S

5 Messages

 • 

110 Points

Tuesday, December 6th, 2022 8:42 PM

Answered

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

My 6-star review was polite, its criticisms were no different from other reviews, and it actually offered some new information.  Why was it declined?

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. 

9K Messages

 • 

198.8K Points

2 months ago

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.

5 Messages

 • 

110 Points

2 months ago

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.

9K Messages

 • 

198.8K Points

Well, exaggerating about the running time of the movie doesn't contradict the submission guidelines. I do suppose there is a possibility that the submission was declined inadvertently or as a knee-jerk reaction to its tone. If scores of movie reviews that mention how "woke" the Walt Disney studios have become are being approved, then including that kind of stuff in a review might not necessarily go against the objectives of the guidelines, as to what a review must or mustn't contain. (And we have to remember that there is more than one individual IMDb employee whose job is to interpret the submissions and the submission guidelines, and they might not all always see things the exact same way all of the time.) One thing that stands out with the review in question is how much of the body of the review is focused on merely one element occupying merely one scene of a feature-length movie. Honestly, a problem like that is the reason for IMDb registrants being able to vote on the usefulness of a review.

Champion

 • 

11.8K Messages

 • 

302.7K Points

@Simon210​ 

You could try to resubmit through your history (click the reference number) and make the changes you wish to.

5 Messages

 • 

110 Points

Thanks, Peter, but all that “history” page contains is a list of the various corrections, trivia, quotes, etc., that I’ve sent to IMDb — not my reviews.  And when I add the reference number in question… I simply get no response.  

Champion

 • 

11.8K Messages

 • 

302.7K Points

@Simon210​ 

Sorry. Then you can just copy your text into a new review submission.

Sandy

172 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

@Simon210​ As I'm are sitting and waiting to get onboard a commuter train, so did I get curious about your question!. And I may have misunderstood your answer. So, have you changed your review regarding the length of the movie that you exaggerate (which from my point of view is a big part of your criticism of the movie), and resubmitted your review for a scound rewiev And then not get a answer why it are getting rejected again. Or are is just pendeling?

5 Messages

 • 

110 Points

No, Sandy, I haven’t yet done that — I was waiting to learn is there was some other procedural aspect one has to follow — but I’ll do so now.  

Aside from this particular case, I have to say that I’m rather fascinated by this whole process.  I gather — please tell me if I’m wrong — that this IMDb Community site is pretty much just a body of outsiders, who do NOT work for IMDb or Amazon, and who simply offer helpful comments and advice on various issues.  And I assume — again, please tell me if I’m wrong — that the actual accepting or banning of reviews is actually done in-house by employees who are following internal guidelines… yes?  In other words, by a mysterious unidentified department of, so to speak, censors?  (I’d always sort of figured that it was done by some sort of complicated algorithm that searches for offending words.)   

9K Messages

 • 

198.8K Points

Some of the participants of this forum are indeed employees of IMDb, yes. However, they interact with the forum in very particular ways. Peter, cinephile, Sandy and I are not employees of IMDb but simply fellow visitors, subscribers and customers who contribute to IMDb, utilize IMDb list features or engage in discussions on the IMDb Poll board. Thus far, no employee of IMDb has responded to this thread, and that may possibly remain the case for a while, because there has for a long time been nothing unusual at all about the IMDb staff choosing not to provide insight on threads dealing inquiring about declined submission of the movie review type whenever there are already response posts on those threads, even if those posts are useless to the respective creators of the threads.

How the movie review submission screening system works is somewhat mysterious to folks who've never been employed by IMDb in or over that department. I do believe part of it is automated, in that submitted reviews that contain profanity or spam may be declined by the system without an actual human being interpreting them. Some submitted reviews lacking profanity/spam may be automatically approved if the author has a reputation for following all the guidelines, or if the review screeners employed by IMDb in some capacity have simply gotten used to the author being very good. I do wonder that there is a third stage, whereby a pending  or approved submitted review is visible for a short time to only some of the IMDb non-staff in such a way as to provide them the opportunity to report it before it truly goes live. Okay. So, then there is the matter of the respective reputations of IMDb registrants who submit abuse reports or other kinds of reports against movie reviews. Maybe, those who have a spectacular reputation for being on the money about recognizing clear violations can submit a report and cause immediately the "censorious" action to be taken. I also wonder whether or not generative adversarial networks (machine learning) algorithms are involved to some degree, but nothing has been disclosed that even remotely hints at that being an element of the stages of the submission screening process.

Back to the issue of IMDb employees taking a long time to respond to threads like this one. Simon210. If you'd like, you could delete this thread and start over with a new one (taking care to mention the 18-digit reference number of a pertinent declined movie review submission), under the understanding that nobody except IMDb staff should provide answers to the new thread.

cinephile

3.8K Messages

 • 

63.3K Points

2 months ago

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.

9K Messages

 • 

198.8K Points

2 months ago

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.

5 Messages

 • 

110 Points

2 months ago

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.

9K Messages

 • 

198.8K Points

I can definitely understand the frustration. (I've often watched Zakrzewski, Eric July, Gary Buechler, Jeremy Hambly, ABL etc. on YouTube. Who somewhat feed my confirmation bias but hopefully don't influence my movie-watching habits. Tyrone Magnus is more balanced perhaps.)

I couldn't really explain the inconsistencies of enforcement of the guidelines, apart from what I indicated earlier about the "supposed" stages of screening submissions. I mentioned something about the review being "borderline", but I kind of failed to speculate that the border might possibly be a very fuzzy one.

Sandy

172 Messages

 • 

2.5K Points

@Simon210​ So! Your is another person how them schould watch movies from 1920 if you can't stand the new world and that Disney are chanching. And the cuidline is clear discrimination in any kind are not allowed in a review. It is quite easy.