No, Robert Zemeckis’ Pinocchio is not very good. Like the lesser Walt Disney remakes of the past decade, it alternates between an unnecessary repetition of the 1940 animated film and an unnecessarily watered-down adaptation of it. I could joke about a drinking game based on any moment Tom Hanks’ Geppetto yells “Pinocchio”, but Hanks doesn’t call it up and delivers just such an “acting against nothing” performance as he did in Zemeckis’ Put away. Additionally, Zemeckis clearly had some interest in the film’s visual elements, with nearly every central character acting as a visual effect. I would argue that the film offers some moments of deserved razzle-dazzle. Keegan-Michael Key (as Honest John the Fox) proves he’s incapable of delivering a dull or spurious feat no matter what’s going on around him (see also: Ball).
in a vacuum, Pinocchio is less of an abomination and more of an undeniably expensive and sometimes visually captivating ‘thing’. It mainly exists to tick a box. Disney has mined their animated films for live-action content since Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. I’d say the endgame was to create the definitive live-action version of these respective oft-told stories alongside their already classic animated adaptations. Pinocchio once again commits the mortal sin of “correcting” supposed flaws found in the early films, as in this case (for example), making our protagonist less tempted by the perils of Pleasure Island. While a few of these (Pete’s Dragon, Jungle Book, Cinderella and i would say Maleficent: Mistress of Evil) work as standalone cinematic entertainment, they exist only in relation to their animated predecessor. That makes them less valuable on Disney+, where they sit next to the animation classic, than in the cinema.
i’m not saying that Pinocchio should have played in the cinema. It would have been lucky to get a gross profit comparable to Tim Burton’s dumbo (another one of these that, like Pinocchiotakes some pretty explicit shots in their distribution studio), which made $115 million domestically and $353 million worldwide in early 2019 on a $170 million budget. , lower remake like Pinocchio would belong next to Lady and the Tramp as one that (despite its production value) doesn’t belong in theaters. As noted in 2019, crowds flocked to Batman doesn’t mean they wanted a big budget version? The shadow. Likewise, audiences appeared in theaters for aladdin doesn’t mean they would do that for dumbo. In a world where streaming is now dominated by premium IP and theatrical movies, Pinocchio benefited from a theatrical run?
The Nielsen’s just dropped for the week of August 8-14, and light year earned 700 million minutes. That’s a sharp drop from last week’s 1.3 billion minute premiere, suggesting that most of the people waiting to catch the Pixar sniff did so over its opening weekend. the excellent Prey held up well in its first week, earning 480 million minutes (-18%) on Hulu compared to its 585 million minutes opening weekend. Meanwhile, perhaps proving my point about theatrical runs benefiting streaming performances, Sony’s not mapped was the best film of the week, with 1.1 billion minutes after debuting at 1.014 billion minutes. That’s after $400 million in worldwide gross profit. Most Netflix biggies (original or otherwise) rise slightly in the first full week before crashing after day ten. That’s what makes leggy underdogs like Purple Hearts (229 million hours worldwide in 28 days after a 48 million hour debut) even more impressive.
not mappedThe power of Netflix is proof that the lucrative pay-TV deal Sony has signed with Netflix will be mutually beneficial. Netflix gets high-quality third-party movies, while Sony gets a pillow and financial motivation to seize the next opportunity Where the crayfish sing or the next one baby driver. morbius came out yesterday, and yes, it’s already their most watched movie in America. As we’ve seen, anything remotely theatrical or mainstream tends to perform well on first admission. That caused a fuss (mainly online) when The help (an Oscar-winning, Best Picture-nominated film that grossed $169 million domestically in 2011) became Netflix’s most-watched film amid intense citizen protests against demonstrably inappropriate (and racially motivated) police brutality. The help still plays like a blunt “don’t be racist, you motherfucker” melodrama, at least more than, I don’t know, Hillbilly Elegy. But I digress.
Back to Pinocchio and light year. I argued last week that light yearThe amazing Disney+ opening weekend was proof that a box office bomb would outperform a streaming-only original on a streaming platform. Think, casually, the (justifiably) Emmy-winning Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers movie from last May. The argument I’ve been making for two years now is that a movie meant for theater is, in terms of production value, budget, and big-screen punch, still more interesting than a streaming-only movie. That’s not always true, especially for the prolific Netflix and especially not for Netflix’s usual year-end award contenders. Prey is the best Predator movie since the first Predator movie, and casually The harder they fall arguably the best mainstream western since Open range. However, there is a clear difference between Mulan and To blush and Lady and the Tramp and Pinocchio.
Awareness, promotion and media attention created by an admittedly expensive theatrical marketing campaign can make all the difference. Theatrical titles routinely dominate the VOD charts. Most non-Netflix platforms get more viewership from cinema titles than streaming-focused originals. Disney+ is dominated by MCU television programs (the success of which was based on the theatrical popularity of the Marvel films), theatrical Marvel films (Thor: Love and Thunder just debuted today), Star Wars shows and Disney/Pixar animated films. Can Pinocchio align viewership numbers with a title that would be in theaters like To blush or a was-in-theatre title like light year? If so, that’s a major feather in Disney’s cap. If not, well, reviews notwithstanding, maybe Disney should start considering theatrical runs for movies like (for example) Hocus pocus 2 and disappointed just for streaming glory. It’s too late for them, but it’s worth considering for the future.
Marketing a movie to theaters is expensive, which is a crucial reason why studios are less likely to distribute more mid-budget titles less than four quadrants in theaters. It may not be worth spending tens of millions of dollars for a movie like Pinocchio to bomb in theaters (resulting in bad press and risk from experts like myself) to increase streaming potential. The theatrical release provides additional exposure for the title. It cements it as an A-level streaming offering. However, I don’t know if there is an equation for “losing X dollars in cinema for Y streaming viewer gains”. As regards Pinocchio, it’s a disappointment, to be sure. My whole family gave it ten thumbs down. However, it’s also a way for Zemeckis to give in to his decades-long interest in pushing the technical boundaries when Hollywood can’t afford to spend $100 million on movies like Contact and Put away.