#pinocchio coachman

[wolfy-star1401]

Dear @nottapossum

Why do i have the feeling That the Coachman {from Disney’s Pinocchio 1940} would get along with Crimson {from Helluva Boss} !

Tag : @sw124 @theogclownboy @littleconscience @i-ate-your-children @i-love-the-little-things @dragon-queen21 @thedreemer-artrequestsopen

[pika-ace]

I honestly thought that Disney Knowledge Yuu would be “okay, it’s just a tale here, a very REAL one but, it can’t be that bad. Leona is here, Trey too and even Vil! They are really responsible and will make us go back at a reasonable time! Plus, they are really powerful! There is nothing to worry about!”

*Sees the sea-donkeys*

“Nevermind, I want OFF. WHERE IS THE EXIT?!”

Also, do you think there is a figure like the coachman? The guy that employed Guidel and John to lure children into pleasure island? Maybe he’s the guy that transforms the people into donkeys

Yep, that's about right XD

And while that would be cool, I doubt we're getting anyone else new, since the tradition has always been one new guest per event, with Fellow and Giddel slightly breaking it by being considered a unit.

Fun fact though, I actually made my OWN TWST Coachman OC a while back for a roleplaying server :3

His name is Carlo Omino (a combination of the author of Pinocchio, Carlo Collodi, and the Coachman's original Italian name, Omino di Burro). He runs a similar trafficking ring, except it hides in plain sight in a regular theme park in Port O'Bliss, and it involves animal transformation (any kind of animal, not just donkey) AND the capturing and selling of rare magical creatures and species. The animal transformations are mostly via potion created by sisters TWST Yzma and Kronk (named Eartha (after her VA) and Risu (Japanese for squirrel))

Carlo's also Rollo's abusive father in this universe but that's not important-

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

If it is nightmare before Christmas, I wonder who is the guest character. Usually it's the twisted version of villains like with Rollo and Fellow and Gidel aren't twisted of main villains (Honest John and his companion are more minor) but still counts as villains. Given the movie, Jack is consider to be a bit villainous so likely chance there's a twisted version of him despite being the main character. There's also the fact of Oogie Boogie having a twisted version character which makes me of a possible SSR of someone who is afraid of bugs...you know who?

[Referencing this post!]

I think the guest character will at least be someone “iconic” and not necessarily the “biggest bad”. We all know how much Disney LOVES its famous iconography and keeps recycling it in their properties. This in part explains why Honest John and Gideon got twisted instead of the coachman; when you think of Pinocchio, you more readily think of the fox and cat rather than the shadowy figure that is their boss. That makes Tumblr sexyman Jack Skellington as likely as a candidate for bishounen-ing as Oogie Boogie is. I personally love both, so no preference as to who gets to be yassified by Yana 😂 Watch it be twisted Sandy Claws, the mayor, Dr. Finkelstein, or the shitty brat trio instead—

If I had to pick which character I like better, I think I’d probably go with Jack?? It’s the dapper suit— He’s just so effortlessly charismatic and cheery. However, I can’t deny the sick joy that I would feel in seeing a twisted Oogie and all of his creepy crawly innards interacting with our local bug hater Jamil 😈 So yeah, I really want a Jamil SSR for this year.

Leona is pretty much also slated for one since he’s the only dorm leader without a Halloween SSR so far meaning we’ll actually get to hear this bitch sing after he teased us about it in Endless Halloween Night BUT HEY, THIS POST AIN’T ABOUT HIM…

I’m so glad that Nightmare Before Christmas is FINALLY becoming a Halloween event… It’s like, perfect for the holiday. I was upset back when Endless Halloween Night happened and we were denied twisted!Jack or Oogie, and now TWST is making up for that missed opportunity all these years later/j

[ideas-on-paper]

A hypothetical look at the childhoods of Carlo and Romeo

Despite Carlo and Romeo being two of the most central characters of Lies of P, what we know about their backstory is next to marginal. We know that the two of them went to school together and were best friends (perhaps even more than that), but their time in Monad Charity House is only presented in snippets and fragmented memories, and despite being highly significant, their characters remain elusive - like shadows cast over the entirety of the story, always present, never tangible.

Thus, many have filled the gaps left in their characterization with their own imagination. As for myself, I was curious what their early lives might have been like, before they met at Monad Charity House - and since it was the closest thing to the game's setting I could find, I did some research on Victorian children and their upbringing.

What I found out, however, left me absolutely shocked and made me keenly aware of just how awful Carlo and Romeo's childhood must have been, going by historic standards. As pretty much everything during the Victorian Era, a child's upbringing was very dependent on social class - however, no matter if you grew up in a rich or poor family, each came with its own kind of suffering, and regarding the question of "What were Carlo and Romeo's lives like before Monad Charity House?", the brief answer would be: "Probably not great."

As for the long answer... I should mention this is my own interpretation of Carlo and Romeo's backgrounds, and none of this is officially confirmed. However, given what we know about the two's origins, I consider it quite plausible, and what we can conclude from it might not only give us better insight into their personalities, but also some of the real-life background behind the original fairy tale of Pinocchio.

Just as a fair warning, though: This is about to get a little depressing.

[Spoilers for Lies of P!]

[CW: mentions of very questionable parenting methods, depression, suicidal ideation, poverty, parent death, child labor, abuse and exploitation of children]

Carlo

For this analysis, I'm going to assume that Carlo was born into a fairly well-off household. (The description of Carlo's portrait calls him "an aristocratic boy", and since Geppetto is the mastermind behind Krat's puppet technology, I assume he'd have his fair share of the profits.)

By the standard of their time, upper-class children were quite spoiled: Unlike their working-class peers, they never had to worry about who was going to provide food for them, and the horrors of child labor were never of any concern to them. You would think that being born into a rich family doesn't leave you a single thing to wish for - you'd have nice toys, fine clothes... and well, everything, except for parental affection.

For the most part of the day, upper-class children wouldn't even see their parents - they were only summoned to appear before them at a set hour of the day, and during these occasions, they had to address their fathers as "sir". Essentially, meeting your parents was more like an audience with a stranger, a rare privilege strictly regulated by formality. Children were expected to act prim and proper, only allowed to speak when spoken to, and thus unable to express their true feelings, thoughts, or opinions. Any show of affection was extremely rare - Winston Churchill (1874 - 1945) once remarked that he could "count the times he had been hugged by his mother" as a child.

The parents were more or less completely absent from their children's lives, and when there actually was interaction between them, the children were expected to unconditionally obey their parents. Osbert Sitwell (1892 - 1969) once commented: "Parents were aware that the child would be a nuisance and a whole bevy of servants, in addition to the complex guardianship of nursery and school rooms was necessary not so much to aid the infant as to screen him from his father or mother, except on some occasions as he could be used by them as adjuncts, toys or decorations." (Can you imagine? Geppetto taking Carlo to some big social event to show off his "perfect little son", and Carlo just standing there and silently enduring the ordeal, looking at his father all the while and wondering "Did he ever realize I'm not one of his puppets?")

So, by the standard of the time period Lies of P is set in, Geppetto neglecting his son isn't even anything terribly unusual - in fact, that's perfectly normal Victorian upper-class parent behavior.

Since they didn't take care of their children themselves, upper-class parents would hire a nanny to raise them. Nannies would be instructed what kind of behavior and morals the parents wanted instilled into their child, and they would be responsible for their education as well as teaching them manners, propriety, how to dress and so on. As such, the nanny effectively acted as a substitute for the parents - and given that maid puppets exist and Geppetto probably wouldn't let any strangers near Carlo, Carlo's nanny was most likely a puppet as well.

The daily life of upper-class children was based on strict routine - some like to say it operated with "clockwork regularity". Breakfast would be served at 8 o'clock in the morning, dinner at 12 o'clock, and tea at 6 o'clock.* Children would very seldom leave their room, except to take short walks in the park with their nanny. Education would mostly be given at home by a tutor, which included basic lessons like reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also "socially appropriate skills" like dancing and playing the piano. (Since we see a puppet giving piano lessons to a child in the intro, chances are Carlo's tutors were also puppets.)

*Eating times varied throughout the Victorian Era; a "dinner" might also be a meal eaten during midday.

The rest of the time, children would have nothing to do but to play with their toys (except on Sundays, which was forbidden). Rich families had the luxury of being able to afford the most elaborate of toys, such as automated dolls, clockwork trains, and jack-in-the-boxes, which were extremely popular among children. In fact, since clockmakers were also the ones to build toys, I could imagine Geppetto actually made the toys for Carlo himself. (However, I feel like this only would have made Carlo loathe them; in his eyes, it would've been proof that "father pays more attention to the toys he makes for me than actually looking at me".)

In short, the life of Victorian upper-class children was lonely, depressing, and stuffy to the point of suffocating. Given these circumstances, I would actually be surprised if this didn't leave mental scars on Carlo. It has been documented that a lack of parental affection causes psychological issues lasting all the way into adulthood, such as low self-esteem, trust issues, anxiety, difficulty with social relationships, and lack of emotional control. Also, considering Carlo was probably surrounded by puppet servants all day, he wouldn't even have had a single human being to interact with most of the time - something which most likely had a detrimental effect on his psyche.

Given this dreary existence, it would make absolute sense for Carlo to look nothing short of depressed in every depiction we see of him. The feeling of emptiness when being pressed into the corset of others' expectations is actually something I'm well acquainted with - it feels like walking beside yourself, like your body moving while actually feeling dead inside. A bit like a puppet on strings, if you will. With his life being a monotonous routine controlled by someone else, it wouldn't be surprising if Carlo had difficulty still seeing a purpose in it. (There have been some theories going around that Carlo committed suicide; at the very least, I think it's highly likely he had suicidal ideations during his youth.)

Perhaps this is where Pinocchio - the character from the fairy tale - might have become something like an identification figure for Carlo. Pinocchio was a puppet, but instead of doing what his creator intended - what his father expected - he did whatever he wanted. I'm sure Geppetto gave him the book as a measure to educate him, but it ended up having the opposite effect. In fact, it might have been what first taught him the concept of freedom: Geppetto's puppets only ever did what he told them to, executing the exact actions he had programmed them with, over and over again - but Pinocchio showed Carlo that it didn't have to be this way. (I've seen a lot of interpretations of Carlo disliking puppets, and while I can see where this is coming from, I don't think this is because Carlo disliked puppets in general. Rather, I think he saw them as "extended arms" of his father and a symbol of his need to control everything around him; otherwise, it would be a little strange for Carlo to be attached to the story of Pinocchio so much.)

However, I think beneath all the pent-up frustration and hatred, there was also the wish for his father to love and appreciate him. At the end of the book, Pinocchio returns to his father after all the hardships he had to go through, and the two reconcile and live happily ever after. Since Pinocchio's father goes looking for him when he disappears, perhaps Carlo believed that if he rebelled against him and put himself in danger, Geppetto would realize that he actually cared for him.

So, if Carlo was very prone to temper tantrums and acting defiantly towards his father, it might have been on one hand to show that he didn't want to be part of Geppetto's perfect stage play anymore, and on the other because he was vying for his attention. Due to his upbringing, however, Carlo wasn't really able to communicate his feelings in a proper way. (I like to imagine Carlo as a very emotional person, but having difficulty to actually express his feelings.)

Geppetto, however, wouldn't have the sensitivity to understand this - he most likely would've tried to rectify his son's "mischievous behavior" by disciplining, as was typical for the time period (in general, it was believed that you had to "beat the evil out of children" for them to become a good person). Of course, that wouldn't have made things better - in fact, I wonder if part of the reason Geppetto sent Carlo to Monad Charity House was that he was just at a loss what to do with the boy. Since all of his educational measures were fruitless, perhaps he thought that sending him to the boarding school would finally put Carlo on the right track - although the result of that probably was also quite different from what Geppetto expected.

Romeo

Meanwhile, poor Victorian children had to live in a completely different, brutal reality - for them, day-to-day life was a literal struggle to stay alive.

We know that Romeo was an orphan, and according to Eugénie, that's not much of a rarity in Krat. Indeed, street children existed in abundance during Victorian times: It wasn't uncommon for working-class children to lose one or both parents - due to unsanitary conditions in Victorian slums, many people died of disease, and given the hazardous working conditions in factories and coal mines, accidents were commonplace. However, the term of a Victorian orphan was actually a little broader than that, also extending to children who ran away from home due to hailing from alcoholic and neglectful families. Often, mothers who were single or had a child out of wedlock would also simply abandon their children. Whatever the reason for their situation, these children were forced to fend for themselves at a very young age.

In the Trinity Sanctum in Krat Central Station, there's a note mentioning a "pickpocket who was overconfident in a gamble" and "had his heart stolen and died". Since Romeo made "a deal with the devil" (the "devil" presumably being Geppetto who turned him into a puppet), people have interpreted this as referring to Romeo. Turing to crime to support themselves was not a rarity among poor Victorian children - in fact, half of the defendants tried at the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales between 1830 and 1860 were aged 20 or younger. There were even organized gangs of child thieves who were trained in pickpocketing by a "captain", similar to those from Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist. (However, the items that were stolen most often were actually not purses or pocket watches, but handkerchiefs; silk handkerchiefs had a pretty high resale value, and the thieves would take them from pockets, rip out the initials, and resell them for a good price.)

We can't be sure whether Romeo teamed up with a few other kids or not, but personally, I'd wager he did - it would be much safer to operate in a group in case one of them gets in trouble, and overall, Romeo's personality seems a bit too caring for a lone wolf. (As the King of Puppets, he was not only determined to save as many humans as possible, but also possessed the unconditional trust and loyalty of the other puppets. To me, this means he most likely cared about them, and they cared about him in return - if it was just programming, the puppets probably wouldn't be lamenting his loss after he dies. Compare this to Geppetto, who has to use force and coercion for others to obey him.)

Also, since the notes in the Trinity Sanctums always seem to have a connection to the place where they're located (factory worker -> factory; cleric -> cathedral; "greatest singer"/Adelina -> opera house), that would mean the train station was most likely Romeo's base of operations.* (Train stations tend to be very popular among thieves, since it's easier to pick pockets in the confusion of people boarding or getting off trains.) This would imply that Romeo didn't grow up in Monad Charity House since he was an infant, but arrived there at a later point during his childhood.

*EDIT: I just had a thought that the note in the Trinity Sanctum could also mean the train station is the place where Romeo died. (All the other notes are connected to murder or some other violent action, and since we can assume they were written by Arlecchino, he was probably more interested in that.) Since Geppetto has his secret workshop wagon in Krat Central Station, maybe the place where he built P is the same where he built Romeo.

Since there were so many orphaned children, the few orphanages that existed couldn't receive all of them. Instead, workhouses were established as institutions for all kinds of destitute people - including orphans - who were unable to support themselves and were given lodging and food in exchange for labor. However, many children actually preferred living on the streets, rather turning to crime than going to the workhouse. At a first glance, this may seem a bit unreasonable - surely, not having to run around in worn-down rags and steal your food just to survive would at least be an improvement?

Well... Turns out, not really. The conditions in Victorian workhouses were notoriously awful - they were overcrowded, unsanitary, and cruel places to live. Daily routine was strictly regimented, consisting of 9–10 hours of repetitive and physically demanding labor and very little free time. What little food there was was of poor quality, privacy was basically nonexistent, and the dozens of inmates sleeping together in dormitories often had to share their beds - children usually had to sleep up to four in a bed. The consequences for refusal of work or any kind of rule violation were beatings, deprivation of food, being locked up in solitary confinement in a dark cell, and other draconian punishments.

If this doesn't sound like a very hospitable atmosphere, that's because that was the exact intention behind it. Workhouses weren't meant to support poor people - they were supposed to scare them into finding work and make a living for themselves. Victorians viewed poverty as a self-imposed misery, and if you were a pauper, that was because you were lazy, retarded, or made bad choices in life. That's why beggars, vagrants, orphans, criminals, and mentally ill people were all indiscriminately housed in workhouses, because from the Victorian point of view, they all belonged to the same category of people: A stain that had to be removed from the public eye, either by forcing them to support themselves or by making use of their work force once they had donned the workhouse uniform. They were a nuisance to society, and their treatment in the workhouse was sure to make them feel that.

One of the worst fates for workhouse children, however, was to be hired out as pauper apprentices: Usually from 10-13 years of age, but sometimes as young as eight or seven, workhouses would send pauper children to factories in the countryside for an "apprenticeship". This "apprenticeship" involved factory owners buying children from orphanages and workhouses and making them sign a contract that lasted until they were 21 years of age, dictating that the apprentices had to be provided with food and accommodation, and in exchange, the factory owner was free to make use of their working power.

So in summary, workhouse orphans were essentially sold into slavery. This was all that much easier to do with children who had no parents and no other means to support themselves, and thus were free to be exploited by their employers. Some of the recollections from these former pauper apprentices are just utterly horrific - and in this case, I think it's appropriate to let the victims speak for themselves.

John Birley, who lost his father when he was two, lived in the Bethnal Green Workhouse for a time after his mother died of illness when he was around six. He was sent to Litton Mill as a pauper apprentice, and he had this to say about his experiences in an interview with The Ashton Chronicle in 1849 (source):

The same year my mother died, I being between six and seven years of age, there came a man looking for a number of parish apprentices. We were all ordered to come into the board room, about forty of us. There were, I dare say, about twenty gentlemen seated at a table, with pens and paper before them. Our names were called out one by one. We were all standing before them in a row. My name was called and I stepped out in the middle of the room. They said, "Well John, you are a fine lad, would you like to go into the country?" I said "Yes sir". We had often talked over amongst ourselves how we should like to be taken into the country, Mr. Nicholls the old master, used to tell us what fine sport we should have amongst the hills, what time we should have for play and pleasure. He said we should have plenty of roast beef and get plenty of money, and come back gentlemen to see our friends. The committee picked out about twenty of us, all boys. In a day or two after this, two coaches came up to the workhouse door. We were got ready. They gave us a shilling piece to take our attention, and we set off. I can remember a crowd of women standing by the coaches, at the workhouse door, crying "shame on them, to send poor little children away from home in that fashion." Some of them were weeping. I heard one say, "I would run away if I was them." They drove us to the Paddington Canal, where there was a boat provided to take us. We got to Buxton at four o'clock on Saturday afternoon. A covered cart was waiting for us there. We all got in, and drove off to the apprentice house at Litton Mill, about six miles from Buxton. The cart stopped, and we marched up to the house, where we saw the master, who came to examine us and gave orders where we were put. [...] Our regular time was from five in the morning till nine or ten at night; and on Saturday, till eleven, and often twelve o'clock at night, and then we were sent to clean the machinery on the Sunday. No time was allowed for breakfast and no sitting for dinner and no time for tea. We went to the mill at five o'clock and worked till about eight or nine when they brought us our breakfast, [...] We then worked till nine or ten at night when the water-wheel stopped. We stopped working, and went to the apprentice house, about three hundred yards from the mill. It was a large stone house, surrounded by a wall, two to three yards high, with one door, which was kept locked. It was capable of lodging about one hundred and fifty apprentices. Supper was the same as breakfast - onion porridge and dry oatcake. We all ate in the same room and all went up a common staircase to our bed-chamber; all the boys slept in one chamber, all the girls in another. We slept three in one bed. [...] Mr. Needham, the master, had five sons: Frank, Charles, Samuel, Robert and John. The sons and a man named Swann, the overlooker, used to go up and down the mill with hazzle sticks. Frank once beat me till he frightened himself. He thought he had killed me. He had struck me on the temples and knocked me dateless. He once knocked me down and threatened me with a stick. To save my head I raised my arm, which he then hit with all his might. My elbow was broken. I bear the marks, and suffer pain from it to this day, and always shall as long as I live. I was determined to let the gentleman of the Bethnal Green parish know the treatment we had, and I wrote a letter with John Oats and put it into the Tydeswell Post Office. It was broken open and given to old Needham. He beat us with a knob-stick till we could scarcely crawl. Sometime after this three gentlemen came down from London. But before we were examined we were washed and cleaned up and ordered to tell them we liked working at the mill and were well treated. Needham and his sons were in the room at the time. They asked us questions about our treatment, which we answered as we had been told, not daring to do any other, knowing what would happen if we told them the truth."

In case there were any surviving family members, the children were sometimes deported without their knowledge. In 1849, Sarah Carpenter related the story of her lost brother who was taken away from Bristol Workhouse to The Ashton Chronicle (source):

When I was eight years old my father died and our family had to go to the Bristol Workhouse. My brother was sent from Bristol workhouse in the same way as many other children were - cart-loads at a time. My mother did not know where he was for two years. He was taken off in the dead of night without her knowledge, and the parish officers would never tell her where he was. It was the mother of Joseph Russell who first found out where the children were, and told my mother. We set off together, my mother and I, we walked the whole way from Bristol to Cressbrook Mill in Derbyshire. We were many days on the road. Mrs. Newton fondled over my mother when we arrived. [...] My brother told me that Mrs. Newton's fondling was all a blind; but I was so young and foolish, and so glad to see him again; that I did not heed what he said, and could not be persuaded to leave him. They would not let me stay unless I would take the shilling binding money. I took the shilling and I was very proud of it. They took me into the counting house and showed me a piece of paper with a red sealed horse on which they told me to touch, and then to make a cross, which I did. This meant I had to stay at Cressbrook Mill till I was twenty one.

So, if the situation in the Lies of P universe in any way resembles that during the real-life 19th century, and if these street children are in any way smart, I think it's very understandable they'd want to stay the hell away from the workhouse or any similar institution. Of course, it would be easy to attribute this to laziness, but honestly, I'd say they just wanted to avoid the abuse. (You could pose the question whether there are even any lowly paid jobs for children to do in the LoP universe, since a lot of those were probably taken over by puppets. However, if you ask me, that might only lead to employers trying to underbid the price that puppet laborers would cost, which would lead to serious wage cuts for any human workers - we know there was a violent protest of the factory labor union, which might have happened for a reason like this. Also, I reckon the puppet industry itself would create new branches of "dirty work", like recycling parts from scrapped puppets, disposing of puppet junk, etc.)

In fact, these harrowing stories happen to have quite a few parallels to the original fairy tale of Pinocchio. Did you notice? The children are taken away in coaches and carts, in a way that conceals their presence (e.g. in a covered cart or in the dead of the night), which is very reminiscent of the Coachman picking up boys at night (in the book, the coach is described as having wrapped wheels, so it doesn't make noise and can't be discovered). At first, the children are told they can make a fortune by working in the textile mills and will have plenty of time for leisure - in A memoir of Robert Blincoe from 1828, it's even mentioned they tried to lure children into working in a cotton mill by telling them that "they would be transformed into ladies and gentlemen" when they arrived there, that "they would be fed on roast beef and plum pudding, be allowed to ride their masters' horses, and have silver watches, and plenty of cash in their pockets". This sounds quite similar to the Coachman promising the boys unlimited play time and freedom if they come with him to the Land of Toys. However, as both the pauper apprentice children and the boys from Pinocchio had to realize, all of this was a fraud to exploit them for what is essentially slave labor.

This also suggests that with his depiction of the Land of Toys, Carlo Collodi was doing more than just telling a horror story to scare kids into behaving. He was commenting on a real-life problem - and this, exactly this, is what Collodi wanted to warn his young readers about. In that sense, the boys turning into donkeys might also be a metaphor for what their employers saw them as: livestock, to be used and abused as they pleased.

Because the living conditions of workhouse children were so appalling, there was clamor for change, specifically among the reformist middle class. It was argued that orphans and destitute children should be housed in an institution meant exclusively for them, rather than together with criminals, cripples, and lunatics. The movement really began to pick up speed in mid-19th century, and many orphanages were founded by private benefactors and philanthropists. One of the most influential was Thomas John Barnardo, the founder of the charity Barnardos, who built homes for waifs, strays, and all kinds of children in need to provide them with a place to live, food, and education.

In general, there was an effort to make education accessible to even the lowest classes. Sunday Schools and Ragged Schools were established, which allowed poor children to take classes without having to pay a fee, giving them more opportunities in later life. However, the parents of working-class children were often against them going to school, since it meant that they couldn't work to earn additional income for the family. This is why attending school was made mandatory for all children between 5 and 10 in 1870, with the leaving age being raised to 11 in 1893. (This is also what Carlo Collodi meant by saying "for the love of God, get yourself some education" - because if you didn't, you would be stuck in a circle of bone-breaking labor forever.)

The Monad Charity House fits quite well into this historical frame: We do know that the Rose Estate was originally a charity organization for poor children, but was turned into a boarding school after Lady Isabelle and the Monad family started sponsoring money. Since charities for poor children are a phenomenon of the mid- to late-19th century, it's possible the situation was a lot worse before in the Lies of P universe as well. Romeo might not have gone there willingly (perhaps he was caught during one of his thefts), and truth be told, Victorian schools weren't the most rosy of affairs (if you'd like to know the details, feel free to check out this page). However, given what could've been his fate, Romeo probably considered himself lucky to be alive and not exploited by someone else for donkey work. (Still, one thing that should be kept in mind is that the Alchemists' patronage of the Rose Estate probably isn't based on purely altruistic motives: Since all of the children are trained as Stalkers, Alchemists, or Workshop Technicians, all of them ultimately become part of Krat's economic apparatus.)

It seems almost miraculous that two boys coming from such different worlds would develop such a strong bond. However, despite this, they had one experience in common: pain. Although the way in which they suffered might have differed, they both knew what it's like to be abandoned. Romeo had to grow up in a society that didn't care whether he lived or died, and since all Carlo ever received from his father was scrutiny or cold ignorance, he probably felt the same about him. Living in a cruel world where the odds were stacked against them, it's easy to see why these kindred souls sought comfort in each other.

In any case, if the untold backstory of these characters was crafted with this in mind, my sincerest compliments go to the people of Neowiz for not only taking such a nuanced approach to child education in a historical context, but also for doing so with respect to the original story by Carlo Collodi. It may be really subtle at times, but you can't deny how much effort the devs put into the themes - themes that are so universal to human psychology that they continue to be relevant today, and undoubtedly made the story resonate with a lot of people.

[violetlunette]

Well, the playland event is over and I am both happy and sad that we didn't get to see a TWST version of the Coachman. On one hand, I wanted to see him sexy-fied. On the other hand, I don't think TWST would be able to do his evil justice. (Plus if HE of all characters got away with just a slap on the wrist, I would legit riot.)

I drew him in a fairly simple outfit as I imagine he tries to disguise himself as the every man. He's the guy that's everyone's friend, the average joe everyone knows and can trust--until he reveals his true nature which is basically the devil.

[yourlocalsimpsonsandsanriofan]

"They never come back... as BOYS!!!!"

-The Coachman (Pinocchio 1940)

[casinotrio1965]

Disney Descendants : Fern Coachman

The Adult VK Daughter Of The Coachman From Pinocchio 1940 and Childhood BFF Of Alice From Alice in Wonderland 1951 before Auradon was Founded . Later Gains 2 younger siblings who were born on the isle of the lost named , Warren and Gardena who were tragically murdered by their father .

Fern, Daughter of The Coachman Description - Hates her dad. Works for Hades. BFFs with Alice. Crush on Panic. Awkward when dealing with people who know her dad. Just wants to feel okay. Good with tools and working with her hands. Super curious and loves to read.

Fern's backstory -Fern grew up with the Coachman. To this day she has no idea what the situation was with her mother and she saw him go from a loser to a nightmare and that scares her really bad. She’s not sure he’s still human . For a long time he made her help him lure people in - children trust other children - and kept her away from them once they got to pleasure island. She finally couldn't stand it anymore and ran away. She survived on her own for a while and promised whoever was listening she'd serve them forever if they'd help her. Luckily for her, Hades was listening.

Young Fern by @antonellacat1098

Adult Fern With Her Husband , Panic by @korkocartoons

Fern Coachman Mood Boards by @hannahhook7744

[darkest-disney-project]

👦🏻➡️🫏

I’ve been wondering about this all my life

Is The coachman turning them into donkeys or is he exploiting the island’s ability to turn them into donkeys

Part of me is actually leaning towards island but another part of me thinks that it’s the coachman

I did this post twice cause I wanted to add another option

[ai-kan1]

Stares into distance...

Rn laying in my bed thinking about if i should draw something for bunnyFes or just be delulu and draw junoace mermaids 🧍🧍🧍

I do have a Junbun design i did few days ago, his mullet looks shorter bcs i think it would be cute if he tried to pin the hair up to look shorter,,,

But also thought of drawing junoace mermaids,, i could do design for juno where he was a deep sea merman luminescent drops over his body like stars in the sky....

[vampiremeerkat]

What are your thoughts on the Coachman from Pinocchio? I think he's a lot like Frollo, as in he's also a Disney villain who doesn't have any comedic scenes, making him feel more serious as a character (although he's still clearly more cartoony than Frollo).

There's never been a character in history that's occupied my mind less. But, he is one of the few -if not only- successful Disney villains. He got away with his crimes. In a world where an all-powerful fairy exists, guess none of those donkeyfied children or their heartbroken parents wished hard enough to get their happy ending. Too bad, so sad. Luckily a wooden toy that had no business being alive in the first place was well taken care of.

[annaberunoyume]

Let's see:

Tricks you into becoming a slave of your primitive urges and then collects you and condemns you to a life of slavery? CHECK.

Takes extra pleasure in stripping you naked of your clothes and thus making it impossible to return to your mama? CHECK.

Deceptively sweet-looking? CHECK.

Ruins a fruitful business well-hidden and from which the mere mention makes any other villain tremble and sweat? CHECK.

Is a clever metaphor for how easy men can fall prey to their urges? CHECK.

NEVER GOT CAUGHT? CHECK!

HANDS DOWN, THE BEST DISNEY VILAIN EVER! All the other can leave the competition!

[sillyewe]

here-be-dragons-and-whatnot challenged me to a Disney Redraw Challenge. She chose this scene of the coachman from Pinocchio and his infamous scary smile.

This was a lot of fun to draw and then paint. This was also an opportunity to try out some new brushes, new overlay textures, and use the brushes to blend instead of blenders for some parts.

[punster-2319]

BONUSES:

Movie scenes that were terrifying as a child:

Anastasia (1997) - The nightmare scene

All Dogs Go to Heaven (1996) - Charlie’s nightmare 

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) - The child catcher 

The Little Mermaid (1989) - Ursula’s garden of souls 

Willy Wonka (1971) - The tunnel scene

Coraline (2009) - The entire movie 

Monster House (2006) -  Constance’s story 

Matilda (1996) - The Chokey 

[violetlunette]

Twst spoilers for Stage Playland

I think it’s so funny and a testament to the coachman’s character that more than 75 percent of the fandom is praying he doesn’t show up in twst for the simple fact they’re scared of him. And we’re all 16 and up here. Keep in mind, this guy only has less than ten minutes of scene time in Pinocchio and hardly ever shows up outside of the film. Even those who never saw the guy fear him by reputation or are like, “I don’t wanna meet him.” Hell, the moment it was mentioned the next TWST event everyone was “Yay!” And “Oh no!” I swear, if a TWST version of the coachman actually shows up, more than half the fanbase is going to go into cardiac arrest. (Okay, a bit dramatic, but still.) Again, I think it’s funny how we’re all so traumatized by a villain from the 1940s that the mere thought he may show up has us all going, “Oh fuck.”

[viviennevermillion]

Theory about Fellow's backstory:

Some things I'd like to bring to your attention:

Fellow states that he wasted a few more years than the NRC students and slid non-committally through life until he was over 20 and became "employed"

Playful Land has recently become a trend and a fabled place everyone wants to go to. So far we have no information on what the amusement park was like before it became popular, so it might not have existed for that long

Fellow, while being the manager of Playful Land, clearly has a boss who threatens to cut his and Gidel's salary and he doesn't seem to get along very well with his superiors, even seems to hate them as he implies they are the rich people he appears to despise.

Gidel seems interested in going to a school

Now, I haven't personally seen Pinocchio except during my very early childhood, but I have looked up Honest John and apparently he has a boss called the Coachman and according to the wikia Honest John even sympathizes with Pinocchio and reacts with horror to the Coachman's plans to enslave the children

Fellow seems enraged when the topic of money is brought up and Yuu asks him if he does all this "just" for money and he talks about the students going to school as though they are very privileged etc.

This is still a Disney game and Fellow will likely get a card next year the same way Rollo did, which means he needs to be marketable. He's already marketed as the pretty new villain. They could still surprise me but for now I find it rather unlikely that they'll make Fellow a full-on human trafficker out of his own free will for the sake of evilling or some petty revenge / self-hatred reason

So my take so far is that Fellow is going to be the villain we deal with in this event just how Rollo has been but he is NOT the big bad of this amusement park scam. Taking all of this into consideration, I think Fellow is very much complicit in the crimes committed in this event but likely not of his own free will. So far, from what we know about him and assuming Disney won't go as far as make him an irredeemable human trafficker (they might but I still find it unlikely), he reads like someone who is trapped in what we call a "Knebelvertrag" (literal translation: 'gag contract') in my language; i.e. an unequal and unfair contract aiming to (1) create a power imbalance between the victim and the party that benefits from the contract, (2) restrict the victim in their autonomy to make free decisions, (3) make it difficult for the victim to refuse entering the contract, (4) make it even more difficult for them to exit the contract and often (5) make them dependent on the contract.

My theory is that Fellow was one of the first people they trafficked and he is likely useful enough for his superiors to employ him rather than to give him the puppet treatment. He might have had to choose between working for them or being turned into a puppet and sold. He might be responsible for them sparing Gidel from the puppet treatment as well.

Fellow was likely poor and apparently never went to a school from the looks of it. He might have been an orphan or from a bad home and in general the prime victim for human trafficking: someone very few people would look for if he went missing. I suspect that the fact that they can now pull this shit with students from a prestigious school and famous people is due to Fellow's magic and is a development that only happened AFTER he started working there, which explains the recent spike in popularity of Playful Land and that no one investigated them despite all this.

I can imagine there being a lot of brainwashing from the superiors involved such as:

making him feel like he can't survive without this job

making him hate the children who come to Playful Land because they're these privileged people who have what Fellow could never have had growing up

making him believe he can't cut ties with Playful Land without like, the superiors finding him and taking him out of the picture

making him feel like no one would believe him if he asked for help

Again, this is all based on the assumption that he's gonna get a sad backstory like Rollo. The other option would be to make him our first irredeemable villain.

The topic of this event is way heavier and more serious than stripping people of their magic power; it's human trafficking, a horrifying crime that actually exists in our world and if they want to make Fellow someone we can sympathize with they're gonna have to give him one hell of a backstory. "He suffered a loss and is full of self-hatred or jealousy" isn't going to cut it this time. Having him suffer with the guilt about his actions isn't going to cut it this time. Because this is not a mentally ill 18-year-old who's taking people's magic away, this is a fully grown adult man working for a human trafficking scam.

THIS on the other hand is realistic. These circumstances are tied to the topic of human trafficking and this would make more sense as a backstory for Fellow than anything else I can come up with for now. Sure you have the kids who are being held hostage and sold but that's just one facet of the whole thing. Not every case of trafficking is a prisoner in a shady cellar. Some of them are people who are in exploitative contracts and coerced and feel like they can't leave without severely endangering their lives.

Not saying Fellow is a victim or a poor little meow meow because at this point we still have no idea where they'll go with the rest of the story, they might just make him petty and evil. But if they'll take the sympathetic route, this is what makes sense for me as his backstory without making it feel like he got off too easily or like the story excuses his behavior.

For all I know he could just turn out to be complicit in human trafficking because he never got any chances and thinks the privileged kids deserve this and we could just beat him up and throw him in prison but that'd be a first for this game.

Anyway, what do you guys think Fellow's backstory will be?

[punster-2319]

Based on his reaction when the Coachman mentioned Pleasure Island, I’m guessing he was either acting tough or he considers Pleasure Island to be a fate worse than death.

So, when Honest John asks the Coachman if he needs him to kill people (which he implies by sliding his finger across his throat), does that imply he normally takes on murder jobs? He seemed so easy and casual about it, so either he’s acting tougher than he is or this means he actually does kill people.

These are the important questions.