Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)/Archive 1

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Hooks, Ed (2005). "Pinocchio". Acting in Animation: A Look at 12 Films. Heinemann Drama. ISBN 0325007055.

Second paragraph needed?

Is this second paragraph really needed? It seems like more of a review than anything useful. Imdwalrus 20:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use gallery

I am pretty sure a fair use gallery is not allowed on wikipedia. But instead of reverting each other I will ask a second opinion. Garion96 ^(talk) 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not. See User talk:Garion96#Poster. I removed them again. Garion96 ^(talk) 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I made it a gallery because it looked like crap before doing so. I assume it's not the fact that it's a gallery that invalidates fair use, but rather the images themselves, right? Powers 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Fair use is allowed "to illustrate the movie in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork". One image is indeed to illustrate the move in question. But there was no talk about all the other images. That it was in a gallery just made it more stand out to me. Garion96 ^(talk) 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The artwork is critically analyzed by it's inclusion in the gallery. Stop removing valid material that would stand up in a court of law!--Nick Dillinger 12:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, images can't justify themselves. Yes, one can infer a point about the evolution of the poster from them, but such a point is never discussed, and definitely not at a significant enough length that would justify fair use under out image policies. ed g2s • talk 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"As seen below the poster used to advertise and promote the film have changed significantly over the years." is not a significnat part of the text, and definitely not worthy of 16 images. Please don't try to game the system. This is not an excercise is writing as little as possible to justify the images, but using as few (copyright) images as possible to illustrate the article. See WP:FUC #1. ed g2s • talk 11:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Early version

In Bill Peet's great autobiography, which provides many insights into the early years at the Disney studios, the author goes into a lot of detail about the making of Pinocchio, as that was the first movie he had a significant role in, and it seems there was indeed a film in the making very different from the one that turned out. Peet was hired to work on the movie for his creative submissions of creatures to populate "Monster Island," and when he got to work he worked on the Monster Island segment. He (or someone he knew) also helped animate the scene where Geppetto et al are swallowed by Monstro. Eventually these segments were torn off the storyboards by Walt Disney in one of his furious rages and they never appeared in the final product. Should this be included in the article? I would think so. It's been years since I read it but if anyone owns it, Bill Peet's autobiography would make a great source. Britannica 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This info is summarized on the Bill Peet page. Britannica 01:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot

The page needs at least a plot synopsis... Cbrown1023 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

John Williams & 'When You Wish Upon A Star'

At about 4:30 of the theme to Close Encounters of the Third Kind by John Williams there is a familiar sounding music piece which sounds like the opening to When You Wish Upon A Star. Can anyone who owns the soundtrack or has the movie verify? --Ouzo 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it too. I always said to myself it couldn't be a coincidence. The first seven notes, maybe, but the next seven notes too? No way. Those fourteen notes are some of the most distinctive (when played at even rhythm, at least -- all quarter notes. Williams' variation lengthens one of the notes but it's still obviously recognizable) in musicdom and I couldn't believe it was done by accident. Several weeks ago, I was looking at the Close Encounters article you linked, and discovered that the movie Pinocchio actually plays a role in the plot of the film. The allusion was, therefore, absoultely intentional. Good ear! Powers ^T 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Titles in languages

Why can't the language section be here? Where else can it go? MHarrington 07:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My quess would be wiktionary. I don't think it belongs in here. There used to be an article List of Disney characters/films in various languages. But that article was deleted I think on the grounds of violating Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, there are many countries/languages who translate the names of films. We don't have in the Spider-Man 2 article, the name of the german translation if it. (for which I am glad), So why should we have it in Pinocchio? Garion96 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It falls under indiscriminate collection of information. Featured articles have such lists removed. --Wafulz 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cigar man

Do we know who voiced the cigar man? (Stromboli2007 09:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

I think it was Jack Mercer the second voice of Popeye he sounds quite a bit like him. (173.18.28.177 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

A question

Why is Cleo said to be voiced by Mel Blanc if she is a non-talking fish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.36 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lampwick

Was the appearance of the Lampwick character based by the cartoonists on Mickey Rooney's portrayal of Whitey Marsh in the 1938 film Boys Town?Lestrade (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

• If you can find a independent reliable source that says so, then yes. Otherwise, it's not our place to guess. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot?

Hey. where is this film's plot? This film need a plot.--Martianmister (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WE NEED PLOT!--Martianmister (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK i make it.--Martianmister (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinocchio related articles need "infoboxes"

Take this Lord of the Rings box as an example...

Dont you all think the articles on the characters and various film adaptations need something like this?Dark hyena (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Differences between the movie and the original short stories?

Is anyone in a position to do a section on this? It is normal for adaptations. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially because this adaptation differs a lot! And there are ample criticisms of those changes, namely in that they obscure the lessons of the original story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Angelove (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

video game

theres also another pinocchio videogame for the snes (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Image of Pinocchio

Hello, why have you removes image of Pinocchio in its original theatrical release? This article without image from original theatrical is poor. The article needs this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.155.182.208 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial Profit

Did this movie really earn $39 million during its initial release? Consider Snow White only made 8 million, and Dumbo was considered a major success for netting a mere 800,000. Furthermore, the Dumbo article claims that Pinocchio failed to make any profit at all. -204.52.215.123 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The box office information was incorrect; it was taken from Box Office Mojo, which appears to have compiled all releases and re-releases of Pinocchio before 1984 as the "initial domestic gross". The film actually only earned $1.4 million when originally released in 1940. I have corrected the article and added proper references. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

{{editsemiprotected}} According to this countdown, Pinocchio is Disney Animation's most acclaimed film of all time. Could this go under "Reception"? 134.48.161.221 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a specific enough request. What you need to do is discuss and agree on this talk page about how such a mention would be worded and exactly where it would go within that section. Then put up the {{editsemiprotected}} template. Thundermaker (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please change "The film received generally positive reviews" to "The film received generally positive reviews. It has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 100% (gathered from 37 reviews), higher than any other movie produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios. (cite countdown here)" 134.48.45.93 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am deferring this 'edit semiprotected' request to consensus, for now; I am concerned about giving undue weight to one set of reviews. I will try to alert interested editors to comment below. If consensus is for the edit, I imagine someone will boldly change it - if they do now, please reinstate the request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for further opinions re. this request - please indicate opinions below to form consensus  Chzz  ►  10:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be included; per WP:ROTTEN#Limitations, the website is only really reliable for judging the critical reaction to films released in 2000 and beyond. "This is because more reviews are available online and as a result contemporary critical reception is more clearly defined. Prior to the 2000s, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic did not exist, and reviews were typically not online." This can lead to skewed, misleading results, e.g. Alien, released in 1979, has a score of 97% but the critical reception at the time was mixed. Steve ^T • C 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with Steve. It would be more valuable to reference a publication that discusses this film's reception. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Wikipedia editors need to learn to use more historical referenceswhen dealing with historical topics, even (especially, actually) films. I had to rewrite the entire section on box office because someone merely pulled data from Box Office Mojo, which lumped all of Pinoccio's pre-1983 B.O. intake together as an "original theatrical release", claiming the movie was a big hit making $80 million when first released (which is far from the truth, as the current properly referenced paragraph now states). Saying the film is "Disney Animation's most acclaimed film of all time" is not a factually provable statement, since it turns into a debate between it and quite a few other Disney films. However, the film did recieve generally positive reviews upon its original release, which is something that could be referenced from an actual book like Of Mice and Magic or Hollywood Cartoons, rather than Rotten Tomatoes, on which I'd be surprised if any of the reviews actually came from 1940, or even before about 1990. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Steve. DrNegative (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Dying and coming back to life

Who says you can die and come back to life?? (The plot of this article says that this is true, and so there has to be something about this that is implied.) Do many young children accept without proof that this is possible?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgia guy (talk • contribs)

Do many young children accept the fact that wooden puppets can come to life with the help of magical blue fairies? 69.154.208.75 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you name any?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Enthusiasum [sic?]

There is a quote with "enthusiasm" spelled wrong. I'm not sure whether this is because it is also spelled wrong in the source or not. If so, it should probably include [sic], otherwise it should be fixed. - Dunc0029 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The original source spells it correctly: [1]. I've fixed the article. Powers ^T 19:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

When did animation begin exactly?

Hello! From looking at the article I see two separate sentences showing that animation began in January 1938 and September 1938. This should be corrected to the correct date. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Loeba (talk · contribs) 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Lovely film - I'm happy to claim this one. Will start reading through soon. --Loeba (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Review

Great stuff! This is definitely GA worthy. I do have a few suggestions below though, nothing too major (other than one, which I've made clear) but worth considering I think.

Prose etc

• "Some commentators such as Nicolas Sammond consider Pinocchio to be Disney's central film and the most strongly middle-class, a metaphor for American child-rearing in the mid 20th century, intended to impose the middle-class virtues upon children by revealing the shortcomings of working class pursuits." - Could be simplified/made a bit clearer.
• "she gives him a gold badge that certifies him as an official conscience" > "that he has an official conscience?
• I didn't have a clue who Charlie McCarthy was and I'm pretty sure most readers won't - worth briefly explaining.
• "Edwards was a popular entertainer who had made the first million-selling record." - Needs a ref, is it covered by the subsequent one?
• I think it would be useful to mention Dickie Jones' age at the time.
• "Then each frame of the animation was transferred onto animation cels using an early version on a Xerox" - I think that's meant to be "of a Xerox"? But I could be wrong.
• "Pinocchio was a groundbreaking achievement in effects animation." - I would clarify "..in the area of effects animation."
• I'm not entirely sure what an "incidental score" is....
• I don't think we need to attribute (ie, give scholars names) for the facts given about the earnings...not a big deal though.
• Although we're told a lot about the earnings, we aren't told anything much about the initial critical response >> This is important and needs to be added.

Layout etc

• Recommend extending the "Writing" subheading to "Writing and design".
• The soundtrack information is notably brief - could we mention some of the songs, perhaps? This could be moved there: ""When You Wish Upon A Star", became a major hit and is still identified with the film, and later as the theme song of The Walt Disney Company itself.[10]"
• Reflective reviews: I'm going to suggest that the first two sentences here be moved to "Modern acclaim", and then that the section be renamed "Themes" or "Analysis" (and moved somewhere else, probably after soundtrack). That's essentially what the section is about, and it will help show that the article meets the "broadness" criteria.
• Rename "Reissues" to "Reissues and home media"?

Images

• All fine for copyright apart from the Pinocchio logo (no information given at all) but to be honest it doesn't add much anyway.
• I strongly recommend expanding the captions, rather than just stating the name of the person, so that we know their relevance without having to check back in the text.

References

• Some that may be a bit dodgy are 36 (or is this official Disney? It's hard to tell..), 45, 46 and 54. Ideally they should be replaced, unless it can be explained why they are reliable. --Loeba (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think i almost fixed everything. Any suggestions on how i would add a caption to the Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas photo? Koala15 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Which refs are you referring to? I added some more now i can't tell. Koala15 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The ref numbers from this version. Please don't forget to add a bit more about the initial critical response, I'm sure we can expand upon "generally positive reviews". --Loeba (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, to satisfy the requirements of the lead, could we add a little more detail on the production history and mention the film's pioneering animation techniques. And indicate that the film is still prevalent in popular culture. Sorry, I only just decided that the lead doesn't quite summarise the whole article as it is..but once these last things are done I'll be happy I promise, haha. --Loeba (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i fixed the refs, and added a bit to the lead. And i added two reviews, i could only find two reviews from its initial release, probably because not many papers reviewed films in 1940. Koala15 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm very happy to be able to pass this as a GA - good work, and thanks for responding so promptly here! --Loeba (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pinocchio (1940 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://disney.go.com/vault/archives/movies/pinocchio/pinocchio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Italian Village

I was thinking we could add village in the Plot section like this.

One night, he arrives at the shop in a village of a childless woodworker named Geppetto, who creates a marionette which he names Pinocchio.

For people who watched the 1940 film would want to know which country the village takes place so they know that it's in Italy.

International theatrical releases

Unreferenced list. Needs referencing—needs to lose the flags per MOS:FLAGCRUFT.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
February 7, 1940 (New York City, New York; premiere); February 9, 1940 (Los Angeles, California); February 10, 1940 (Miami, Florida); February 14, 1940 (Baltimore, Maryland); February 16, 1940 (D.C., Washington); February 23, 1940 (general release); October 17, 1945 (re-release); February 18, 1954 (re-release); January 18, 1962 (re-release); July 7, 1971 (re-release); December 16, 1978 (re-release); December 21, 1984 (re-release); June 26, 1992 (re-release) March 18, 1940 (London); May 13, 1940 (general release); March 17, 1946 (re-release; London); April 8, 1946 (re-release); December 17, 1954 (re-release); December 18, 1961 (re-release); August 23, 1970 (re-release); July 18, 1986 (re-release) May 16, 1940 (general release); August 22, 1985 (re-release); April 18, 1987 (re-release) July 14, 1940 July 17, 1940 (general release); January 10, 1968 (re-release); June 29, 1979 (re-release) July 19, 1940 September 2, 1940 (general release); December 25, 1967 (re-release; Rio de Janeiro); July 8, 1968 (re-release); December 21, 1979 (re-release); July 3, 1988 (re-release); August 21, 1992 (re-release) September 6, 1940 October 7, 1940 (general release); December 22, 1966 (re-release); March 17, 1978 (re-release) October 10, 1940 (Montevideo) February 3, 1941 (general release); December 26, 1954 (re-release); April 25, 1968 (re-release); May 27, 1978 (re-release); September 29, 2013 (Cinemateket, Stockholm; re-release) April 14, 1941 November 20, 1941 December 21, 1941 (general release); December 20, 1962 (re-release); December 24, 1987 (re-release) February 12, 1942 April 3, 1942 May 13, 1942 (German speaking region) November 12, 1942 December 19, 1942 January 31, 1943 (general release); December 21, 1956 (re-release); August 30, 1968 (re-release); March 24, 1978 (re-release) February 7, 1944 (Madrid); April 14, 1963 (re-release); April 1, 1974 (re-release); June 9, 1982 (re-release) May 22, 1946 (Paris); October 2, 1946 (general release); July 4, 1954 (re-release); November 24, 1963 (re-release); December 10, 1975 (re-release); March 23, 1983 (re-release); June 7, 2015 (re-release) June 13, 1946 (general release); January 1, 1964 (Gent; re-release) September 5, 1946 December 19, 1946 November 27, 1947 (general release); December 13; 1963 (re-release); April 15, 1977 (re-release); April 6, 1984 (re-release) June 23, 1949 July 15, 1949 (general release); April 12, 1973 (re-release) May 25, 1950 (general release); December 26, 1963 (re-release); April 2, 2003 (Danish dubbed version; theatrical re-release) March 23, 1951 (general release); June 16, 1978 (re-release) April 1, 1952 (general release); June 1, 1973 (re-release) May 17, 1952 (general release); December 15, 1958 (re-release); March 20, 1971 (re-release); July 16, 1983 (re-release) October 7, 1952 (Davao) May 14, 1954 July 10, 1962 October 7, 1962 March 25, 1967 July 10, 1967 August 17, 1976 October 6, 1985