schneefink

It’s been noticed recently that movies meant to be the wrap-ups of long-running action franchises have nearly 3 hours of runtime. Of course, they want to make these ‘final’ movies events, so they increase the runtime and try to make them as epic as possible.

I was just wondering—y’all like this or are you opposed to it?

Some examples are:

No Time to Die – 2 hr 43 min

John Wick 4 – 2 hr 49 min

Indiana Jones Dial of Destiny – 2 hr 34 min

Mission Impossible – Dead Reckoning – 2 hr 44 min

Mission Impossible – The Final Reckoning – 2 hr 50 min

Freezing take: the disney live-action remakes aren't very good. But I think what's most frustrating about these movies is how often it seems that the people tasked with recreating those classic movies don't seem to understand why the original movies were the way they were in the first place.

So, often, you have times where they will change a certain plot point without understanding why that plot point was important in the original, or the consequences that it has for the rest of the story. Or, on the other hand, you have moments where they will KEEP a certain plot point of the original, while removing the reason for said plot point to exist in the first place. In the current discussion for the recent Lilo and Stitch remake, the most upvoted comment points out that the movie keeps Lilo's ritual of feeding her doll because she claims it controls the weather, while removing the information that Lilo's parents died in an accident caused by bad weather, which gave Lilo's silly ritual emotional weight and purpose.

So I want to know which moment in these live action remakes is most telling that the writers didn't understand the original movie. For me, I'll submit Pinocchio going to school in the remake. In the original movie, Gepeto tells Pinocchio to go to school, but on the way there, he is accosted by Honest John who convinces him to join the Strombolli's puppet show instead, which Pinocchio agrees, ignoring the advice of his conscience. When Pinocchio joins the puppet show, he is abused by the owner and is only freed when he learns what he did wrong.

In the remake, after meeting with Honest John, Cricket actually convinces Pinocchio to go to school and he does... only to be abused by the teacher for being a puppet and thrown out, at which point he follows John to the puppet show.

This is an absolutely baffling change because it completely contradicts the point of the movie. Pinocchio wishes to be a real boy, but in order to achieve that, he must first learn to be a good boy, which, among other things, involves obeying his father and steering clear of bad influences. In the original, Pinocchio willingly disobeys his father and fucks off to do something fun instead, which leads to a bad time. It's a simple morality tale; Pinocchio is rewarded for being good, and punished for being bad. Pinocchio's nose grows when lies. All of Pleasure Island. The story is centered on this theme

But in the remake, not only does Pinocchio obey his father from the start, he is PUNISHED FOR DOING SO. Now, joining the puppet show isn't a reckless decision by Pinocchio, it's his only option because obeying his father was actively bad for him.

Maybe the writers wanted to make Pinocchio a "better" character by making him a well-behaved kid but, THE ENTIRE POINT OF THAT SCENE IS THAT PINOCCHIO MISBEHAVES. It's like if they made Pinocchio's nose grow even when he tells the truth

Anyway, that's mine. What's yours?