DVDizzy Forum

Souperman wrote:throw it away if it honestly bothers you that much, I always offer to give them to my friends on the forum.

The WAYBACK machine shows that 2099Net wrote: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.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:If the DVD comes separately, then I will buy the Blu-ray. But if it is placed inside the same case, I will not. If I give the DVD way, I know there is something missing inside the case, since it was made for more than one disc. I can see there is an empty space there.
If I keep it, I will have a case containing a useless disc. Both alternatives are huge irritants for me. I actually prefer the third alternative: not buying it at all.

Unless Disney starts releasing the Blu-rays and the DVDs in separate cases, if they absolutely have to add a DVD, then I have no interest in them at all.

2099net wrote: Considering the Disney animators will still learning their craft, Pinocchio is an outstanding artistic achievement

2099net wrote: 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.

2099net wrote: 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.

2099net wrote: Artwork and animation aside, there is little to hold the interest of an older viewer

2099net wrote: To put in bluntly, Pinocchio's script is poor.

2099net wrote: is Pinocchio which is responsible for the Disney "formula" more so than Snow White ever was…There's certainly an argument that Pinocchio was more influential on modern day Disney than Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs ever was.

2099net wrote: I just have no empathy for the hero, and too me, that is a big hurdle to clear.

SpringHeelJack wrote: I don't think the problem is that his naivete / lack of logic is unfounded, it's that it makes him difficult to connect to. Netty was saying that he IS too reactionary and simple for much of the movie, not that he doesn't understand WHY that is so.

the character is only a day old when all this happens to him