Pinocchio Remake?

STASHONE · Post by **STASHONE** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 5:07 pm

But they aren't making more money at all. In fact they seem to be in negligance about this as rather than redirecting their sights, they are totally losing focus. Remakes, sequals, budget cuts, exclusive rights to cgi, etc... how's about original concepts, being inventive and imaginative, creating something fresh and tangible? The company built it's foundations on pioneering new styles and incorporating thoughtful means of artistic inspiration into cinema and animation but recently, Disney seems to be making the assumption that today's commercial generation is so caught up in generic pop cultures and big budget media headlines, that we are not able to distinguish between hollow, insincere impressions and substance worthy of Walt Disney's legacy.

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 5:39 pm

STASHONE wrote:But they aren't making more money at all. In fact they seem to be in negligance about this as rather than redirecting their sights, they are totally losing focus. Remakes, sequals, budget cuts, exclusive rights to cgi, etc... how's about original concepts, being inventive and imaginative, creating something fresh and tangible? The company built it's foundations on pioneering new styles and incorporating thoughtful means of artistic inspiration into cinema and animation but recently, Disney seems to be making the assumption that today's commercial generation is so caught up in generic pop cultures and big budget media headlines, that we are not able to distinguish between hollow, insincere impressions and substance worthy of Walt Disney's legacy.

Right ON, brotha One!!

Couldn't have said it better myself. These days Disney is doing little more than cannibalizing its existing successful properties, without much foresight at all. Even the new stuff they're pumping out is simply a rehash of formulas that have worked before - ahem, Brother Bear, anyone? No? How about Chicken Little? Or Rapunzel? I guess the philosophy at Disney right now is "If all else fails, return to the faerie tale well." Watch out, Aesop! Heads up, Grimm brothers! Here we come again!

Oy... the glimmer of hope I have for Disney fades a bit every day....

rnrlesnar · Post by **rnrlesnar** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:18 pm

I think a a frame by frame, word by word, CGI duplicate of Pinocchio would be a site to behold. It would look amazing. I hope they do it.

rnrlesnar · Post by **rnrlesnar** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:26 pm

BasilOfBakerStreet427 wrote:Wow,you're funny.Save Disney traditional animation!All hail the revelution!

From a business standpoint, they have to go with what makes money. This argument is like saying that movies should be in black and white because that is the way they were originally made. If CGI is the next evolution of animation, then so be it.

The studios that have put out traditional animation over the last years have no one to blame but themselves for the lack of interest. In the last few years, Lilo and Stitch was the only quality one that did very well, while Stallion of the Cimmaron, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Sinbad, Empreor's New Groove, etc have been rather unsuccessful because they really weren't all that great. I think the last real Disney animated feature to do well and was a very good movie was Tarzan. Since Tarzan, we've had Shrek, Monsters Inc, and Finding Nemo become blockbusters at theaters and DVD because they were great movies. The general public is going to get the impression that CGI means better movies, and they're going to ignore traditional animation. Hopefully Brother Bear will be a quality movie and rid the stigma traditional animation has been having for the last couple of years.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 2:45 am

STASHONE wrote:But they aren't making more money at all. In fact they seem to be in negligance about this as rather than redirecting their sights, they are totally losing focus. Remakes, sequals, budget cuts, exclusive rights to cgi, etc... how's about original concepts, being inventive and imaginative, creating something fresh and tangible? The company built it's foundations on pioneering new styles and incorporating thoughtful means of artistic inspiration into cinema and animation but recently, Disney seems to be making the assumption that today's commercial generation is so caught up in generic pop cultures and big budget media headlines, that we are not able to distinguish between hollow, insincere impressions and substance worthy of Walt Disney's legacy.

Disney films are making more money. I posted the first week sales for some of the DTV sequels on the "Lion King Not Selling?" thread, and believe me, those babies are pulling in the money. (I read somewhere that Lady and the Tramp 2 generated a turnover; not profit; of half a billion dollars for Disney worldwide). Disney are only loosing money from their other divisions which is bringing down their overall profits. Films and DTV's are performing better than ever.

You know, I saw "Ultimate Muscle" or something for the first time yesterday (some damn awful wrestling cartoon) and whole scenes were shown with no animation. When animation was used, only people's mouths were moving. And I was informed that "Ultimate Muscle" is one of the most popular cartoons on the television at the moment. I thought it was a joke, but apparently it is one of the most popualr cartoons on at the moment. People don't care about quality anymore. I'm sorry if this upsets anybody, but it's true.

Is Disney responsible? In a way they are. My own belief is that the glut of cartoons on the television has removed the magic of animation - any animation - from people's minds. They judge the whole genre based on what they can watch every day on the television. Clearly Disney holds some responsibility for this, but so does every other studio. Eisner had no diabolical plan to make this happen - it was almost inevitable in this multi-media age. There's too much of everything readily available, so everything looses it 'specialness'.

The Disney sequels are fine now and you don't have to watch or buy them. The early ones were a little dodgy, and even now the odd slip-up falls through. But given the apparent disinterest in quality animation from the public you should all be greatful that the sequels are as good as they are and seemingly getting better and better with each release as a general trend. The biggest problem with the sequels are the scripts, but some would argue that some of the scripts are stronger than some of the scripts from Walt Disney Feature Animation films.

There is an issue that Disney seem reluctant to make proper sequels to their more recent films which haven't preformed as well. It still hurts me that Atlantis never got a proper sequel. I agree it is not good business just to concentrate on particualar films and characters at the expense of other, weaker properties. Disney should be trying to build the weaker properties up instread of simply ignoring them. Or else you risk over-exposure. And over-exposure generates ill-will. (Again, availability reduces their 'specialness'). Personally I think Disney are wrong to make another Lion King film already, when they have other properties to "exploit" (I guess that word will get some of you going).

I have no feelings about a CGI Pinocchio, as long as Disney don't withold the animated original to make the CGI film the default version for future generations. Unlike some people here, I found nothing wrong with the Psycho remake. I have to question the intent of the makers, but the film did what it said it would, so no one can complain. Everybody knew what they would be seeing before they saw it and could quite easily opt no to see it. In fact watching the original back to back with the modern version is quite enlightening. But it's nothing more than that. I'm not sure it was ever supposed to be more.

There is nothing inheritly wrong with any sequel. Even if it is a sequel to a "happily ever after" ending. All it needs is love, care and attention and a decent original idea as the springboard. Same with CGI remakes. If you think about it, rather than shooting-off from the hip without thinking. There is a potential to do so much more with the original story and characters (which is why I do question the shot-for-shot approach Disney seems to want to take - Disney should be expanding the original, not duplicating it).

Remember some of the comments here about Pirates of the Carribean before it was released? Lots of jokes about movies made on theme park attractions with no story? Sly comments about lack of originality? And yet now the film is the toast of the board. So would you class Pirates as an original film or "generic pop culture"?

When it comes down to it, we'd all like to see new, fresh and original films from Disney all the time. But it's the income from the DTV and sequels that funds the original films.

Plus, originality doesn't always sell. Not true originality. The best 'original' box office hits are all films which follow the same old forumula, featuring the same old box office draws. Thus the onslaught of sequels and interchangable action movies.

Truely original films, like "Memento", "Being John Malkovich" and "Fight Club" did nothing like the box office they deserved, while dross like "Bad Boys II" sweeps up the box office chart.

Another thought, as much as you enjoyed "Finding Nemo", it's not that original - in fact it shares lots of similarities to other Pixar films. A two character buddy movie (Marlin and Dory)? - compare to Buzz and Woody and Mike and Sully. A dangerous quest and rescue in unknown territories? Sounds like the two Toy Story films to me. A rescue of a child? Nemo or Boo?

Right I've had my little rant now. Hopefully its given you all something to think about.

disneyboi81 · Post by **disneyboi81** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:57 pm

I would welcome a CGI remake of Pinocchico or any other disney classic as long as it remained true in every way to the "true" classic. I recently got to see Disney's progress at the now open "Mickey's PhilarMagic" and thought it would be cool to see some of the classics remade into CGI. They did a excellent job with "PhilarMagic" and making classics into CGI would get alot of people including myself to revisit the older classics.

MickeyMousePal · Post by **MickeyMousePal** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 5:32 pm

Why are going to destory this classic film.

Pinocchio is find how it is it's better it's perfect.

Leave this classic film alone cause the remake is going to be just like a disney sequel or even worst.

Doesn't Disney learn look what they did to 101 Dalmation and 101 Dalmations 2 they are both horrible movies.

It's better to make a Pinocchio Broadway will be much better.

catNC · Post by **catNC** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 7:53 pm

i agree.. leave the classics alone. there's a reason they are classics and they don't need to be messed with.

i don't see the point in remaking them in cgi. would that many people want to see a remake of films like this? technologically, what can be done with cgi is indeed very amazing, but do that many people care? too many people, i think, dont' even know what cgi is. i just dont see a cgi remake of a classic animated feature very marketable. maybe i'm wrong..

Leonia · Post by **Leonia** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:31 pm

If I want Pinnochio in CGI/3D graphics...I'd go play the Monstro section in Kingdom Hearts.

(note: I didn't realize the interior of Monstro was THAT psychedelic...)

Uncle Remus · Post by **Uncle Remus** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 7:44 am

well i'm not quite sure if i want to see Pinnochio as a CGI film. by looking at Kingdom Hearts, the characters in there look alright as far as i can tell.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:45 pm

Apparently (and this is coming from a WDWMagic post), Eisner wants to do a shot-by-shot remake of Disney's Pinocchio, but in CGI, to make it more appealing to the new generation. Here's a petition, if you're as repulsed by this as I am: http://www.petitiononline.com/pinochio/petition.html

-Aaron

Ciaobelli · Post by **Ciaobelli** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:00 pm

WHYY??? Why does he have to kill Disney like this, what has Walt ever done to him? "more appealing to new generations"??? Whaat??? I saw all the classics as a kid and they were more than appealing to me. Why are the treasures selling out within hours? Because thats the real Disney entertainment, not some cheap-arse remake or sequel.

How can he not trust the company he leads, the company that feeds him.

wizzer · Post by **wizzer** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:24 pm

i really don't see it as that bad of an idea. kind of redundant maybe but possibly better than a sequel. i love pinocchio and i would love for my daughter to like it as much as me (she's 5) but she just doesn't get into it as much as the other classics --she really enjoys snow white and peter pan--maybe she would give it more of a chance if it were re-animated on the computer. it could make for a really nice dvd box set too if there were more than one version of the movie. i could care less for it but i see where marketing the movie for a younger audience in this way could make sense. kids are not telling the truth like crazy these days because they think their nose wont turn into a tree branch-they need to view this film any way they can

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:36 pm

I don't see it as the worst idea ever. But you can cast your vote against it by not purchasing it. That could be more convincing than a petition. I'm a big Lion King fan so was interested in watching the Timon and Pumbaa show when it came out. I saw one episode and it didn't do anything for me so I never watched it again, but I don't have to get all worked up over it because it does not ruin the original movie for me. And if they did a shot-for-shot CGI remake of The Lion King it still would not ruin the original for me.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:37 pm

I agree that it won't do anything to the original. I just don't like the idea behind it, or the message it sends.

-Aaron

Ludwig Von Drake · Post by **Ludwig Von Drake** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:41 pm

Every day there is a new meaning to running out of ideas.

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:54 pm

I don't like the idea of having to jazz things up to razzle and dazzle and make things appealing to a new and more demanding generation either, a generation bred on sensory overload. So I don't like that particular message either. Especially when I watched Pinocchio itself recently with my young nephew for his first time and he loved it and never said, "That was good but it'd be a lot better if it looked like Toy Story and Finding Nemo." Of course he likes the Pixar movies too. The point is that his inncocent little mind is open to all types of animated features from all eras made using all types of techniques so it is admittedly discouraging if Disney/Eisner thinks they have to bend over backwards to cater to the never-satiated appetites of the Playstation 2/Xtreme Sports/GimmeGimmeGimmeNowNowNow!!! generation.

But when watching the old classics the analytical part of me sometimes can't help but imagine what they would look like if the same thing had been made nowadays. It's just my imagination though and you're allowed to use your imagination to conjure up all sorts of possibilities, so if they do do this Pinocchio thing I'd be at least a little interested in seeing what it looked like.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:01 pm

I admit that I'm with you, Christian, in that I really want to see what it looks like! But I'm willing to let my personal curiosity suffer for the sake of the project and company's best interest.

-Aaron

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:13 pm

That's where my usual disclaimer comes in: if they do it good then fine, if they can't do it good they should just forget about it. Even with this Pinocchio thing. If they don't make it, I won't miss it. We can surmise the "goodness" or the "badness" of a project idea before seeing the final thing but can never be absolutely sure until we see the finished product and Disney has to take risks sometimes. Going back to my Lion King fanaticism, I didn't like the idea of a Broadway play at all, but when I actually saw it I actually liked it. Then there is my friend who is by no means a Lion King fan. He told me back in 1997: "Have you seen the commercials for that stupid Broadway play they're making out of The Lion King? I mean they have these humans with these weird lion characters coming out of their heads or something. It's just awful." Then in 2001 we went and saw it in LA with his wife and my date and he liked it too. It didn't convert him to Lion King fandom but he did enjoy the experience.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:19 pm

Another solid post that earns my agreeance.

Oh, and I don't think I ever said welcome... so, welcome!

-Aaron

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Pinocchio Remake?

Petition to stop Pinocchio Re-Make