DVDizzy Forum

Thank you very much for the information! I actually like Ron and Hermione together, I just felt it should have been Harry and Hermione more.

I think Jacob Tremblay should play the title character.

Sacha Baron Cohen could be Honest John.

I'm guessing it is a remake of the Disney movie, not a new adaptation of the novel? If so, how will this be received by a modern audience? Honest John and Gideon get away with their crimes, and the Coachman is free to continue to transform little boys into donkeys. These boys/donkeys are never saved, and those the Coachman keep for himself are used to drag his wagon and are being whipped for no reason. Stromboli is a cruel man, but never gets punished either.

Not sure if present day Disney will find it OK to let these villains get away with everything.

(Also, the German village Rotenburg that was used as inspiration for the village in the movie has its own dark "secret", Armin Meiwes, also known as the Rotenburg Cannibal or Der Metzgermeister (The Master Butcher).

DisneyFan97 wrote:I think Jacob Tremblay should play the title character.
Sacha Baron Cohen could be Honest John.

Yes, Sacha!!!! I'm guessing they'll do a newcomer for Pinnochio.

I would absolutely love to see Jack McBrayer as Jiminy Cricket (Plus, have you guys seen him in Ducktales ) and Audra McDonald as the Blue Fairy!

Such a shame Tom Hanks dropped out as Gepetto. Kelsey Grammar would be lovely!

So many great casting opportunities with this!

Well, I know he's in different shape now, but I think Timothy Spall would have been a perfect Coachman given his tendency to play shifty eyed characters and he does have a similar voice.

Also look at this:

Kind of uncanny.

I agree, a real shame Tom Hanks is no longer involved. He would've been the perfect Geppetto.

I love the ideas of Audra McDonald and Timothy Spall! And Audra could sing "When You Wish Upon a Star," if not in the film itself then over the credits.

Robert Zemeckis in Talks to Direct Live-Action ‘Pinocchio’ for Disney
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/robe ... 203246886/

Will the keep Honest John and Gideon the Cat ?

Could they work in live action ?

They better, since those two characters are from the original and are pretty prominent characters in every adaptation.

Since some already suggest Timothy Spall for the Coachman and Sacha Baron Cohen for honest John can't we some get Johnny Depp aan Helena Bonham Carter in to the mix to the complete the reunion ?

Wish Rickman was alive to join them too

Also iwil watch Helena Bonham Carter in literally ANYTHING so casting her is always a plus !

How about making Gideon the Cat female and a speaking role too ?

The 1996 made the cat a woman and hade "Honest John" played by Rob Schneider ! of all actors for some stupid reason !

I hope they will cgange the ending so the Coachman gets killed or at least arrested !

Otherwise the fridge horror would be too terrifying But Honest John and Gideon can get of shotfree in the the end. They are too likeable to get punished.

I really the production design is great and honest John is well cast !

Also i wish Gideon the Cat got to speak in this version.

Could be rectification making Lago almost mute in Aladdin !

It seems Disney doesn't have faith anymore in remakes based on Walt-era titles.

The box office failures of “Dumbo” and “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” have made Disney increasingly wary of committing to a full-fledged theatrical release of some of these films, and there is a sense they might work better for streaming. There was a time when Disney considered debuting its live-action version of “Pinocchio” on Disney Plus, but after hiring Robert Zemeckis to direct the film, a theatrical release seems more likely.

Source: https://variety.com/2019/film/news/stud ... 203385899/

Really though, none of their films outside of the Big Four from the 90s are going to make the money they want. Hercules and Tarzan have had a long history of being box office flops, Pocahontas they don't seem interested in ever remaking, Hunchback will be much darker and not geared towards Disney audiences, and Mulan seems pretty controversial on multiple levels.

Then there's Lilo & Stitch but I'm guessing even that won't be a blockbuster hit.

JeanGreyForever wrote:Really though, none of their films outside of the Big Four from the 90s are going to make the money they want. Hercules and Tarzan have had a long history of being box office flops, Pocahontas they don't seem interested in ever remaking, Hunchback will be much darker and not geared towards Disney audiences, and Mulan seems pretty controversial on multiple levels.

Then there's Lilo & Stitch but I'm guessing even that won't be a blockbuster hit.

There is always "Frozen". How about a live-action of that?
Maybe even a live-action Tangled can be succesful if they tried.

Why is that Variety article written as if Maleficent: Mistress of Evil was out of theaters months ago? The film isn't even finished at the box office--and it's looking like it's doing better than you'd have expected considering Alice Through the Looking Glass did, what, 1/10th of Alice in Wonderland (2010)'s billion gross? I expect it'll pass Dumbo and MPR, too, by $50+ million.

Moreover, I find it difficult to believe Disney has made any decisions in regards to future films based on Maleficent: Mistress of Evil's total 12 days out. If anything might affect whether this film ends up having a theatrical release, it'll be the fact that Guillermo del Toro is making his own version of Pinocchio. That, and Tom Hanks abandoning this. He would've been perfect. EDIT: I went to check, and I see del Toro's Pinocchio is going straight-to-Netflix. If that's not even getting a theatrical release, this would never.

JeanGreyForever wrote:Really though, none of their films outside of the Big Four from the 90s are going to make the money they want. Hercules and Tarzan have had a long history of being box office flops.

I think you're underestimating the popularity of the late Renaissance films. Time has only made them more popular than when they were originally released (and rightfully so in my opinion). I think both of those titles in live-action could easily reach $700-800 million worldwide. Based on interest and trailer views, I think Mulan is a lock for a billion. Lilo and Stitch is really popular too especially in Asia which is a big market. I think remakes based on Renaissance and post-Renaissance films have a higher chance of becoming blockbusters than titles from eras that came before them. The only Walt-era title that I believe has the potential to be a hit is Snow White and that's due to its princess association.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Why is that Variety article written as if Maleficent: Mistress of Evil was out of theaters months ago? The film isn't even finished at the box office--and it's looking like it's doing better than you'd have expected considering Alice Through the Looking Glass did, what, 1/10th of Alice in Wonderland (2010)'s billion gross? I expect it'll pass Dumbo and MPR, too, by $50+ million.

Maleficent 2 isn't a flop, but it's considered a disappointment by the studio and the industry. According to insiders, it needs to reach $400M globally to break even (which I don't doubt it will). But not taking a loss or bringing in a small profit is not what studios, and especially Disney, consider a success.

DisneyBluLife wrote: There is always "Frozen". How about a live-action of that?
Maybe even a live-action Tangled can be succesful if they tried.

I don't think Disney will do remakes to their CGI films, at least not now. If they want to make money from these IPs they can always do sequels, something they can't do with their traditional animated films cause they got rid of their equipment, hence the remakes.

Sotiris wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote:Really though, none of their films outside of the Big Four from the 90s are going to make the money they want. Hercules and Tarzan have had a long history of being box office flops.

I think you're underestimating the popularity of the late Renaissance films. Time has only made them more popular than when they were originally released (and rightfully so in my opinion). I think both of those titles in live-action could easily reach $700-800 million worldwide. Based on interest and trailer views, I think Mulan is a lock for a billion. Lilo and Stitch is really popular too especially in Asia which is a big market. I think remakes based on Renaissance and post-Renaissance films have a higher chance of becoming blockbusters than titles from eras that came before them. The only Walt-era title that I believe has the potential to be a hit is Snow White and that's due to its princess association.

I'm not saying they aren't popular but they aren't anywhere near the apex of Disney's Renaissance in the public eye. There's a reason that BATB, Aladdin, and TLK have all made over a billion and broke box office records, much like their animated counterparts were groundbreaking.

I'm curious how Mulan will do because it's the biggest departure from the animated film and China doesn't seem entirely sold on it either. Lilo & Stitch is huge in Asia but the mega-popularity of the film has faded a lot in the US. And I don't doubt that it would be a hit but I don't see it becoming a billion dollar film, although I'd like that to be false. Hercules frankly has always been a niche title even for Disney and that was with the giant campaign used to promote the original film, the closest parallel to that being Frozen's and Frozen's marketing campaign was only after the film became a behemoth success. Hercules still "flopped" or underperformed despite all that. And live-action Hercules films have never been a big success and even with the Disney brand, I can't see it making anywhere near what the top Disney hits have made. Tarzan has been neglected by Disney for years now and the public has seen so many Tarzan adaptations that even the Disney adaptation probably won't be making gangbusters.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these remakes are encouraged for the new waves of merchandise they bring in and Disney has made it very clear that both Hercules and Tarzan did not sell nearly as many toys as they liked. Even after the films' releases, Disney tried to capitalize on the lead characters for the Disney Heroes and Disney Adventurers franchises and both of those were quickly cancelled.

farerb wrote:

DisneyBluLife wrote: There is always "Frozen". How about a live-action of that?
Maybe even a live-action Tangled can be succesful if they tried.

I don't think Disney will do remakes to their CGI films, at least not now. If they want to make money from these IPs they can always do sequels, something they can't do with their traditional animated films cause they got rid of their equipment, hence the remakes.

Especially not while they're continuing the Frozen franchise. But one day, I do think that we'll get a Frozen live-action remake. I think Tangled is highly likely too.

JeanGreyForever wrote:I'm not saying they aren't popular but they aren't anywhere near the apex of Disney's Renaissance in the public eye. There's a reason that BATB, Aladdin, and TLK have all made over a billion and broke box office records, much like their animated counterparts were groundbreaking.

Sure, but neither was The Jungle Book. I still can't believe it almost grossed a billion dollars. I think that tells us that a decent adaptation even with less popular material goes a long way. And not every Disney remake needs to break a billion to be considered a success. Even breaking $700 million does the trick.

JeanGreyForever wrote:And live-action Hercules films have never been a big success and even with the Disney brand, I can't see it making anywhere near what the top Disney hits have made. Tarzan has been neglected by Disney for years now and the public has seen so many Tarzan adaptations that even the Disney adaptation probably won't be making gangbusters.

Hercules and Tarzan live-action films may not have been hits for other studios, but it's different for Disney. A generation didn't grow up with those films like they did with Disney's versions. They have an emotional response to them. I think Hercules' recent success on stage is proof of that. I truly believe that both films would be hits if Disney retained the characters and the music people loved in the originals.

The Mulan re-make is going to hit a billion or at least come close to it off the back of nostalgia for the original (despite the re-make being nothing like it, apparently), and it's not one of the Fab Four.

Sotiris wrote: Maleficent 2 isn't a flop but it's considered a disappointment by the studio and the industry. According to insiders, it needs to reach $400M globally to break even (which I don't doubt it will).

I'm not an expert, but I think it'll easily reach $400m worldwide. It might even sniff 500. Not a staggering success, but Disney probably isn't losing anything from it. Not an Alice 2 situation.