Disney's Pinocchio (Live-Action)

[ShyViolet]

True: I'm male, and I don't really personally invest myself enough to CARE about the ethnicity or preference of cartoon characters,

Then why rant about all of this in the first place?? Why not just follow the story and enjoy the movie, regardless of which race the characters happen to be?

[EricJ]

Then why rant about all of this in the first place?? Why not just follow the story and enjoy the movie, regardless of which race the characters happen to be?

Because it's NOT a movie made for an audience. It's a movie made for a legal contract obligation.

Why are they still making these, and keep in mind that they've long since forgotten too?--Well, the reasons change.
Like the reasons they deluged us with vidquels in the 90's-00's ("But what's wrong with having the continuation to a beloved story?"), the marketing changed from an actual marketable idea, to trying to sell obscure titles (so, whatever did happen to that live-action Robin Hood they threatened to make?), to trying to revive 30's/40's titles from copyright extinction, eg. "Dumbo II".

We're getting a pointlessly replicated live-action Pinocchio at the same time as we're getting a pointlessly replicated live-action Snow White and a pointlessly replicated live-action Bambi:
DO
THE
MATH.

(And if your answer is "Because audiences love the nostalgic magic!", or the above "It's a classic story with new faces for a free new age!", I'm afraid I'll have to give you a C+ for not checking your math.)

[Dacey]

The reason the DTV sequels got made? They had an audience and made Disney a ton of money.

The reason the live-action remakes are getting made? They have an audience and are making Disney even more money.

Really, the only person who needs to "do the math" in this discussion is Eric, who should tally up all of the warnings he's gotten not to do this sort of thing and might be curious to know he's potentially on his last lifeline here.

[Randall]

In Eric's defense, his inital brief comment was not a rant. Then, subsequent statements were made only in response to further queries. Let's not accuse him of assuming the motives of others, then do the same to him.

And I think there's a valid point in there. In these remakes, so much effort is often made to make them just like the originals, but then they randomly change certain elements, making for a weird hybrid. (And not just in casting; this applies to plot points, too.) He never argued against diversity - only how it can be hamfistedly carried out. It can reek of tokenism, and that's not healthy, either.

So, in adhering to the Italian tale of a puppet come to life, does it make sense to have a black fairy replace the blonde one? Well, it's fine, really (most Italians aren't blonde, either; and she's a fairy, so none of that matters), but it is an oddly random change when Pinocchio and Jiminy look exactly like their cartoon selves.

How wonderful it could have been to have a fully reimagined new Pinocchio story set in Kenya (or Malaysia or Jamaica or Chile) instead? I would much rather see that than an awkward partial remake.

[Farerb]

Guillermo del Toro's film looks much more interesting than this piece of crap, which will only be a sanitized castrated pale imitation of the original.

[Daniel]

(Hey...I didn't even MENTION the fact that we're getting Keenan Key as a hip-black Foulfellow Fox.)

Keegan-Michael Key.

um....guys, remember why you fired Robert Zemeckis in the first place?
"A Christmas Carol" ring any memory bells?

They didn't "fire" him. Been through this before...

[Ben]

…and in the same thread, no less! (Also, it has to be said, where it was confirmed Pinoque would be going straight to D+.)

I think the bottom underlying thing here is that everyone is coming at the same thing from different angles. As for the "Blue" fairy herself (must be related to Will Smith's genie?), it doesn’t matter if she's black, or not blonde, or whatever. The biggest WTF here is the baldness. Chris Rock will have something to say about that, and then Jiminy Cricket will hop up and slap him.

[Daniel]

Yeah, not a fan of the bald look. So bizarre! Cynthia switches up her hair style routinely, even dying it blonde! She looked rather stunning, which makes it all the more sad they chose to go in this direction. I wasn't expecting blonde, but I was picturing something more magical, like butterflies in her hair.

[EricJ]

The biggest WTF here is the baldness.

"The biggest"? Ohh, no.
It's Robert Zemeckis. The WTF has only just BEGUN.

(Remember that fever-dream way that "A Christmas Carol" didn't really seem to understand Dickens, kept randomly ramping the wrong things in the story up to 11, and made really weird and disturbing mountains out of Dickens' throwaway story molehills?
We don't get too much impression of that in the trailer YET, except for the gag from the original movie about Jiminy pestered by seagulls as he's sailing out to sea in a bottle...Or, in Zemeckis' imagination, attacked by Hitchcock's giant Birds in a gripping CGI action sequence.
Now imagine the Zemeckis-verse version of the puppet show*, the donkey transformation, or Monstro the Whale... )

----
* - Marionettes, again. We didn't really know why THAT creepy scene was in "Polar Express", either.

[Ben]

Maybe the Monstro scene will allow Alan Silvestri the chance to reclaim for Pinocchio the musical motif that John Williams nicked for Jaws…

[gaastra]

Because she's BLACK, of course, this is a Disney remake!
Can't have a 30's platinum-blonde Blue Fairy, that's not inclusively magical...

Don't care if she is black or whate as long as she can act. But trouble is everyone else was made cartoon version like complete with hanks wearing face add ons. Then here comes a bald blue fairy who is known for two things. Blue dress and long hair and one of the two is gone. It's a shock to see. It won't matter in the end as i'm sure she will do a good job but it would be less shocking if she was not one of the the only non cartoon looks in the trailer. She sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Daniel]

Another change is that the children going to Pleasure Island include girls this time. Pointless as it is, I think that's an improvement.

[Evergreen]

I agree, girls being there, too, is an improvement. I never really noticed it was only boys in the original film. It must've slipped me by.

Personally, I'm looking forward to this remake. Pinocchio is one of my favorites and this looks as good as I would've expected for its remake. Tom Hanks is perfect as Geppetto, they're keeping Pinocchio's design mostly the same, most of the songs are still there, etc. I wish Cynthia Erivo hadn't went bald for her role, but I'm fine with her in the role of Blue Fairy simply because she only has two scenes, I think? And i liked Erivo in Harriet. She has a very pretty voice, too, so I'm glad she's singing the song here rather than Jiminy. Sort of how I wish that Audra McDonald as the Wardrobe had performed Beauty and the Beast rather than Emma Thompson, even though the latter was playing Mrs. Potts. I know she still did part of the reprise at the end, but Audra's voice would've been glorious on the full song. Emma's voice was just not up to Lansbury's level, imo, but I adore Lansbury. I think Emma Thompson was great in the role of Mrs. Potts overall, just not for singing the song is all.

[Ben]

Also, I think Thompson was hamstrung by having to try and pull off a Karaoke impression of Lansbury's Potts, rather than just having her own take on the character.

[Farerb]