still being bad, at the very least it’s ONE thing that shouldn’t be used as criticism against Disney and the remake for once.
Disney have lost all sense of nuance. Likely because everything they put out is sanded down by corporate risk-aversion, to the point where nothing has edges or shape at all - it's just stuff. Content. That they insisted on making Pinocchio a victim in this film, rather than an imperfect protagonist, was a gross disservice to both the story, and to all the kids watching it.
What they did to him here would be like if in a remake of The Emperor's New Groove, Kuzco would have none of his brash and selfish attitude and was just a selfless saint the whole way through.
9:45 That's...kinda shocking actually. JGL has done plenty of musical theatre before. He's not the most phenomenal singer in the world, but he's still damn good and way better than Hanks. Weird.
Also you gotta love the store specifically made for stealing…. IT’S NOT STEALING IF THE STORE LITERALLY EXISTS FOR THAT PURPOSE! 😡😡😡😡 my gods these remakes pisses me off and i didn’t even particularly like the original Pinocchio (the donkey scene scared the hell out of me as a kid and just wasn’t the biggest fan of the story in general but I still like some parts and the animation is of course incredible) also i just had to say del toro’s was not just infinitely better in every possible way i cannot recommend it enough to anyone who hasn’t seen it
The thing I kinda hate about the remake pleasure island is that they included little girls. I’m sorry. It what are girls rebelling against? Gender roles? In a story of Pinocchio the story be a very male character driven story. Are we to believe that girls are rebelling to do chores or have equal right as boys and get turned into Donkey’s for it?
I sometimes wonder how many people read the original novel. Carlo Collodi wrote the story in the early 1880s-and I sincerely doubt how many knew the original story was Italian. Carlo Collodi's nephew wanted to sue Disney for distorting the story and the characters. I have a feeling nobody knows the real story and just assume the original story was Disney's 1940 version.
These movies are just made to sell their stupid disney plus. They don't give a crap about art or creating adventures to be passed down to generations. What really sucks is how they suckered Robert Zamekes into making this trash.
I feel like the exclusion of the blue fairy in a lot of the scenes is intentionally done so in order to remove a supernatural figure of authority in what Pinocchio does. Without a power to judge what is earnest, it can easily turn into a situation of self-justification, where good magic happens to Pinnocchio simply because he's standing on the right side of a poorly defined line of morality at the moment. Additionally, it might also be the case that the world itself is magical, and not the magic users, so the main character would only need to appeal to the self-centered emotional morality, instead of the purely altruistic philosophy the blue fairy has for young boys.
@@vetarlittorf1807 Definitely depends on the person. For example, Aurora, Cinderella, and Snow White have less screentime in comparison to the other characters, despite being the main characters (or subject, in Aurora's case). Part of why I loved "Cinderella" (2015) is because Cinderella got more screentime, as did the prince.
@@OpticalSorcerer Aurora doesn't need more screentime because she's not the main character, the fairies are. Snow White has the most screen time of all the characters in the movie, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Either way, giving more screen time to characters is a superficial change. Just like giving Jasmine a solo song. It adds nothing to the character or story and only exists because she didn't have one in the original.
@@vetarlittorf1807 Giving Aurora more screentime helps people to understand her more, particularly since she (and Philip) are more reactive characters. Even though the fairies star, seeing how they interact with Aurora outside of 5 minutes would've been nice; they're protecting her, but we barely get to see her. Snow White getting more screentime is more for character analysis than overall story development. Jasmine having a solo is a whole different thing related to another argument we could have, but I enjoyed "Speechless"--even if I felt it didn't fit who OG Jasmine was exactly.
@@OpticalSorcerer Your way of thinking is exactly what's wrong with modern Disney; lack of understanding of spiritual storytelling. You're missing the point of Aurora. She's not meant to be a character, she's a symbol. She's the embodiment of humanity's feminine half, just like Philip is the embodiment of humanity's masculine half. Maleficent represents the force that threatens to divide the two halves through nihilism, thus hindering the human spirit. This is how fairy tales work. It's not meant to be a character-driven story.
24:01 To be fair. Monstro in the original story wasn’t a whaleHe was instead to be a sea monster. Disney decided to make him a whale. So the remake was just turning Monstro back into the sea monster it’s supposed to be.
18:50 replacing the cigars and beer with candy and root beer punishes Pinocchio and the children for doing child like things which makes no sense. It's normal for children to indulge in candy and having fun. Pinocchio didn't even partake in having fun in the live action yet he still got turned into a donkey which sends a mixed and confusing message since he didn't do anything wrong.
