Is it taboo to criticize the Blue Fairy in Disney’s Pinocchio (2022)?

Hi, Simon210. Welcome to the IMDb Community forum! Your inquiry and feedback are appreciated. Thank you.

i'm not aware of an objective answer to the subject heading, but I do suppose that a taboo could exist in some cultural/social echo chambers. When the IMDb data-editing staff responsible for screening subscriber-borne movie reviews decline a submission of that kind, such a course of action is only supposed to happen when at least some part of the review contradicts in some way the objectives articulated at  https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH#.

Am I to understand correctly that "Too slow for kids, too woke for me" is the subject heading of the movie review you submitted and that the subsequent paragraph (in your forum post) is the body of the review? If so, then you would probably do well to make some adjustments and then submit a revised review, such as eliminating the first sentence of the paragraph of the body, on account of it pertaining to a pattern of behavior exhibited by the studio responsible for making/publishing the movie. Inclusion of that sort of thing seems to go against the provision that reads, "Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based." Also, while the bit about "in-your-face diversity casting" is truthful, it may be misinterpreted as having a some kind of quasi-bigoted subtext. We maybe ought to leave it up to folks who might voluntarily participate in this thread to debate whether or not this goes against the guideline concerning hatred and intolerance, or the one mentioned earlier, before arriving at a conclusion. In my humble opinion, the bit doesn't constitute a violation.

If you would rather not make any adjustments whatsoever, then by all means, please feel free to disclose here the 18-digit reference number of the declined submission, so that the IMDb staff can decide whether or not to switch the status of "declined" over to the status of "approved". Your situations resembles a borderline case, so following this approach might be a fine idea.

Thank you, these responses are quite interesting and perhaps even helpful.  I’m particularly interested in the question of the film’s length. Are you actually suggesting that the reason this review was declined might be my factual error in describing it as two hours long?  Yes, that is indeed an exaggeration, one that is easily corrected (and I’d be happy to do so), but is IMDb really so literal-minded that this sort of rhetorical excess is a problem?   

I’m hardly alone in referring to Disney as being “woke.”  Good heavens, have you read the reviews of the recent series “Willow”?  

At any rate, following your suggestion, the review’s reference number is #221205-002603-384304.  Is there something I should do now in order to re-submit it?  Thanks.

Other users are right about posting the 18-digit Contribution number. That is typically what you should do.

However, if you want my honest opinion. This time I will avoid snarky comments and tell you specifically what breaches the rule (according to me, and I'm NOT and IMDb employee):

Too slow for kids, too woke for me.

Apparently Disney just can't help being woke. Despite this film's many virtues -- notably the really beautiful art direction, with landscapes and cobble-stoned village squares probably inspired by the celebrated "Pinocchio" illustrations of Roberto Innocenti -- this new version is somewhat off-putting, thanks to the intrusive, in-your-face diversity casting, which inevitably pulls one out of the little fairy-tale Italian town and into the real world of 21-century America. That Blue Fairy is jarringly grotesque. At two hours, the film is also at least half an hour too long. I enjoyed looking at the wall of novelty cuckoo clocks in Geppetto's shop, but I soon got sick of his animated kitten, which is too cute by half. I'd imagine that children will be impatient for the action to begin. 

1-"Too woke for me": Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.

2-"Apparently Disney just can't help being woke."Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.

3-"thanks to the intrusive, in-your-face diversity casting" Expressions of hatred or intolerance for people on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender or gender identity, religion, sexual orientation, age, or disability, including by promoting organizations with such views.

4-"into the real world of 21-century America" Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.

Bottom Line:

Part of your review could be seen as a criticism of wokeism in 21th century America. When you say, for example, "too woke for me", that is like saying "The political ideology of the film doesn't suit me". That is an opinion on a political topic. My belief is that IMDb doesn't want it. I cited the rule it breaks above.

Part of your review could be seen as a criticism of diversity in films. That can be considered as hate speech. My belief is that IMDb doesn't want it.

Solution: Most of the passages I highlighted would need to be deleted unless you can reformulate them in a way that doesn't break the rules.

I want to point out, as a side note to all, that the definition of the word "woke" when used colloquially (likewise as political jargon) and as an adjective has more than one definition. (But of course! No adult ought to need to have it explained, right?) The meaning that most "based" people, most "redpilled" people, many "right wingers" (especially "alt-right"), some others and I go by is a distinctive reference to the activist practice of intersectionality theory (which encompasses queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory and critical [insert property here] theory, also critical theory and Marxist theory to a lesser extent) in general, and the oppression narrative, but the "woke" colloquialism was previously (if not originally) much more of a thing of the Black Lives Matter movement, the supposedly "civic" movement but better understood to be the rather political movement focused on the "karen" and mitigating police brutality (no matter how rare) undertaken at the local and State level in the United States. Personally I try to avoid these newspeak words, because they have not yet transcended being colloquial and having evolving semantics. Another problem with these words is, as I implied before, that sometimes adjacent activists adopt the labels as their own (if not merely showing solidarity) or that the opposition takes it upon themselves to apply even more indiscriminate "logic" to a broader category of activists. Sometimes actual politicians and political candidates, or perhaps more so news editorial teams, are the ones who make a mess of grassroots lexicons, whenever they try to pander to special interest groups or the complaining masses.

I very much appreciate the time you guys have devoted to this inquiry. I feel like a kid who’s applying to a selective college and whose wealthy parents have hired a team of experts to vet and shape my application essay (only you’ve kindly done so for free). Granted that the subject here is trivial – a single mildly negative consumer comment among hundreds, most of them similarly negative – it nonetheless does raise a number of contentious political and artistic issues which, in ordinary circumstances, might easily be worth discussing, and arguing over, for hours.

But not here. So I’ll try to keep this to a few thoughts. 

Politically incorrect though my reaction may be, I obviously have a problem with the casting of a bald black weird-looking Cynthia Erivo as the Blue Fairy (and sorry, Cinephile, I don’t think that makes me a troll). The fact that she appears in only one scene for just a few minutes doesn’t make her presence in the film any less jarring and intrusive. It’s not a question of screen time; often, as we all know, a mere moment can pull one right out of a movie.

(Case in point, I tried watching Disney’s new Willow but gave up after a few minutes; it looked lame. But I gather that somewhere or other, a bit further on, there’s apparently an amorous kiss between the two heroines.  Judging from the IMDb comments, this turned off a lot of viewers – and indeed it would have annoyed the hell out of me.  Should viewers not have minded – should they simply have shrugged – because after all, the kiss takes merely a second or two?) 

I thank Cinephile for patiently laying out that series of suggested cuts. They would no doubt render my review more acceptable, but they’d also neuter much of what I want to say. (It’s frustrating to have to don mental blinders, so to speak, and to pretend I’m not aware that Pinocchio comes to us from Disney, a studio openly committed these days to certain social agendas.) However, I’m aware that my quarrel is with IMDb/Amazon, not you guys – you don’t make the rules – and I guess I’ll experiment eventually with some modified versions of my text. It does strike me, from years of reading comments, that though IMDb’s guidelines seem ridiculously stringent (no “opinions on...subject matter on which a film is based”?), the site is rather inconsistent about enforcing them.

Finally, a thank-you to Jeorj. My use of the word “woke” in my subject heading was basically just shorthand. One reason I placed it so prominently was... well, call it, per Animal House, a Futile and Stupid Gesture, an attempt to send a message to Disney, offering them one reason why consumers may be dissatisfied with their latest products.