Pinocchio says, "Something supernatural is about to happen to my nose." What happens?
His nose becomes shorter.
His nose turns green.
Depends on if he's already told a lie. If he hadn't, then nothing supernatural was happening at that moment. It would be happening immediately after he lied.
Can you lie about something that hasn't happened yet? Even if you say something you don't intend to follow through on, there's always the possibility that you could change your mind about it later. When Pinocchio said "I'm gonna become an actor," but then backed out of it later on, his nose didn't grow at all.
If, hypothetically, Pinocchio said: "God does not exist," would his nose grow? Does his nose grow when he *knows* what he's saying is a lie, or if he speaks a lie, regardless of his knowledge about it?
Saying something that you don't know is true or not isn't telling a lie.
Lying and being mistaken are not the same thing. His nose would probably grow if he gave a definitive answer to any question he didn't know the answer to, because he would be lying about his level of knowledge, but it wouldn't grow based on whether the answer was correct.
But what if the person still THINKS they are lying, even if their lie turns out to be a truth? Would his nose still grow?
People generally lie to cover their own ass, so I agree with the above poster. You can't lie about the existence of God unless you've actually spoken with Him face-to-face in some supernatural encounter and then afterward said he does not exist.
In the early chapters of the original novel, Pinocchio's nose grows when he is in stressful situations that do not involve lying. This supports the covering-his-behind theory.
For that matter, could you use him to further academic research? Like, if you asked him to say "the Riemann hypothesis is correct" and then checked to see if his nose grew or not. Or, hell, can you use him to help determine policy decisions? "Will policy x lead to desired result y? Please answer yes or no."
I imagine Pinocchio's lie-detecting nose is based on whether or not he thinks he's lying. So, if you told him 'Pinocchio, two and two make five', and he believed you, then later on if you asked him what two plus two is, and he said 'five', his nose wouldn't grow because he wouldn't know he was lying. It wouldn't predict the future or anything like that.
Magic noses don't care about math. Humans can believe A^-A without their head exploding. This also lends support to the above theory that Pinocchios nose grows only if Pinocchio himself thinks he says a lie. The above foul tricks didn't work in the Achilles vs Tortoise duels either.
What if Pinocchio did become an actor and said lines from a script portraying a lying character?
I don't know.
My guess would be nothing because it's a "Play" and/or fictional thing. Like how as a kid when you played with others, did you do stuff like "I'm a fireman" or "I'm Batman" despite being neither a qualified fireman or a Superhero. That wasn't lying so much as it was pretening and playing. So in a context like that, if Pinochoio was in a Theatre Play and had to "lie", it would fall under "playing" since there is a pretense of make belive.
What if Pinocchio says to Geppetto You're not my father!.
He clearly thinks of Gepetto as his father, so he would be lying when he said that.
Depends on whether or not his nose understands metaphor. Also, in the literal sense, it would technically be true, since no one gave birth to Pinocchio, so he technically does not have parents. Gepetto is a father figure, but not his father.
That's an incredibly cold-hearted thing to say. Even if we were to agree that adopted parents don't truly count as parents, Gepetto constructed Pinocchio's body with his own two hands, and made the wish that ultimately brought him life. That's as good as any "real father."
Why don't we just settle this by saying that Pinocchio's nose will only grow when he's deliberately lying in order to get himself out of trouble, and that nothing happens to it unless that's what's going on. The point of his nose growing was to help teach him the difference between right and wrong, not to try and break the rules of logic or prove or disprove metaphysical theories or ideologies.
Pinocchio spends a decent chunk of the movie walking underwater with no ill effects. Then he drowns. What the!
He doesn't drown. He died of the fatigue of being CHASED BY A GIANT WHALE. That, and he might have hit his little wooden head on the rocks or something.
He did get washed up on the beach, perhaps all the massive waves crashing around and battering his body knocked him out?
Warranty of Pinocchio's Magitek Battery expired at that moment?
The waves knocked him against the rocks and gave him severe brain damage?
But if that's the case, does that mean Pinocchio's brain is made of soft meat like a real boy? Did that act of courage start to change him just as he hit his head?
Did Pinocchio actually die or did he just get knocked unconscious? I'd find it hard to believe a wooden puppet could actually die the same way a human could.
Oh trust me, he did die.
But he came back to life.
Well, there was this one book that heavily implied Pinocchio died from the exhaustion of the chase. But since it's a retelling of the film, it may not be canon.
Pinocchio was half-donkey when he escaped from Pleasure Island. Maybe he was still continuing to change, but the process had slowed down considerably the further he got from the island. When he was wandering around underwater, he was still puppet enough to not need air, but by the time they all escaped from Monstro, he had finally become donkey enough to drown.
But... But Pinocchio was made of WOOD. How did a piece of wood catch whatever disease was floating around Pleasure Island? Or is the donkey transformation a form of dark magic, anathema to the Blue Fairy's benevolent transformation magic?
That's another question entirely. See below for some answers.
I know this is pendanic but...if Geppetto wanted a son, why didn't he just go to a nearby orphanage and request the caretakers to bring him a boy for him to adopt?
Two reasons: He was old. And what if said real boy was a brat? Geppetto wanted to make his own son the way he envisioned him. Plus, you don't have to feed and clothe a puppet so there's that bonus!
Maybe he wasn't rich enough.
Gepetto didn't seem particularly poor. He had a nice cozy cottage/shop in the city. Did you see that Food Porn meal he set out for his family when he was waiting for Pinocchio to come home? He was also able to afford a small ship for his trip out to sea.
Back then having adoption rights took more than money. Usually only married couples could adopt because orphans needed both a mother AND a father for proper developement in a household upbringing. Geppetto is also quite old, and probablly would'nt live long enough to see said child (depending on how old said child was) through college. (Or however the education systems worked back then) Being old and single may have made it impossible for him to have adoption rights back then even if he had the money.
"Well I was going to go-a to the orphanage in da morning, but the Blue Fairy brought my little Wooden Head to life and save-a me a trip! MUSIC PROFESSOR!"
Why was the coachman willing to pay so much for Pinocchio?
It wasn't Pinocchio specifically; the coachman was using that sack of gold to wow Honest John into finding some boys for him. Sort of a "You think that's good payment? Work for me and you'll get THIS!" deal. Honest John finding Pinocchio for this purpose was pure coincidence.
Okay, but then why was he willing to pay that much for anybody? Does selling a donkey really bring him more money than that sack of gold?
One possibility is that he is a supernatural figure (which would explain why there are roller coasters in the 19th (?) century), so it's not really about doing business for him.
The roller coaster isn't the head scratcher. That would be the Ferris wheel, which was invented after the book's publication. Course, this is the Disney movie we're talking about....
There's no reason to assume the offer was a sack of gold for one boy. A sack for a hundred, now that's plausible.
For that matter, it's very possible that not all the coins are actual gold; there's probably more then a few gilded lead ones in there. Why shouldn't the Coachman cheat a cheater?
You, my friend, are one very smart troper.
He also never said he would pay him the entire bag. That seemed to be the implication, but he never promised Honest John the whole bag.
What happened to all those performers working for uStromboli? You know, the ones controlling the puppets and doing their voices.
Why did Geppetto let a naive wooden boy go out on his own when he didn't even know how to get to the school? Seems like he never would have gotten into any trouble if he hadn't have a criminally neglegent parent.
The man is pretty absent-minded, so maybe it just didn't occur to him. Also, maybe he assumed Pinocchio would just follow the other kids who were heading off towards the school as well.
Pretty much this. All the other children were running to school without parents, so it's probably just how it's done (particularly if the village is as small as it seems).
The kid was burning off his own finger and not even feeling it the night before, and the very next morning he sends him off all alone? Yeah, negligent is putting it mildly. Also note that Gepetto is not at all worried about his wooden son starting a fire inside Monstro, by smashing a lantern onto a pile of wood no less.
Why are you jumping straight to "criminally negligent"? First off, the idea of "stranger danger" wasn't really a thing until the 1980s - it wasn't extraordinary in the slightest for children to walk to school on their own, especially when there were other children doing the same.note Not that stealing kids off the street or out of their front yards or bedrooms was unheard of before that, viz. Elsie Paroubek, the Lindbergh baby, Charley Ross or the monstrous "adoption agency" of Georgia Tann: but Free-Range Children was still acceptable generally until the Adam Walsh murder in 1981, followed by his father's massive publicity campaign, followed by the Satanic Ritual Abuse moral panic. And second, this is literally Gepetto's first day as a parent. He's got absolutely nothing to go off of in terms of knowledge or experience.
How can Pinocchio eat/digest food if he has no internal organs due to being a puppet?
Or wood golems, being plant-based, could digest the same way as the overgrown Venus fly-trap Audrey II: "Feed me, Gepetto!"
He has wooden internal organs.
For that matter why is it treated as such a big deal that Pinocchio starts smoking and drinking on Pleasure Island? I mean as a puppet he doesn't have real lungs, liver, or a cardiovascular system so those things shouldn't hurt him right? I can understand the lesson they're trying to push and Disney not wanting a main character to smoke/drink but it's still kinda silly.
Did it bug anyone else when they were under the ocean, Jiminy got caught in a bubble, and tried to keep his head above water as it filled up with water... but they were breathing water the whole time??
Rule of Funny . That's literally the only reason for that tiny part of the movie to exist, to make a joke out of the whole breathing underwater thing and to Lampshade it as well. "Yes, we are aware it doesn't make sense for Jiminy to be breathing underwater. Deal with it."
This didn't occur to me until many years later. What's with the Blue Fairy lecturing and essentially torturing Pinocchio for "lying" about what how he ended up in Stromboli's cage? On his first day of existence, he had been conned, kidnapped, and sold into slavery. If a, say, 5-year-old child were abducted and put in a similar situation on their first day of school, and in terror made up a story like what he said, would your first inclination be to lecture them about lying, while mutilating their body? Considering Gideon and Foulfellow probably would have used violence if Pinocchio had not consented, what he was saying was not that far off from the truth. Yes, it's meant to be a moral for the audience, but in context that scene is actually pretty disturbing. Unlike in the book, there is no indication that Pinocchio is actually guilty of the vices he has to "overcome", or of anything other than naivete.
Pinocchio even refers to Honest John and Gideon as "two big monsters". From his point of view, that could be what they were!
Doubtful, given that when he encounters them again he isn't particularly fearful of them.
This is why his nose doesn't actually start growing until he says, "With big green eyes." Also, you can tell from the tone in his voice that he's lying.
She clearly felt she had to get through to him about the importance of honesty somehow, and the growth of his nose isn't shown to be painful, but it is awkward and embarrassing, leaving him in tears. She fixes him after he promises to try to do better.
She doesn't do the nose thing because Pinocchio screwed up, she does it because he's trying to cover his own ass by lying about how he ended up in that situation. He knows that he's there because he ignored Jiminy and didn't do what he was supposed to, but he tries to claim that he was kidnapped, thus getting the fairy to help him without ever admitting that he did anything wrong. The nose deal was to get him to realize that he has to take responsibility for his actions. If he would've said "I ignored my conscience and skipped school to become a famous actor" the fairy would probably have opened the cage for him without messing with his face.
Minor one, Honest John has no qualms towards murder, but is reluctant to send boys to an illegal island? Huhh??
Killing grown adults is one thing. Killing innocent little children (or hurting them, or luring them away from home so you can sell them into slavery) is another. This type of conduct isnt uncommon even with real criminals just because they have dirty hands doesnt mean they want to see, partake in, or tolerate children being harmed. Its why those that do are always the dregs of the prison caste system.
I wasn't questioning Honest John's morality, but his concern over law. The guy is CON-ARTIST fox who deceives, kidnaps, and apparently murders. If none of those things got him criminal charges, what's to worry about sending a bunch of wayward children to some off-limits island?
Why are Lampwick and Pinocchio the last victims of the Donkey transformation curse? It seems hours or at least one hour has passed since the rest of the kids turned into donkeys. So why did it take soo long to affect Pinocchio and Lampwick?
Maybe some simultanious virtue slows down the curse. Lampwick was acting friendly to Pinocchio while most rebelious kids would bully him (he's made of wood you know, and this is a chapter of history where even adults would shun a talking puppet.) Pinocchio himself was insecure about doing rebelious things (especially since he vowed to go straight after being released from Stromboli's cage. But at the same time, wanted to have fun with his new friend. Obviously neither one of these virtues prevented the infamous transformation, but they did delay them for a significant amount of time.
How does Pinocchio pick up the ability to speak language from the first minute after he is alive?
The same way he picks up being able to move around without muscles, can smoke, and gets intoxicated (and can actually drink period) despite being made of wood. A Wizard Did It.
This is a case of something we'd have to set aside. A wooden puppet boy manages to act like a regular human being despite having no muscles or internal organs to help him digest or anything. We may as well argue why in Star Fox, there are humanoid animals piloting starcrafts. It's a part of the story. :)
He has a wooden brain and larynx.
Really really stupid, but - did Figaro ever get to eat his fish? Geptto says that they won't eat till he finds Pinocchio, after all. It looked so delicious and he was stuck watching it go cold for hours! Poor Figaro.
After the movie ended, he got a bigger, more delicious fish.
So, after releasing Pinocchio from the cage, the Blue Fairy said she can no longer help him.... then later flies down (in dove form???) to drop him a note that tells him the whereabouts of his father? Wha???
Maybe she meant "helping him" in terms of direct supernatural intervention (i.e. her magic). Informing someone where their "father" is (depending) usually is a mundane thing, Voluntary Shapeshifting notwithstanding...
Really she was just giving him a tip - after all, Pinocchio had no idea where to go.
"There's no risk! They ain't ever come back, as BOYS!!" Sinister plot Coachman, but contrary to what you just said, THERE IS A RISK! What would happen if some the boys you brought to Pleasure Island Didn't turn into donkeys? Even rebellious kids can have moral standards. Pinocchio was only there because of Honest John's manipulation (which he tried harder to resist this time). Had he not befriended Lampwick (or any other boys), he probably wouldn't have grown those ears and tail. Pleasure Island also has amusement park rides, nothing ethically taboo about those. (At least today) Free food and drinks : Any orphan or homeless kid would go for that alone. And I kind of doubt that destroying property is considered vandalism if the landlord approves.
This may seem really minor, but in the latest release of Pinocchio, during the song "Give a Little Whistle" they cut out certain phrases. Not even dirty phrases, they're Jiminy saying "Right!" and "Look out Pinocchio!" Why?! For what purpose, to what end, why would those phrases need to be taken out?!
It's probably just a remastering error.
It was edited by a chimpanzee.
Why did Gepetto bring Figaro and Cleo with him to look for Pinocchio? I can understand Figaro might have followed at his own accord, but why is Cleo there? Wouldn't looking for a kid be hard enough without dragging pets around?
Gepetto brought them along because he didn't want them to starve in case he was gone for a month.
Jiminy Cricket is a cricket, but he looks half like a rabbit (he looks like he has a nose just like a real rabbit) and half like a human (but without the ears of either or the tail of the former).
He was originally supposed to look more like a real cricket.
Maybe he hated his original appearance, and asked the Blue Fairy for help.
No, because when he first sees the Blue Fairy, his comment implies that it's the first time he ever saw a fairy.
Wait a minute... Why can't the Blue Fairy help all those kids who were donkeyfied?
They never wished upon a star.
They didn't have a conscience.
To break up the funny comments:
1. Despite being very powerful, the Blue Fairy can't be everywhere at once. She had to come down from the sky to help Pinocchio (except for the end, but she might've gone by the shop and gone back to the sky)
2. Who says she didn't eventually? Just because we never see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just isn't relevant to Pinocchio's story (like showing whether or not Gideon, Honest John, or the Coachman ever are punished)
3. Pinocchio is an unusual case, being created from wood, by the Blue Fairy herself. It may be the case that fully human children have different types of guardians, (angels?). Maybe the others are set free another way.
One theory about the Coachman is that he's sort of the Blue Fairy's opposite number. Whereas the Fairy rewards good deeds, the Coachman punished bad ones. So the two basically don't interfere with each other's work, or are forbidden from doing so. And while Pinocchio is essentially innocent, and keeps screwing up because he is naive, trusting, and inexperienced, the other boys knew what they were doing is wrong. Not that this justifies what happens to them.
Although the Coachmen also seems to be rewarding bad deeds by giving money to Honest John (and presumably other kidnappers). Since we don't see any punishment for the boy snatchers, we must assume that at least some of the money is real and is a reward. Also, Coachmen isn't particularly specific about what kind of boys he wants (how naughty, for example) and Pinoccio's only 'crime' so far has been to skip one day of school. Some of the boys invited for a holiday to Pleasure Island may have been totally innocent until they let themselves be tricked.
Well, if they agreed to go to the island and ended up drinking and smoking once they got there, they aren't exactly innocent. It's not like anyone forced them to do that stuff - they could've left (or just not gone) if they wanted to.
How can Monstro be sleeping at the bottom of the ocean? He's a mammal! Even as a kid that confused me. (For some reason, Jiminy's Super Not-Drowning Skills didn't, though.)
He was just resting after a gulp of air (and presumably, a good meal).
He was faking. Note that he opens his eyes as soon as a school of fish swims by, implying that he was laying in ambush for a meal.
This is a movie that has a cricket who looks like a little man with an egg for a head and cats and foxes who interact with humans. A whale who can sleep on the bottom of the ocean is pretty normal by comparison.
Lack of screentime, most likely. All things considered, Stromboli is a pretty minor character. Also, having him turn good and release Pinocchio would've messed up the narrative, it's important that at this point of the movie that Pinocchio is stuck with no way out of the situation he got himself into.
They dont go with that because its completely out of line with the rest of the film. Its supposed to push the idea that there are cruel, sadistic people out there who will take advantage of you and wont be redeemed just by you singing a bouncy musical number or something.
Why didn't the donkeys who could still talk pretend they couldn't when the coachmen was checking them vocalization (by simply asking what their names were). Then when they were taken to the circus or farm, they could tell people about Pleasure Island and have people come and stop the coachman.
They are still children. Completely freaked out children, unable to think ahead. They might have thought that, if they could still answer to their names, they could have the donkey transformation reverted, or maybe receive a more compassionate treatment. Of course they are wrong.
This question would have betters suited for the teenage boys that were turned into donkeys, because children aren't the smartest in scary situations.
This was brought up in a tongue-in-cheek article on io9, but what exactly is the business plan with Pleasure Island? You give kids candy and cigars and all these other temptations, and they turn into donkeys you put to work in a mine. But there are already donkeys that you can buy pretty cheap. And real donkeys are probably better behaved than little boys who were transformed because of their lack of discipline.
Judging by the amount of donkeys we see, and boys on the island, they make profit through the sheer amount of donkeys they sell.
It's entirely possible that the Coachman isn't even really human, but is instead a demon disguising itself as human. And assuming that's the case, would it be at all reasonable to assume he'd be interested in something as material and easily-lost as monetary wealth when he could get an endless emotional high out of causing misery and pain to young boys just for the pure dick factor? That's right. The Coachman is probably a demon who is psychologically tormenting boys and turning them into donkeys just to be an ass, and any money he could possibly be making is entirely just for show.
The money incentivizes people like the Fox and the Cat to collect stupid little boys for him.
If he is a demon, or possibly the Devil himself, then the real business of Pleasure Island is collecting souls and inflicting some torment along the way. The whole donkey/salt mines thing is incidental.
Where are Geppetto's shoes when he and Pinocchio are trying to escape Monstro? They reappear when they make it home. Where'd they go?
Maybe Geppetto had another pair at home?
Since, during the Pleasure Island sequence, Pinocchio isn't yet a "real boy," how does he end up turning into a donkey and being sold? He's still wooden, right? And boys—flesh-and-blood children—are the ones being turned into donkeys. So what's the deal here? Do Honest John and Gideon simply not care he's a puppet? (Although if you buy into the Coachman-is-a-demon theory, I suppose that's exactly what's going on).
I know it doesn't square with the apparently flesh-and-blood ears and tail he sprouts, but as a kid, I imagined him turning into some kind of life-size toy donkey or a rocking horse or something.
Now I cant help but picture Pinocchio turning into Eeore.
That actually makes sense because some life-size horses or donkeys do have realistic hair, tails, or ears—or at least they used to back when the movie was made. Rocking horses in particular would have tails made from real horsehair, which you could take as *Fridge Horror.
Would being made of wood make a difference? Pleasure Island was shown to turn bad little boys into flesh-and-blood donkeys regardless of what they started out as. We know that magic can turn wood into flesh in this setting, so it isn't a stretch that Pleasure Island was capable of it.
His mind made it real. I, Prime Evil, have it in mind that it's not so much the misbehavior itself, but the emotion, the thrill, of misbehaving that eventually turns the boys into donkeys. The idea is for the boys to get so caught up in themselves that they won't notice the transformation, but Pinocchio's own good nature made him self-aware enough to notice the transformation and stop himself at just a tail and ears.
Who is going to buy a clock with a mother spanking her child as the child is crying?
It's an old-fashioned clock, constructed at a time where child abuse was not considered cruel. A clock like that would certainly not be available for purchase today.
Since when was spanking child abuse?
Is this a serious question?
It could be. While spanking is a sign of some pretty strict parenting, and it's definitely not something I'd do to my child, it's also not on the same level as outright abuse, unless it's done excessively. I had spankings in response to poor behavior as a child, but I would never call my parents abusive.
If you look closely at that clock, you'll notice that the child's hand is in a jam-jar. The mother was justly punishing her boy for being naughty and stealing jam. Any parent who can identify with trying to teach their bratty kid not to steal sweets is going to identify with this.
When Gepetto first meets Pinocchio, his first thought (after the initial joy) was that Pinocchio had to go to school. Um, Gepetto? Your son literally JUST came to life. I think you can let him skip a day of school to spend some time and get to know him. Or more importantly, let the boy figure out who YOU are. Even back then, I don't think the truant officers were THAT strict.
We only know for a fact that the day Pinocchio went to school was the next day based on Jiminy's comment that this was his frst day; it's possible that he meant it was the first day for him to actually act as Pinocchio's conscience, but Pinocchio and Gepetto had spent a day or two getting to know each other.
Pleasure Island in general. Okay. Turning the boys into donkeys to sell as slaves makes sense. But the whole amusement park looked like it had been hit by a tornado afterwards. The boys completely wrecked the place. How much does it cost to construct a whole amusement park? Would selling a bunch of donkeys really cover that cost?
Judging by the sheer number of bad little boys we can glimpse (enough to crowd a steamboat at least), probably. Though I get the feeling it's not really about the money, it's about punishing stupid boys who never listen to anyone and cause nothing but trouble.
If you believe the Coachman to be a supernatural creature (he is able to turn boys into donkeys, after all), it's possible he uses magic to repair the damage done, or that the island can even repair itself. Or this latest round of boys just tore the place up more than usual, which explains why he's so angry with them.
Why did none of the boys turned donkeys who could still speak, pretend to have lost their voices and let the coachman sell them? If they did that, they could have gotten off the island and told people about the coachman's business. Than police could have arrested him and tried to find a war to reverse the cure. All the boys would have to do is fake a donkey sound.
Panic. Considering these are young children who just had the world turned upside down by a maniacal villain, they probably had a hard time thinking straight enough to come up with a plan. Alternately, maybe some of them did try it and their new owners didn't care and either kept them for labor or showed them off for money. I can imagine the situation for the talking donkeys would be similar to Stromboli and Pinocchio, "Work for me and get some good food, lodgings and become famous. Get too uppity or complain and I'll be having some donkey stew.'' The Coachman probably sells the talking donkeys to people whom he knows won't care about where they came from as long they get rich.
The Coachman can probably tell the difference between a donkey who can't talk and one who's holding his tongue to hide the fact that he can. Since it's implied that being on the island is all it takes to induce the transformation, all he has to do is keep them locked up in a pen until all vestiges of their humanity are gone, and then crate them up and sell them.
When Geppetto was trying to find water for Pinocchio's finger, Jiminy tries to give him some water from his hat. Ummm, where did he even get the water?
He filled it from Cleo's fish bowl.
How exactly did Cleo's bowl stay intact during the climax? It's glass! And yet it doesn't break after all that ramming from that killer sperm whale Monstro? HOW did Cleo's bowl manage to stay intact? JUST HOW?!!
Also, how did Geppetto manage to carry Cleo's bowl and Pinocchio's body on his way home?
At the beginning, why does Geppetto go to sleep with his glasses on and a gun under his pillow, then leaves the window wide open?
Probably because it'd be stupid for someone to break into a home through a window that's right above the owner's bed. 'Specially when he keeps a gun under his pillow.
When Geppetto goes out to look for Pinocchio it's raining heavily, and looks like it has been for a while. When Pinocchio attempts to return home a few hours later, all the streets are dry, with no sign of recent rain.
So, Pleasure Island allows everything bad. Smoking, check. Drinking, check. Causing havoc, check. Playing pool, che- wait a second! What's so wrong with playing pool? Isn't it just a regular game?
Pool tables can commonly be found in bars which wouldn't be an appropriate place for a young boy. I believe there used to be a belief that billiards was a game for delinquents.
Also, Pool was (and for some people, still is..) considered taboo for little kids for safety regulations. Pool balls are pretty heavy for something their size, and could hurt if they hit you. And the sticks could poke an eye out. Adult supervision is often required, but Pleasure Island isn't accomidating that nescesity.
If Pinocchio doesn't know right from wrong, how does he know right is... well... right? When Jiminy instructs Pinocchio, he says: "But I'm gonna do right!" How does he know right is the good choice, and wrong a bad choice?
He knows that "right" means "good," just not what actions are the right ones for him to choose.
Pleasure Island doesn't make a lot of sense, actually. The Coachman turns bad kids into Donkeys to sell, alright, but does he need to create an elaborate Amusement Park to do that? On top of that, if Pleasure Island is just a trap for bad kids, surely just wanting to go there would be bad enough for the kids to be punished, right? If going to a place to do intentionally bad things is not bad enough to get the kids into Donkeys, what would happen if a Kid went there and did absolutely nothing wrong? Would they still get turned into Donkeys just for being there? If they did, then the park is completely pointless!
There's many people who believe the Coachman is turning kids into donkeys For the Evulz.
I like to think of him as a slightly more evil Willy Wonka. He sets up a place where children are invited to come and misbehave as much as they want, just to see if they'll do it. By trying to entice them, he's teaching them a lesson - if they choose to learn that lesson and leave, so be it, they don't get rewarded for that. If they choose to stay, smoke, drink, vandalize property, and play pool, well, they've made their beds. Now they have to lie in them.
Why doesn't Lampwick think it's odd that the boy he's hanging out with is made of wood?
No one knows.
Honest John and Gideon could tell Pinocchio was made of wood, but Lampwick couldn't?
Maybe he thought Pinoke just had a lot of prosthetic limbs? Or he was just too stupid to notice at all - his arms look normal enough to avert suspicion at a glance, and Lampy didn't have much reason to be looking at his legs for very long.
Who's going to stop the Coachman and save all the Donkey-turned boys now that Pinocchio and Jiminy can't save them?
Why can't Pinocchio and Jiminy save them? They got away from the Coachman and made it home. Couldn't they send the police after them or something?
Pinocchio doesn't know anything about who the Coachman is. The only people who do - Honest John and Gideon - are implied to be too terrified of him to snitch on him.
Why is Jiminy Cricket rewarded at the end of the movie? He did NOTHING! Everytime Pinocchio goes bad, he says "O.k., you don't need me" and he turns away. When he tries to pick a lock, it fails. When he wants to help with Monstro, he can't pass through the teeth of the monster. Pinocchio learns most of his mistakes by himself and proves to be more courageous than his father. He deserves to be a boy. But what did Jiminy do?
Provided companionship, morale support and a voice of reason (mostly ignored during the first half of the movie). Also, when the half-donkey Pinocchio was running around in a panic, he almost certainly would have been caught like the others if Jiminy hadn't showed up in time to lead him away from danger and show him the way to escape.
Fridge Brilliance, maybe. That's about what a real conscience is capable of doing. It points the right way, but it can't make you listen to it. And it sure can't pick a lock.
And the fact that he stuck with him, through it all. Even when he thought Pinocchio didn't need or want him, when he found out he was in danger, he always went back for him. He was even willing to follow him into the depths of the ocean and the belly of a giant whale - for no other reason than because he promised to. That's pretty respectable.
What exactly was Gepetto going to do with Pinocchio's body before the Blue Fairy brought him back to life? How does one even dispose of the body of a "dead" puppet? Was he going to bury him (and if so, in a wooden casket no less?)? Cremate him? Paint over his eyes and try to sell him as a regular puppet since even though Pinocchio's apparently dead, he's still technically a functional puppet?
I'd say Gepetto should sell him.
What's wrong with burying him? And who's going to want to buy a puppet with donkey ears and a tail?
Sure that would be unusual and kind of weird, but it's possible somebody might want to, especially if that person is into weird-looking creatures. Some people are, you know.
One of the lies Pinocchio tells the Blue Fairy is that hes been chopped into firewood, even though she can clearly see that hes still in one piece. Even ignoring the fact that his nose is growing, Pinocchio must be really dumb to think she would believe that when shes looking right at him. Something more like they tried to chop me into firewood would be far more believable.
That's the point. "A lie keeps growing and growing until it's as plain as the nose on your face." Of course it was obvious that he was lying, but he was telling such a tall tale already that he just kept going with it.
1.) Because they were adapting the story from a book, and in the book, the Coachmen does get away with it. 2.) It's also a much more realistic, albeit harsh moral to teach - sometimes, in the real world, the bad guys will get away with their crimes, and there isn't anything you're able to do about it.
Why do Disney characters often seem to die just before a transformation. Ive seen this happen not just when Pinocchio turns from a puppet to a real boy, but with other Disney characters as well who undergo a transformation (like the Beast, for example). The character supposedly dies and then comes back to life in a new form. Is their death supposed to signify that their life in their previous form has ended?
I don't think it's as widespread a concept as your question implies, but in Pinoke's case, the fact that he "died" tied into the circumstances of his transformation — he had to prove himself brave, truthful, and unselfish in order to become a real boy, and he proved these things by helping Gepetto to safety when he could've just saved himself. The Beast requires a declaration of Belle's love in order to break his enchantment, and let's face it, she's just a lot more likely to confess her love when he's on his deathbed than if he had survived the scrap with Gaston unharmed.