Just for fun, another nerd counterexample.
Consider $I=[-1,1]$.
Take $f_1:I\to \Bbb R$ to be the function whose graph is the upper circle of diameter $I$. Its clear that its length is $\pi$ and it also holds that $|f_1(x)|\le 1$.
Take $f_2:I\to\Bbb R$ to be the function whose graph is
- the upper semicircle of diameter $[-1,0]$
- the upper semicircle of diameter $[0,1]$.
It is also clear that the length of its graph is, another time $\pi$.
Also holds that $|f_2(x)|\le\frac{1}{2}$.
Take $f_3:I\to\Bbb R$ to be the function whose graph is:
- The upper semicircle of diameter $[-1,-1/2]$
- The upper semicircle of diameter $[-1/2,0]$
- The upper semicircle of diameter $[0,1/2]$
- The upper semicircle of diameter $[1/2,1]$
The length of the graph is, another time $\pi$ and $|f_3(x)|\le \frac{1}{2^2}$.
Following inductively this construction, we get a sequence $(f_n(x))_n$ such that the length of its graphs is always $\pi$ but $|f_n(x)|\le\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}$, so $f_n\to0$ uniformly on $I$.
BUT the length of the graph of the limit function isn't $\pi$, but $2$.
PS: One can use this example to make a FALSE proof of the fact that $\pi=2$.