Pinocchio Platinum Edition Discussion Thread

[Big Disney Fan]

You know how the Magic Mirror "hosted" the Snow White DVD? Well, I was thinking maybe they should have Jiminy Cricket "host" this Pinocchio DVD.

[JohnnyWeir]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I know Blu' Ray players will play DVDs, but do DVD players play Blu-Rays as well? I mean, I know it obviously wouldnt be high definition or anything......I know, I know, I'm clueless about technology I wish I knew whether or not if I should start buying Blu-Rays instead of DVDs. It is all so confusing!!! I think I might start buying the Platinum Editions on Blu Ray, But I don't want to do that if blu ray is going to die in a few years, only to have missed out on the DVD!

[Marky_198]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I know Blu' Ray players will play DVDs, but do DVD players play Blu-Rays as well? I mean, I know it obviously wouldnt be high definition or anything......I know, I know, I'm clueless about technology I wish I knew whether or not if I should start buying Blu-Rays instead of DVDs. It is all so confusing!!! I think I might start buying the Platinum Editions on Blu Ray, But I don't want to do that if blu ray is going to die in a few years, only to have missed out on the DVD!

Dvd's can be played on a Blu ray player, but Blu ray discs can not be played on a dvd player.
The laser isn't strong enough to pierce through all the layers of a Blu ray disc. It makes me wonder how good it is for regular dvd's to be played on a Blu ray player.

[2099net]

Blu-ray discs cannot be played on current DVD players. There are several reasons for this:

1] More data is held on Blu-ray discs, despite the size of the disc being the same. This is because the date is more closely packed together. Not the number of layers - Blu-ray discs, like DVDs have 1 or 2 layers. In order to read this data without errors, a different frequency of laser has to be used (Blue rather than Red in current DVD players) so normal DVD players cannot read the data as they don't have the correct laser type.

2] Blu-ray discs use different compression codecs which are more efficient than MPEG-2 used on normal DVDs. These are MPEG-4/AVC or VC-1. However, current DVD players cannot be updated via firmware to understand these codecs, as they require signifcantly more processing power to decode than MPEG-2 does. So even if your player could read the data on a Blu-ray disc, it wouldn't be able to play anything.

3] Sound like the video is stored on a Blu-ray disc in different encode methods than on a normal DVD.

4] On some Blu-ray discs, BDJava programs have to be run which does further decoding of the data on the disc. This is to make piracy of the disc harder. Even if a Blu-ray disc doesn't require this, BDJava programs still have to be run to display menus and act on user input.

Blu-ray players can play DVD discs because they have been designed to, and all the specifications required for DVD playback are in the Blu-ray specification. DVDs cannot play Blu-ray discs because they didn't exist when DVD was specified. Playing DVD discs in a Blu-ray player will not harm either the disc or the player as they either had two laser heads (red and blue) or one capable of doing both (developed by Sony and used in the PS3 and Sony's own brand players). Neither coloured laser is stronger or more powerful than the other, and neither colored laser can burn or damage discs in any other way.

[Jack Skellington]

If HD-DVD is dead and Bluray is the new DVD, why not go for Bluray ?

I've got a feeling that after 5 or 10 years most of everyone here will see DVD as they see VHS now, and you guys will probably wish you got the Sleeping Beauty Bluray instead of the DVD.

All you have to do is get a PS3 and instead of buying DVD get Bluray, you can worry about HDTV's later.

I personally wish that I haven't bought all those DVDs, if only someone told me about Bluray before 5 years, one thing is for sure though, I will always buy Blurays and I won't buy any DVDs ever again, as a matter of fact as much as I loved Sweeny Todd, I won't buy the DVD until the Bluray gets released, and eventually it will. I'll just keep my fingers crossed that everyone would follow my lead.

[SpringHeelJack]

All you have to do is get a PS3 and instead of buying DVD get Bluray, you can worry about HDTV's later.

Wow, is that all?!

...except I don't have $400 to spend on a video game system, and I don't want a PS3 either. Come on. I'm in college. I can barely afford to buy any DVDs period and still have money for food, rent, and utilities.

I personally wish that I haven't bought all those DVDs, if only someone told me about Bluray before 5 years, one thing is for sure though, I will always buy Blurays and I won't buy any DVDs ever again.

You... you didn't know that something would eventually replace the DVD?

[Jack Skellington]

You... you didn't know that something would eventually replace the DVD?

Not Really, I feel really sheepish now, I just thought people are too satisfied with DVD that they won't ever have to change it, but when you see blu you never go back.

[Marky_198]

"I've got a feeling that after 5 or 10 years most of everyone here will see DVD as they see VHS now, and you guys will probably wish you got the Sleeping Beauty Bluray instead of the DVD".

I've got a feeling that the general audience who just bought a dvd player and a collection of hundreds of dvd's aren't that interested in blu ray. And I mean the GENERAL audience, not a part of the youth that is interested in the latest gadgets. And that it will work the same way it does with regular cd's.

First there were cassette tapes (vhs tapes), then they were replaced by cd's (dvd's). It became the new standard. Because cd's (dvd's) will stay forever and the quality is crystal clear. It took a very long time, even today people still use vhs or just bought a dvd player recently, but in the end people agreed because they realised that vhs tapes wouldn't last because of the quality.
Of course a lot of new formats came after that. mini disc, laser disc, super audio cd. Better quality? Yes, absolutely.
But the general audience just wasn't that interested in the super audio cd.

I also remember people saying that laserdisc would be the new standard format instead of vhs, but we all know what happened.

I know technique's are evolving all the time and better products come all the time. But it takes a lot, and I mean a lot to make something the new standard.
And what will happen in 15 years? Super-Blu ray disc? With an all new player and ultimate 3d experience? And do you think people will throw away their "old" blu ray collection again? I don't think so.
Things like this don't happen every 15 years as something new comes out. People buy cd's, dvd's for a lifetime.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

ArielsPrince you confuse me did you not post this on Page 1?

Pincchio will be (about time) the next Platinum Edition after Sleeping Beauty,anyone is exited?.

That to me says that your excited about this movie and yet later on you nag and nag and nag about it being "slow" and "boring" I found that to be rather contradictory. :eyeroll:

Anyways......I can't wait, I love the movie (especially Monstro) and it's not boring at all, the movie moves at a fairly good pace things are always changing and we're always seeing a new place (or at least that's how I remember things). It might (and I empthasize stongly on might) have a slow part or maybe two, but then again every movie always has that one scene that could move faster IMO.

ArielsPrince (yes I'm back to you again): Here's what you need to do, get a copy of Pinocchio, even if you have to rent it then watch it on your TV not on youtube I've seen the quality of movies on that site and it's pretty poor. One last thing, don't go watching the movie with negative thoughts or try to compare it to other movies. You might find it's actually the amazing movie it actually is.

=Chernabog=

[PeterPanfan]

Arielsprince often contradicts himself, which results in getting into forum fights with other memebrs. I think he just likes to disagree with everyone.

[Escapay]

ArielsPrince (yes I'm back to you again): Here's what you need to do, get a copy of Pinocchio, even if you have to rent it then watch it on your TV not on youtube I've seen the quality of movies on that site and it's pretty poor. One last thing, don't go watching the movie with negative thoughts or try to compare it to other movies. You might find it's actually the amazing movie it actually is.

To add to this...

Watch the movie three times.

The first time, just watch it to watch, with whatever thoughts enter your mind about the movie. You may end up hating it after the first viewing, you may like it. Or you just may be indifferent to it. But remember how you feel when you watch it the first time.

Take extensive notes during your first viewing. Do not look at them afterwards.

Wait one day.

Then, watch it a second time, but this time, pay attention to things that you would not have seen in a general viewing. Now that you know the characters and what happens, watch and think about why they do what they do, how they're influenced by others, etc. And pay attention to the animation. The art design, the use of colors to elicit moods or types of enviroments. Think about how well the animators capture such things as a million clocks all working together, or the free-for-all of Pleasure Island.

Take extensive notes during your second viewing. Do not look at them afterwards.

Wait another day.

Finally, watch it a third time. And take into consideration everything you've been thinking about with your first two viewings. Your personal feelings from the first viewing, then your character and animation analysis of the second viewing. And this time, see how they're connected together, how what you feel correlates to what's happening on the screen.

Take extensive notes during your third viewing. Do not look at them afterwards.

Wait one more day.

Now, look at all the notes you've taken from your three viewings, and come to a conclusion. What opinions changed? What opinions remained the same? What parts did you find you enjoyed more? What parts did you enjoy less? Did characters' motivations make more or less sense? How did the animation look in your first viewing compared to the third? Do you think you like or dislike this movie? Don't say love or hate, because those words are overused and hard to define.

When you've done all that, write down your findings. Be specific and descriptive. Make sure to note instances that you liked or didn't like, and why you did/didn't like them. Don't be bland, don't be generic, don't hold back. Be honest and brutal or honest and praising. To quote my sixth-grade English teacher, "Spill your guts" on that piece of paper (or on the Word program). Don't be afraid to say things that you may not like to say.

And remember what Cherny said: DO NOT COMPARE IT TO OTHER MOVIES. Each movie is a unique and singular experience that was created to elicit unique and incomparable responses from its viewers. Some may share elements that can be found in others, some may not. But comparing one movie to another does both a disservice. Don't do any movie a disservice by comparing it to another. It's good to reference one movie with another (like "Stardust is like a mix of Pirates of the Caribbean, The Princess Bride, and Hocus Pocus!"), but not to compare it (like "Stardust is good, but it'll never be as good as The Princess Bride.")

Once you've done all this, post it here. And we'll dissect and discuss it.

Albert

[JohnnyWeir]

Arielsprince, even if it is a little bit slow at times (which I don't think Pinocchio is by the way) what's wrong with that? With very fast paced action in a movie, It sometimes takes away from a movies story and heart. Going quickly from scene to scene just for the sake of getting it over with as fast as possible really takes away from the beauty of some of the newer Disney movies. I really enjoy seeing the detail and time put into the "slower" scenes of the old Disneys.

[2099net]

Well, I'm not ArielsPrince, but here's my analysis of Pinocchio (admittedly based on a 3 year or so memory rather than a recent viewing).

The first thing to note about Pinocchio is that Walt Disney cleverly decided to make a film that was similar to his first film. Indeed Snow White and Pinocchio share many similarities; but they stand far enough apart as to be unique.

The animation and backgrounds are very similar to Show White, both in style and materials used. If you took a human character or background from Pinocchio and placed it inside Snow White, it wouldn't look out of place. Not something that could be said for later films such as Fantasia or Dumbo (to pick the next two feature length classics). Yet despite this similarity (and possibly unification of design) between the two films, only a fool would fail to see the increased artistry and confidence Pinocchio possesses. Considering the Disney animators will still learning their craft, Pinocchio is an outstanding artistic achievement; more so than Snow White which occasionally has sequences that let it down. As I stated, it's been a while since I have seen Pinocchio, but I cannot for the life of me think of one sequence of "bad" animation. The fact that Pinocchio was only the studio's second feature length animation really hits home the skill and dedication of the artists and creative staff involved.

Looking at the films today, its easy to label both as fairytales – but it's important to note that Pinocchio was first published in 1883. Not that long before 1940 when Walt's animated film was released really. Pinocchio could hardly be called a "modern" tale, but neither can it have been described as "traditional" like other Disney fairytale adaptations before or since.

Indeed, if you take the time to sit down and analyse Pinocchio, it has many themes and turns that are absolutely relevant to today. In fact, it shows youth in the 1880's was probably viewed with the same suspicion and, perhaps even, fear by adults of the time as adults today have towards the youth of today.

Think hard about what are the main childish vices shown in Pinocchio; deceit, delinquency and obsession with the celebrity lifestyle. Each and every one of those flaws is still applicable today. In fact, each and every one is probably many times more applicable to today than it ever was in the 1880's or 1940's.

But that's not all; the film also warns against accepting gifts/rides from strangers – something which I'm sure has more relevance in modern times than it ever did when the story was written or filmed.

In short, unlike the totally fantastical nature of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio is a story written and filmed which addresses specific issues. Yes, Pinocchio is also highly fantastical, but beneath all the fantasy there are real, earnest warnings and lessons. The fact that all of these are has relevant to today's lifestyle as they were then probably shows that Walt was a genius to select Pinocchio as his second film. Or perhaps it just shows Walt lucked out; after all, most success is based on different amounts of luck.

But while I can praise the key themes and morality of Pinocchio as (so far) being timeless, I can't say the same for its implementation. More so than Snow White, Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio hasn't aged well. I know that statement won't go down well with some readers, but I stick by it totally. Pinocchio just seems dated.

It's not the animation, it's not the songs and it's not even the story (although there's something that doesn't sit quite right with Geppetto to modern eyes – but that's more down to hysterical, sensational media "reports" on paedophiles emphasising suspicion and danger to kids and parents than anything inherently wrong with how Geppetto is presented and written in the movie).

To me, the reason the film has aged so much is the portrayal of Pinocchio.

I said this earlier in the thread, and was knocked back by a couple of so members (and semi-supported by another) but Pinocchio is a child of his times. I know the story, I know the reasons he's presented the way he is. But intellectually knowing these things doesn't help if emotionally they mean you have no connection to the main character of the story.

I've seen people complain about "not connecting" with the character of Chicken Little in Chicken Little, and by and large nobody attacks or feels insulted by this. However, admit you don't have a connection to a Walt era character, and it appears certain members want to shun you!

My main problem with Pinocchio is he's just too reactive. I know it's a challenge to present a character who, by virtue of the story needs to be presented as gullible and naïve, but at no point in Pinocchio do you get the impression the filmmakers are trying to add a little depth to those (story mandated) personality attributes. Sure, Pinocchio slowly wises up and is (literally) a new boy at the end of the movie, but his whole character just seems too simplistic to me. Does simplistic equal childlike? Some would probably say "yes", but I don't think it quite works that way. There is no logic – not even a child's logic – at so why Pinocchio falls for the various scams he's easily led into, and why Jiminy Cricket's advice is so quickly ignored. Yes, the various characters around Pinocchio tempt him by appealing to various vices, but there is not major internal conflict with Pinocchio, despite the fact when watching I get the impression he certainly knows the path he is about to follow is "wrong". After all, even if you don't believe that, he has been told Jiminy Cricket is his conscience, yet he ignores it with an almost casual disregard. That's not naivety or innocence – that's outright stupidity. No film if it was being made today would have a character so obviously stupid (except for Spongebob Squarepants, which I suppose is the exception that proves the rule!)

People say the story is timeless, which I do believe it true, but it doesn't mean that the characters are timeless. This is one reason why stories such as Dickens' A Christmas Carol can be remade in countless variations, with countless characters and in countless eras. The story is indeed timeless, but the original characters are not. Their speech patterns are wrong; some of their concerns and motivations are irrelevant to a modern audience. The character archetypes are correct, but the presentation is wrong. I feel the same is true of Pinocchio.

Which brings me on to the animation filmmakers' false mantra; something I always hear coming from creators when discussing animated films, be they CGI, hand-drawn, expensive big budget epics or small, independent shorts – "The story is all important?" I bring this up because there is no doubt that the story of Pinocchio is complex. It's probably one of Disney's most complex stories – chronologically I would place only 101 Dalmatians as being the next Disney animated film of equal or greater complexity. I mean, the story of Pinocchio has it all. It has key themes about family, responsibility and the identification of what's right and what's wrong. It has intensely emotional scenes and sequences; be the emotion love, fear, sorrow or happiness. Most importantly in my book, it has scares. Scares that probably wouldn't be allowed in a family film in this day and age – which is a little ironic, considering the audience today is considerably more sophisticated and the "fright threshold" has been substantially lowered over the years. It may not be a "traditional" fairytale in the true sense of the description, but it sure feels like one.

However, there is a problem – good as the story itself may be – it is told in a juvenile manner. Artwork and animation aside, there is little to hold the interest of an older viewer. So is it the "story" that is more important, or the "script"? I absolutely maintain that Pinocchio is a better story than Finding Nemo – but I admit Finding Nemo has the better script and ultimately (even though I can see multiple flaws) is a better movie as a result. To put in bluntly, Pinocchio's script is poor. Are we sure Walt Disney was aiming his feature animation at children and adults? I see no evidence of that being the case in Pinocchio.

My final thought – while the Princess movies may have become a Disney mainstay (mainly thanks to in-your-face marketing) it is Pinocchio which is responsible for the Disney "formula" more so than Snow White ever was. Think about it. We have animal sidekick [check], father with absent mother [check], villain[s] with their own goofy sidekicks [check], a benelovant older/wiser entity guiding the hero(es) [check] and a main character who doesn't quite fit in and has to find his own place in the world [check]. All of these, to some extent or another appear in most Disney films since.

There's certainly an argument that Pinocchio was more influential on modern day Disney than Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs ever was.

There are lots of aspects on which Pinocchio succeeds – I've run through them all above. Don't think that I hate the film, because I don't. But the film does fall flat on the most important aspect of a film of this nature – I just have no empathy for the hero, and too me, that is a big hurdle to clear.

[Ariel'sprince]

Jack Skellington-Are you sure PS3 is good? Becuase I think that when you play DVDs on the consale you're ruining it so maybe it's better getting a Blu-Ray.

Arielsprince often contradicts himself, which results in getting into forum fights with other memebrs. I think he just likes to disagree with everyone.

No,I"m not,I speak my mind and I can speak my mind.
Now you,Chernabog_Rocks and all of you-I think the animation is slow,it's not bad and defintly not like a DTV movie,it's actually but slow and the character desgin is werid,and yes,I think that Snow White also has a slow animation (Espically in the parts with the Dwarfs),and yes,Chernabog_Rocks,I AM exited,I love Jimminy Cricket and besides-This film is very importent and should have been a PE long ago.
Now can we get on-topic? this topic is about Pinocchio Platinum Edition not "Is the animation in Pinocchio\Snow White slow or bad?".

[2099net]

Jack Skellington-Are you sure PS3 is good? Becuase I think that when you play DVDs on the consale you're ruining it so maybe it's better getting a Blu-Ray.

How can you ruin a PS3 by playing DVDs. Are you seriously saying Sony went to all the time and expense to include backwards compatability with the PS2 on (some of) their PS3s, but knew that playing DVD based PS2 games would trash the console?

I've never head such rubbish in my life. Blu-ray was designed to be 100% compatible with the DVD format and DVD discs. Why wouldn't it be? And the PS3 has a Blu-ray drive. Not a PS3 drive or a super-special Blu-ray drive.

Now can we get on-topic? this topic is about Pinocchio Platinum Edition

What exactly can we say about the Pinocchio Platinum Edition, when nobody knows anything about it or it's contents?

[Ariel'sprince]

Jack Skellington-Are you sure PS3 is good? Becuase I think that when you play DVDs on the consale you're ruining it so maybe it's better getting a Blu-Ray.

How can you ruin a PS3 by playing DVDs. Are you seriously saying Sony went to all the time and expense to include backwards compatability with the PS2 on (some of) their PS3s, but knew that playing DVD based PS2 games would trash the console?

I've never head such rubbish in my life. Blu-ray was designed to be 100% compatible with the DVD format and DVD discs. Why wouldn't it be?

DVD discs ruin PS2 and I know it because my old PS2 was ruined since we used to play DVDs on them and that's what I heard anyway.
If Blu-Ray fixed it then it's great but I know that DVDs ruin PS2.

[2099net]

DVD discs ruin PS2 and I know it because my old PS2 was ruined since we used to play DVDs on them and that's what I heard anyway.
If Blu-Ray fixed it then it's great but I know that DVDs ruin PS2.

I doubt DVD discs ruin a PS2, because most of the games are on DVD discs. So you may as well say games ruin the PS2. In which case, there's no point in Sony making the console in the first place.

Of course, excessive use of the drive, especially if the drive was not properly balanced/calibrated may ruin the drive. When you have over 150 million units sold, of various configurations, at various times around the world, I'm sure a few dodgy drives or even batches of drives is inevitable.

I know many of the initial run of the first Playstation suffered from poorly calibrated drives - remember how many people had to turn the Playstation upside down to get it to load? But even that problem could be fixed with a quick screwdriver to adjust the height of the laser head.

Remember consumer electronics on the whole, be it TVs, DVDs or computers have an average of around 5% failure rate in the first 12 months of use. So I guess you may have been unlucky.

All this has nothing to do with Pinocchio.

[Escapay]

Excellent Pinoke analysis, netty. I wish I could comment on all of it, but I'm pressed for time (well, not really, I just don't have enough time to collect all my thoughts and present them the way I want them...heh...I guess I am pressed for time after all!), so I'll just touch on a few things and give you a pink elephant.

Not something that could be said for later films such as Fantasia or Dumbo (to pick the next two feature length classics).

Among Walt's first five films, Dumbo really stands out as being different from the other four. It's very storybook-ish, using cute rounded designs and a lot of colors.

I often wonder how Dumbo would have turned out if Walt had kept it at its intended 30-minute runtime. What material would have been cut? What scenes would have been shortened? Or, to counter that, how Dumbo would have fared if Walt added an extra 10 minutes to make it more feature-length (albeit, 74 minutes is just barely feature-length these days).

but I cannot for the life of me think of one sequence of "bad" animation.

It'll probably just be me, and I'll probably get a few tomatoes thrown my way for saying this, but some of the underwater scenes don't really come off as good as they should, at least to me. Sometimes it looks like the underwater sequences from Peculiar Penguins, especially with some of the designs of the fish and plants. I wouldn't call it "bad" animation, just substandard compared to the rest of Pinocchio.

To me, the reason the film has aged so much is the portrayal of Pinocchio.
<snip>
My main problem with Pinocchio is he's just too reactive. I know it's a challenge to present a character who, by virtue of the story needs to be presented as gullible and naïve, but at no point in Pinocchio do you get the impression the filmmakers are trying to add a little depth to those (story mandated) personality attributes. Sure, Pinocchio slowly wises up and is (literally) a new boy at the end of the movie, but his whole character just seems too simplistic to me. Does simplistic equal childlike? Some would probably say "yes", but I don't think it quite works that way. There is no logic – not even a child's logic – at so why Pinocchio falls for the various scams he's easily led into, and why Jiminy Cricket's advice is so quickly ignored. Yes, the various characters around Pinocchio tempt him by appealing to various vices, but there is not major internal conflict with Pinocchio, despite the fact when watching I get the impression he certainly knows the path he is about to follow is "wrong". After all, even if you don't believe that, he has been told Jiminy Cricket is his conscience, yet he ignores it with an almost casual disregard. That's not naivety or innocence – that's outright stupidity. No film if it was being made today would have a character so obviously stupid

Agreed, and you put into words my feelings towards Pinoke, especially as how he instantly becomes "favorable" (in that he'll agree and follow) to whoever is controlling him (perhaps an obvious reflection of the fact that he is, after all, a puppet.).

To put in bluntly, Pinocchio's script is poor.

I partly agree, but at the same time, I feel that a good portion of what Jiminy has to say is extremely well-written and could be used as dialogue today in a modern film. But most of the other characters just come off, through their words, as dated, as you said.

Now can we get on-topic? this topic is about Pinocchio Platinum Edition

What exactly can we say about the Pinocchio Platinum Edition, when nobody knows anything about it or it's contents?

Well, knowing the type of conversations that usually become the majority of these threads, it will most likely be speculation about who's on the cover, how they should be on the cover, who's on the spine, and what kind of tree-killing DVD condom will be used: embossed, holographic, or something not yet used or conceived.

And, of course, plenty of posts that will go "X more months/weeks/days until it's released, I'm so excited!"

Actual discussion of the film will be restricted to few and far between posts that get overlooked because they'll be too long to read.

<snipped out a lot of stuff about Playstation>

All this has nothing to do with Pinocchio.

Albert

[Ariel'sprince]

Well,I think it's ruin the disc.

Now can we get on-topic? this topic is about Pinocchio Platinum Edition

What exactly can we say about the Pinocchio Platinum Edition, when nobody knows anything about it or it's contents?

Ideas for features.

[Disney Duster]

Well Netty, I read all you said, and it was very good. I don't know if I can say I agree yet because I haven't seen the film in so long to know if the same stuff will bother me, but I can see most of what you said is good and valid and true.

Anyway, I wanted to point out:

the film also warns against accepting gifts/rides from strangers – something which I'm sure has more relevance in modern times than it ever did when the story was written or filmed.

This was done first in Snow White with acceping the apple. In fact, notice that Snow White is like an innocent child herself, and was warned against evil by the wiser, older dwarfs. Notice that in a lot of Disney movies, especially in the first 5 of the Golden Age, the heroes of the stories are all children or child-like (though sometimes they grow up).

Also, remember how you said the backgrounds fit in with Snow White's? That film was almost certainly set in (fantasy) Germany. Or it was greatly influenced by Germany. The Grimm Brothers' tale that film was credited as being based on was from Germany, those Grimms were German. I always thought Disney set their films where their source material was set, or where the source material was from or where the authors of the source material were from. So is Pinocchio in Italy...or Germany, like Bavaria?! I heard Pinocchio's town was based on towns in Bavaria and I've seen some photos of the place that supports this.