‘Pinocchio’ Represents A Key Test Case For Disney+

No, Robert Zemeckis’ Pinocchio isn’t very good. As much as any of the lesser Walt Disney remakes over the last decade, it alternates between being a redundant rehash of the 1940 animated feature and a needlessly watered-down adaptation of the same. I could joke about a drinking game based around any time Tom Hanks’ Geppetto shouts “Pinocchio,” but Hanks isn’t phoning it in and delivers as much of an ‘acting against nothing’ performance as he pulled off in Zemeckis’ Cast Away. Moreover, Zemeckis clearly took some interest in the film’s visual elements, with almost every central character existing as a visual effect. I’d argue the film offers some moments of earned razzle-dazzle. Keegan-Michael Key (as Honest John the Fox) proves himself incapable of delivering a dull or inauthentic performance no matter what occurs around him (see also: Prom).

In a vacuum, Pinocchio is less an abomination and more an unquestionably expensive and occasionally visually engrossing ‘thing.” It exists mainly to check off a box. Disney has been mining their animated films for live-action content since Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. I would argue the end game has been to create the definitive live-action version of these respective oft-told tales to sit alongside their already classic animated adaptations. Pinocchio again commits the cardinal sin of ‘correcting’ presumed flaws found in the initial films, like 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’d say Maleficent: Mistress of Evil) work as stand-alone cinematic entertainments, they exist only in relation to their animated predecessor. That makes them less valuable on Disney+, where they sit alongside the animated classic, than in theaters.

I’m not saying that Pinocchio should have played in theaters. It would have been lucky to pull grosses on par with Tim Burton’s Dumbo (another one of these that, like Pinocchio, takes some pretty explicit shots at their distributing studio), which earned $115 million domestic and $353 million worldwide on a $170 million budget in early 2019. In a non-Covid world, when theaters weren’t starving for product, a smaller-scale, lower-tier remake like Pinocchio would belong alongside Lady and the Tramp as one that (production value notwithstanding) doesn’t belong in theaters. As noted in 2019, that audiences flocked to Batman doesn’t mean they wanted a big-budget version of The Shadow. Likewise, that audiences showed up in theaters for Aladdin doesn’t mean they would do so for Dumbo. However, in a world where streaming is now dominated by top-tier IP and theatrical films, would Pinocchio have benefited from a theatrical run?

The Nielsen’s just dropped for the week of August 8 through August 14, and Lightyear earned 700 million minutes. That’s a sharp drop from last week’s 1.3 billion-minute premiere, suggesting that most folks who waited to catch the Pixar whiff did so on opening weekend. The excellent Prey held well in its first week, earning 480 million minutes (-18%) on Hulu compared to its 585 million-minute ‘opening weekend.’ Meanwhile, perhaps proving my point about theatrical runs benefiting streaming performances, Sony’s Uncharted was the top movie of the week, notching 1.1 billion minutes after a 1.014 billion-minute debut. That’s after $400 million in global grosses. Most Netflix biggies (original or otherwise) uptick slightly in the first full week before crashing after day ten. That makes leggy underdogs like Purple Hearts (229 million hours globally in 28 days after a 48 million-hour debut) even more impressive.

Uncharted’s Netflix strength is evidence that the lucrative first-window pay tv deal Sony signed with Netflix will be mutually beneficial. Netflix gets high-end third-party films while Sony gets a cushion and a financial motivation to take the chance on the next Where the Crawdads Sing or the next Baby Driver. Morbius dropped 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 upon initial admittance. That caused a (primarily online) kerfuffle when The Help (an Oscar-winning and Best Picture-nominated film that grossed $169 million domestic in 2011) became Netflix’s most-watched movie during a moment of intense civil protests against arguably improper (and racially motivated) police violence. The Help still plays as a blunt “don’t be a racist, you asshat” melodrama, at least more so than, I dunno, Hillbilly Elegy. But I digress.

Back to Pinocchio and Lightyear. I argued last week that Lightyear’s terrific Disney+ opening weekend was proof that a box office bomb would perform better on a streaming platform than a streaming-only original. Think, offhand, the (justly) Emmy-winning Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers movie from last May. The argument I’ve been making for two years is that a film intended for theatrical, in terms of production value, budget and big-screen pizzazz, still means it’s of greater interest than a streaming-only flick. That’s not always true, especially for the prolific Netflix and especially not for Netflix’s usual year-end awards contenders. Prey is the best Predator movie since the first Predator movie, and offhand The Harder They Fall may be the best mainstream western since Open Range. However, there is a clear difference between Mulan and Turning Red and Lady and the Tramp and Pinocchio.

Awareness, promotion and media coverage created by an admittedly expensive theatrical marketing campaign can make a difference. Theatrical titles routinely dominate the VOD charts. Most non-Netflix platforms get more viewership from theatrical titles than from streaming-centric originals. Disney+ is dominated by MCU television shows (whose success was predicated upon the theatrical popularity of the Marvel movies), theatrical Marvel movies (Thor: Love and Thunder debuted just today), Star Wars shows and Disney/Pixar animated films. Can Pinocchio pull viewership numbers on par with a was-supposed-to-be-in-theaters title like Turning Red or a was-in-theaters title like Lightyear? If so, that’s a significant feather in Disney’s cap. If not, well, reviews notwithstanding, then maybe Disney should start considering theatrical runs for films like (for example) Hocus Pocus 2 and Disenchanted just for streaming glory. It’s too late for them, but it’s worth considering for the future.

Marketing a film for theaters is expensive, which is a crucial reason why studios are less inclined to distribute more mid-budget, less-than-four-quadrant titles in theaters. It may not be worth spending tens of millions of dollars for a film like Pinocchio to bomb in theaters (with resultant bad press and tisk-tisking from pundits like myself) to boost its streaming potential. The theatrical release creates additional awareness for the title. It cements it as an A-level streaming offering. However, I don’t know if there’s an equation for ‘losing X dollars in theaters for Y streaming viewership gains.” As for Pinocchio, it’s a disappointment, to be sure. My entire family gave it ten thumbs down. However, it’s also a way for Zemeckis to indulge his decades-long interest in pushing the technical envelope now that Hollywood can’t afford to spend $100 million on films like Contact and Cast Away.