I fucking HATE how dramatic and epic these trailers are, it completely ignores what the movie's actual tone is and replaces it with "holy hell! it's the thing you like, again! isn't that legendary?!"
The fact that they showed Jiminy Cricket and the furry duo, but not Pinocchio, should be telling on how much of an eldritch abomination his design must be.
@@lowhp_comic It's "easier" and more "practical" to hire 100 underpaid CGI animators than 1 half decently paid and talented puppeteer. Soulless corporation, remember?
looks like they will stick to close to the original. they dont seem to be deviating much from original designs (aside from the fairy). even jimminy, wich adam says looks awful, besides the clothes is preety close, only minor differences. you can actually see that thats the case preety accurately from the shot with the fairy.
@@samuraibeluga3749 Why didnt they just do something new with all the designs? I feel like people would complain a lot less about the fairy if it didnt seem like they were trying to stick close to the original designs everywhere else. Like even if your totally for diversity and inclusion that still just comes off so cynical and lazy.
Reminder that the Del Toro version has the creator of Over the Garden Wall as one of its writers. It literally has all the cards it needs to be better than everything else
As someone who cares about 1940's Pinocchio, allow me to give a criticism of this trailer that isn't about the Blue Fairy's design. I have major beef with the updated designs to Jiminy Cricket, Honest Jon the fox, and Gideon the cat. They look so fucking disgusting in this movie, and completely out of place with the setting. In the original movie, even though they were walking, talking animals, they fit in with the artstyle of the world. Because the humans in Pinocchio had more rounded and cartoony designs, as opposed to the more realistic proportions seen in Snow White, anthropomorphic animals didn't feel out of place and like they could naturally be a part of the world. In this trailer, however, the humans look like regular ass humans. So when we suddenly see a terrifying image of a bipedal fox, it looks completely out of place and unnatural. Honest Jon now looks like a demon rather than a friendly swindler, so why the hell would anyone trust him? It's yet another sign that the people making this movie didn't understand the original intention of Walt Disney and his talented animators when they made this classic.
Thank you for making this. I had little hopes for this at first, then I saw Jiminy design and I cringed onto oblivion. He looks hideous. They also didn't even care to cast someone who actually knows how to sing for him (remember when he was singing the most iconic Disney song ever?)
Judging from the one shot we see of Pinocchio's head at the end of the trailer, it looks like they're reusing the character design from the original film. If that's the case, it's going to be really awkward seeing him next to these uncanny valley monstrosities.
Yeah the anthropomorphic animals worked because it’s a cartoon, you can do whatever you want and be as creative as you want, but something like that doesn’t work as well in live action
I find it funny that they make it look all whimsical and fun that Geppeto is gonna go sailing in the ocean to find Pinocchio, totally ignoring the fact that he's gonna get eaten by a whale
Looks like they're ignoring the fact that Pinochio is a depressing, tragic story all the way until the end. I'm not sure we're going to see him get alcohol poisoning and be human trafficked.
@@cognittie930 Fuck no. Disney doesn't have the balls to actually show kids a story that carries any useful weight or message. Look st how dark the original story was too. Originally the story ended with Pinocchio being hung from a tree.
people never yalk about this, pinoccio funking drowns in the original. like everybody forgets that he straight up dies with his face on a puddle after saving his father, and comes to life when gepetto is praying for him. that worked in the original, because the whimsy carried possibilities, but in a realistic cgi fest, you can try to go for both, and will always fail, because the charachters look too real for the magic and humour work, and the tone is to juvenile for the emotional beats to resonate.
@@spritingk6879 Doesn't he get hanged in the book? And yes, people get "hanged" and objects are "hung". It's the one grammar rule that admittedly drives me nuts and sounds stupid, which is honestly probably the only reason I can remember it. And people should just remember as a general rule: Diney's whole goal with animated films was to take dark stories and make them fun, but still carry the message of the ones they originated from. They were ALL dark as fuck, and it's because they REALLY wanted to drive their message show because for a lot of these stories, if your kid didn't learn or digest the message THEY FUCKING DIED(like in real life).
@@nignamedmutt7270 If I recall it correctly initially the writer wanted to end the book with the hanging, the publishers convinced him not to, and then he did the real boy ending, which is likely the one that Disney grew up on. I am pretty sure Jimmy got crushed by a hammer in the book though, I might have to check. edit: I just checked the Wikipedia page and boy is the book hardcore, pinocchio actually hangs, but doesn't die, and gets saved, the cricket keeps coming back as a gosth (he's not named Jimmy, at least not in the Wikipedia page) the fox and cat loose a bunch of limbs and the fox sells his tail, and lampwick is recognised as a donkey by pinocchio, which I guess he doesn't care about or something cause that's not exactly resolved. It really is one of those, "If you misbehave you will die or worse, now behave, you little shit" which I find honestly very amusing. pinocchios characterization is also pretty different, he's not really curious but innocent, more like an actually rebellious and misbehaving child, which most adaptations seem to get rid of because it really does not make for a likeable protagonist.
*"From the studio that brought you two highly successful remakes that no one will ever rewatch again, and from the director who hasn't made a great film in over a decade"*
This should be more like "From studio that cancelled most beloved series on TV, because there was not enough money for remake, it's no suprise who we choose as director of this movie. I mean you will go any way, why we should care"
The irony of Disney spending probably thousands for a movie bit riffing on "Ugly Sonic" and then not showing Pinocchio in their own trailer...absolutely, indescribably divine. I can't even fathom what's in store for us.
I guess Disney isn’t counting on Italians getting upset with them trying to pass off Tom Hanks starring as Signor Tomasino Hanksoli playing Geppetto in their most famous cultural fairy tale
It's not really the fact that the fair godmother is a bald black woman, it's the fact that we all know exactly why they did it. The music even climaxes at the point where it shows her like it's a grand reveal. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Yeah, they could have cast her as a gorgeous black woman....but they gave us THIS. Rubbed it in our faces, and now they're gonna lecture us for not liking it. Only a specific small ideological minority of people will find it appealing, and Disney is gonna act like the rest of us are terrible because we don't.
@@OpinionParade Here is a solution: Let's not pay any attention to it! In fact let's just pass this movie. Let's face it, we knew they were going to do stuff like this. They have already done stuff like this in the past and they will certainly do stuff like this in the future. The sole purpose is to get a certain reaction so they can do just as you pointed out. So let's not give them that satisfaction. Ignoring someone who tries to provoke you simply infuriates them. They hate to be ignored. Because whatever they do, they cannot undo the actual good movies that were made in the past. They will remain as good movies no matter what they do. The one thing I like about these "live action remakes" is that they have made me appreciate the original ones even more. It worked again even though all I saw was a short teaser trailer.
It's a shame, because the original book is actually pretty great. It's insanely dark to the point where it feels a little strange to call it children's literature and you could make a genuinely great movie out of it. Here's hoping Del Toro does it justice.
There was also a 2019 adaptation that Adam liked enough to give a 7, so if Del Toro's winds up being a disappointment, we have at least one good recent Pinocchio movie.
I strongly encourage you to watch the 2019 adaptation directed by the director of "Gomorrah". It has Roberto Benigni as Gepetto and follows the original novel to the comma bar one scene, with all the whimsical, strange and terrifying elements kept in.
3:50 The tone here is so inconsistent. Wish upon a star is soft and gentle, and then "DUH DEH DEH DUH, DUH DEH DEH DUH!" It's epic guys we can't have a gentle tone for the legendary Pinocchio!!
Given how this fox looks, I'm excited to see how awful the inevitable Robin Hood "live-action" remake will look. Given how popular Zootopia got, they HAVE to keep the furries. Hell, the disturbing internet thirst of the donkey transformation scenes might boost it as well... Funny thing about this too, if Disney really wanted a diversity hire, they could've done it for Pinocchio himself. Just give the puppet a shade of brown to match a type of wood then get an actor that fits it as well. Would at least make sense as a design choice, as well as help visually distinct Pinocchio as an outsider compared to the rest of the townspeople and Geppetto himself.
Oh that's even a cute idea for the design. But like one of comments in the stream wrote: they do it to get at the anti sjw and sjw to get free promotion
Trainable cats aren’t as common as trainable dogs. They have a lot more control over the design of the cat as well if it’s a special effect. Despite that, they messed up the design.
Probably cheaper. And they're probably not going to sell any merchandise, just rely on streams, so they don't have to bother how the supporting characters look. Merchandise of Figaro from the 1940s version still sells very well because Disney at least cared about designing characters to be marketable and aesthetically pleasing. I even have a cute Funko pop of him.
This movie is where Disney got there main theme song and whole "make your wish come true" from, yet it's just thrown to Disney+. Tells us how much of a damn they give about their movies.
I think it’s another Disney’s Jungle Book VS Andy Serkis’ Jungle Book situations, where Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio is in production, so Disney feels the need to rush to shit this one out on Disney+ ahead of that.
I pray every night that just one of these "live action" remakes can be so bad that it can flop so bad that Disney stops making them. My prayers may have finally been answered with this one.
Not happening. They made gangbusters on their previous remakes. If a remake bombs they'll just say "Guess we chose the wrong property" and then do a different IP.
@@lartrak Disney can still see how many people are watching their Disney+ movies, even though they're not really paying for them. If a movie on Disney+ wouldn't get the amount of views they want, they wouldn't waste time and money on a follow-up to something nobody watched.
Even if it does flop, disney will blame it on racism or overentitled fans, and make it some personal mission to continue putting out mind numbingly safe garbage just to "stick it" to those who dislike it.
@@sirlenemodesto2665 He's talking about the meme of the direct-to-video Pauly Shore Pinocchio movie. It's a shame you haven't heard of it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Z4ArXSwALDU.html
Honestly, I wonder why Disney bothers with the “from the studio that brought you” business. They own 48% of the market share of the entire global entertainment complex. Everyone knows Disney. It’s impossible not to know Disney.
When Ward Kimball, one of Disney’s 9 old men, was designing Jiminy Cricket, he specifically tried to make him look nothing like a real cricket as he realized real crickets were ugly, and that one with a cartoony design was more appealing and had more character.
@@damiantirado9616 I just watched Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci. I don’t think it was a great film, but I did have a lot of fun. I think Alien was his best movie.
@@Roseforever84 Watch the last Duel that’s a good film. I didn’t like house of Gucci he clearly made that film for Oscar bait. The last duel is a more traditional Ridley Scott type of film. Ridley Scott is a hit or miss. Sometimes he makes mediocre movies and sometimes he makes good films.
@@Flashplayer65 Even WSS was kind of a lazy project. How much of that movie was his vision and how much of it was the vision of the people he hired to work on it? I'd say mostly the latter.
Pinocchio, to me, is what the lion king meant to you. This movie is one of my all-time favorite Disney films and since the day they announced that they were gonna remake that movie, I fear the day it was gonna be released. Though on the bright side, at least there's Guillermo Del Toro’s version to look forward to!
I’m on the same page as you, however I will never see it, so I could quite literally care less. It really is that easy, but I still know what you mean. Putting this in Disneys modern canon is going to be horribly obnoxious for the maybe 1-2 months anyone will give a damn about it and then always be a stain on any discourse about the original film (not that there is much anyway)
The original Pinocchio was beautiful because they pushed a lot of the limits of animation for the time and this one looks janky and crusty af completely shitting on the originals ideals. Also if it’s a timeless classic why remake it the first one is still gorgeous even by todays standards
@@jiggycalzone8585 Yeah instead of escaping there will be a "epic battle" scene where he has a sword duel with the Coachman and uses his own nose as a sword. No joke I can see that happening...unfortunately.
The thing that always bothers me about animated birds, that almost no one gets right; BIRDS ARE FAST AS FUCK. Like, even in their tiny movements they're rarely slow.
7:18 as I said on one furry discord server (and, to your information, even they think this looks cursed XD) "Fox looks like he's 50% realistic, and 50% cartoony, and the creators couldn't decide, which one to choose - Also his eyes are weirdly "too human", and it's too blurry to see, but his teeth also look kinda too human. I think that the problem is with the eyes and the eyebrows...This looks just too human on a "fox"" and when it comes to cat (no, not the figaro, i mean the cat character next to a fox) - I basically said that he looks like "Discount Weekly from blacksad"
@@ching-jungyang62 Filming animals in films without animal abuse has been more than possible for quite some time. Yes, the Owls in Harry Potter were horribly mistreated, but they're also not domesticated, trained animals. A house cat is quite easy to film compared to your average owl.
Interesting that he brought up the lackluster animation on minor animal characters. I noticed the same thing in Encanto but with the toucan in that scene in Bruno’s tower. There’s a bit where Mirabel and the toucan are staring down a deep fall, but the toucan has his beak faced forward whenever he’s looking at something, when he should be turning his head. Maybe it wouldn’t have been as distracting with another bird species, but toucans are all beak and thus nearly blind from the front. Edit: The bird isn’t as anthropromorphized as say Zazu, so it looks more like an inaccuracy than a stylistic choice.
I feel like we've come full circle with this shit. The movie Pinocchio, the famous song that became Disney's signature leitmotif, and the character of Jimminy Cricket were all representations of hope, creativity, inspiration, and childlike wonder that carry the Disney Legacy on their backs and now that Disney has become the prime antithesis of these themes the soulless husk has come to snuff out the one consistent reminder of what they used to be.
Well Adum is you want a pretty good Tom Hanks movie, go watch The Ladykillers, since he plays a villain in that and he's pretty good at it, I wish he can do more villain roles
@@michaelstrong5383 Pretty sure that the hate comes from the same reason "Sorcerer" was in relation to "The Wages of Fear": "WHY adapt a timeless classic where no real improvements can be added onto it.
I was taken aback by the new Blue Fairy purely because I seriously thought they were gonna copy the Amazon Prime Cinderella and have a fairy drag queen again. I don’t mind if they change anything else, I just think the exact same thing being done again would be tacky
@@KalisShort I mean, yes and no? It definitely is frustrating knowing that these decisions are being made more based on optics than actual commitment to diversity, but having new, fresh faces around is never a bad thing
The whole Black Fairy thing I’ve just come to expect at this point. My biggest gripes are how Jiminy and Figaro look. I can somewhat see the former as there aren’t anthro crickets in real life to draw from, but I don’t get why Disney can’t just use a real cat.
You think after going over 100 hours of Lion King promo footage Adam would have wisened up to the fact black people in these remakes get as used as marketing gimmicks/deflection against criticism for the Disney machine rather than actors chosen for their genuine ability.
Yeah that is the standard practice. Put a woman or black person or both in your movie and then insist that racism/sexism is the reason for any backlash. They're doing the same now with Kenobi. "Don't like our show? You're racist!"
This can be true AND movies with black people in them can be attacked simply for having black people in it. Look up "Pinnochio Trailer" on RU-vid right now, and you will see people not attacking the poor animation, but instead calling it "Pi-Woke-io" because there's a black person in it. There are a lot of racist people on the internet, actually.
@@Edax_Royeaux Yeah I honestly find the idea that they making casting decisions to "shield themselves from criticism" to be extremely doubtful. But even if that very silly idea were true it wouldn't mean that there are a fuckton of people whose main reason for being angry at the trailer is that there's a black person in it.
Precisely. Its rather insulting how Disney can cheapen their own masterpieces like this. If they truly believed that the originals were so timeless and classic, they wouldn’t feel the need to regurgitate cheap copies of them just cuz they own the source material
Who else remembers "The Adventures of Pinocchio" - that film from the 90s starring Rob Schneider as a guy called Volpe ("fox" in Italian) with an epic puppet opera show featuring a song that was written by Brian May and sung by the soprano who provided the vocals for the "Titanic" theme (not "My Heart Will Go On"). In short, *that* film is slept on.
People in the comments are critics of the products. It it's not their job to make compelling art. It is Disney's job to make compelling art. Truly bad take.
>It it's not their job to make compelling art. But it is their job to make compelling criticism, which they aren't. Adam at least goes through the trailer to break down what's off about it, he didn't just copy/paste.
Criticism isn’t inherently art (even if it can be used in and as such) and there is such a thing as good and bad critique. It’s not a truly bad take, it’s just two weird things to conflate.
@@BradsGonnaPlay But it is good critique. It's just not original. How many new, compelling ways can you say "your move is rubbish and you are evil"? Which, by the way, is not the job of the viewers of the trailer deeply express their inner feeling on another Disney remake. Party A gives Party B money. Both parties are not on equal footing. Party A owes nothing to Party B. Party B owes Party A compelling art in exchange for Party A's money.
Also an absolutely awful take on everyone hating the blue fairy just because she's black and not because it's a soulless cash grab that nobody wanted that has awful visuals.
@king tut yeah hate to say it but I think "anti sjws" kinda have a point. Granted there are some cringe commentary channels but that doesn't suddenly mean I'll ever get with the woke crowd that Adam's fan base seems to be based in.
When I saw that tease at the beginning, I was like, "there's no way they're gonna do the 'magical negro trope' and cast a black actress as the fairy lady, it's wrong and we've moved past that, haven't we?" Goddammit, I wanna go back to bed. Woke Disney is racist af.
Disney would have to have a level of self awareness in order to move past old tropes. The blue fairy is out of the way enough, not a major enough character, that they can change her, without 'undermining' the nostalgia, but still a notable enough character that they can get credit for 'diversifying'. The character that usually fits in that spot is the 'helps the plot along' side character, whether that's the "magical negro" or the "black best friend". The same thing happened with the Amazon Cinderella remake, which obviously isnt disney, but the same rules apply.
"Magical negro trope"? Think the person who named that was far more racist, also what a stupid trope because by that logic any black person with magic falls under that trope no matter how well or poorly they're written. Tropes are next to impossible not to fall under anyways, so realistically you're bitching about something that is impossible to achieve.
I’m not offended by the actress herself but I AM upset about that outfit she was given to wear. I don’t know if it’s the special effects or the design, but She gives me way more sci fi vibes than fantasy vibes. I could see her being a noblewoman in Star Wars, or like, one of the force ghosts like Obi Wan? But definitely not in Pinocchio, a story all about magic born of wishes. Without that wand in her hand, nothing would communicate “fairy” to me.
It's pretty dishonest to say that the dislikes are entirely because black fairy. There are valid reasons to dislike it. Mainly that it's another remake no one asked for and it looks terrible.
The black Blue Fairy definitely isn't the _entire_ reason for all the dislikes, no. However, I doubt that many people would've even _thought_ about the Pinocchio remake without that addition. Disney knows exactly what they're doing. They're trying to get people to watch/talk about the movie however they can. Be that through virtue signaling, or trying to get "anti-woke" people to hate watch it, or spread the word through complaints. Disney doesn't care about being "woke" or "anti-woke", they just care about making money, and will play both sides to do it.
@@superemoboi2050 I honestly don't think so; they care about what ever caters to their army of mentally disabled obsessive fans, and since that involves corporate pandering to the LGBTQIA+, then that's what we get. Also as someone who used to work marketing, it is depressing that Twitter actually DOES matter more than people think.
@@superemoboi2050 Happy to finally see someone who gets it. Disney isn't woke, they aren't leftist (I wish they were, but) and they absolutely don't give a shit about any group of people. If they did, they'd have gay characters, but they're unwilling thusfar to have even _one_ film that they can't show in China, despite sitting on billions of dollars they could use to make a film that use to do exactly that. I think RLM put it really well: "Eat the multibillion-dollar corporate schlop and pretend it's social progress, you fucking weirdos."
@@superemoboi2050 I agree with your assessment. I do think there are also plenty of people who are just tired of Disney remakes and lazy effects. People who watch YMS, for example.
The thing about streaming I always wonder about is quality control. Disney knows how to court mainstream outlets for positive reviews and seems pretty content to give select directors control without any oversight. So without the positive proof of failure that comes from a box office bomb, how do they really know whether something is successful or if audiences really enjoyed it or not? It must be hard to assure quality control with the opaque nature of their creative pipeline.
Viewer statistics on Disney+, test screenings, internet reviews, tweets and essays. Plenty of data. Perhaps this data is not as 'conclusive' as box office returns, but that doesn't really matter for Disney. The good or hyped-up films they can release in theaters, the mediocre or bad films they dump on Disney+ (with or without marketing) and the really bad projects they can keep handing to different directors and producers for reshoots.
Yeah, Disney has all kind of data. Who watched it, when, how far they got into it, whether they rewatched, what else they watch. It sure does help keep us from knowing if something bombs though.
"So, Disney we've got enough material to put out a trailer for this year. What parts do you think we should show off?" Disney: "Show everything, but the main character."
I love how they're trying to be progressive by making the Blue Fairy black, but then made her nearly bald like almost every black woman in film. It's almost ALWAYS bald or cornrows.
Disney deserves just getting a J.R.R. quote blasted on repeat. If they can't bother to come up with more original "reimaginations" of Disney classics, then they don't get legit feedback.
It’s a crash grab people. It’s the whole reason Disney got rid of the 2D studio. They don’t make this stuff out of disrespect, the only thing they respect is money.
My problem with the blue fairy is they LITERALLY went OUT OF THEIR WAY to make EVERYTHING ELSE the EXACT SAME as the animated...but NOT the blue fairy 🤦
They purposely cast her to be incredibly ugly and unappealing to a majority of people. Now they're gonna lecture us and call us all racists. -but they could have easily just cast an attractive and more traditionally costumed blue fairy, if they wanted to race swap responsibly. -but no. They do black women a disservice by casting this bald uggo. I bet they'll give her some anachronistic sassy lines too, smh.
Adum, I love you. But Tom Hanks was believable in Saving Private Ryan AND Forrest Gump as well as being a good comedic actor. He is extremely versatile. I would say he’s been a bit one-note RECENTLY though
I would wager that a remake of the original Pinocchio film could work, pull more inspiration from the book. But it’s most likely going to be the original with more padding that adds nothing of value to the movie. Also Adam, if you read this, the coachman was the guy who turned boys into donkeys. The fox was the guy who swindled and tricked Pinocchio twice alongside his cat sidekick.
If you're wondering why people are spamming the Tolkien quote in different languages, it's because companies kept trying to block it, so people did what they always do and increased the spamming.
I would like to point out that the actress who is playing the blue fairy, Cynthia Erivo, is an insanely talented actress and singer, so I am excited and curious to hear her performance. Not saying she’d be my pick for the casting, but she’s by no means a bad singer.
In the original Pinocchio book at some point Pinocchio meets a snake that minutes later dies for a burst vein in the trhoat for laughing too much. Felt like sharing that.
Disney has stopped caring about making sure the non-human characters have convicing movements anymore. I mean literally, they put all the money on the proper human body mechanics. Yet, they barley spend a dime on the jaguar.
Since Pinocchio's face has not yet been shown on this trailer, currently the best I can assume with all the information we have is that it's just his normal model transported into 3d animation, however his normal facial features have been superimposed with realistic eyes, nose, mouth etc just to really drill in how realistic this real live action version is
