Pixar's "The Good Dinosaur"

[Balaur]

I wouldn't write the film off at all based on this info..I really want to see it first.  Pixar really does some great films, the subject of dinosaurs being one so close to my heart I think do it justice..if not in a super-accurate detailed way, certainly in the spirit. 

I did like the Rex ( which was JP-ish ) from Meet The Robinsons...I can deal with that quality.

TQ, you really should watch UP..I didn't think much of the trailer, but I loved the movie.

I agree. Up was fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[scallenger]

So apparently the director is being replaced. Not sure what this means for the movie now.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/63925

[Takama]

So apparently the director is being replaced. Not sure what this means for the movie now.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/63925

Not much,    previuos pixar films had issues with production but they always come out fine.   I would not worry about it

[SBell]

So apparently the director is being replaced. Not sure what this means for the movie now.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/63925

Not much,    previuos pixar films had issues with production but they always come out fine.   I would not worry about it

I know that the film has a different take--it's soooo not a science oriented film, and uses a pretty weak excuse to put dinosaurs and people together (apparently Flintsones' licenses were expensive?). But given this screen shot:



I can wait. A long time. Maybe the 3rd time Disney forges ahead with a dino movie it will turn out good.

[CityRaptor]

So in around another decade...

Yep, this can only end horrible. Especially given the track record Pixar and Disney ( who owns Pixar ) have with Dinosaurs.

And what track record is that? Disney has made only one dinosaur movie, Pixar was not attached to that film. Other than that we have a scene in "Fantasia" that includes dinosaurs which was actually really good. That's it...hardly a track record.

Well, asides from this one and the Lemur-infected one, there was also the laughing stock T.rex in that Robinson Movie, but he was atleast competent enough to see that he was not suited for that mission.  And then there was Rex in Toy Story. Seriously, how did a Dino Riders T.rex end like that? Unless Woody is like the Revoltech Version, which is one creepy toy...
Ofcourse opinions vary regarding those attempts , and I accept that, but I don't like those....

So yes, I think that this film will be terrible. No offense to those who think it will be good.

[Gwangi]

So in around another decade...

Yep, this can only end horrible. Especially given the track record Pixar and Disney ( who owns Pixar ) have with Dinosaurs.

And what track record is that? Disney has made only one dinosaur movie, Pixar was not attached to that film. Other than that we have a scene in "Fantasia" that includes dinosaurs which was actually really good. That's it...hardly a track record.

Well, asides from this one and the Lemur-infected one, there was also the laughing stock T.rex in that Robinson Movie, but he was atleast competent enough to see that he was not suited for that mission.  And then there was Rex in Toy Story. Seriously, how did a Dino Riders T.rex end like that? Unless Woody is like the Revoltech Version, which is one creepy toy...
Ofcourse opinions vary regarding those attempts , and I accept that, but I don't like those....

So yes, I think that this film will be terrible. No offense to those who think it will be good.

I'm sorry but it looks like you're grasping at straws here. "Toy Story" and "Meet the Robinsons" don't really qualify. The "Toy Story" rex is supposed to represent a toy, not an actual dinosaur. While it certainly appears to have been inspired by the Tyco Tyrannosaurus I don't think they wanted to rip it off completely. As for "Meet the Robinsons". I've never seen it. From what I can tell it looks like what it is, a children's movie. The dinosaur looks about as accurate as the humans. Also, "Toy Story" was a great movie and an example of how good a children's movie (especially by Pixar) can be without looking realistic at all.

I'm as much a dinosaur fan-boy as anyone else but I'm sorry, I cannot discount this movie with so little to go by. I'm also a movie fan and even if this film fails at accurately portraying dinosaurs I might just enjoy it for what it is, a children's movie.

I just

[Hermes888]

I completely agree with Gwangi here, already assuming this film will be terrible is just ridiculous.
Pixar has a really good track record, and I trust that they'll make an entertaining film at the very least. Maybe it won't be accurate scientifically, but that's like complaining about the lack of realism in Cars or Finding Nemo.
Quite frankly, Rex isn't supposed to be accurate. He's a toy. He may not be a Chinasaur, but it's not like Pixar was trying to make him part of the Carnegie Collection.

[scallenger]

See, the difference between a movie like this and, let's say, a movie like Walking With Dinosaurs 3D, is that it is NOT a documentary. It is a movie made purely for story and entertainment, almost like Jurassic Park (seriously). What that means to me is... accuracy and complete realism don't HAVE to apply. Because it is really about the story. So the way the dinosaurs look in all of these animated kid films, including this one... why would anyone expect them to look realistic at all? If it is already a stylized film, like the different varieties of the toy designs in Toy Story, why would it look like a realistic dinosaur? It would look like a typical toy dinosaur you would find in the 90s (when the original came out), and we all know there were plenty of goofy dinosaur toys to go around. And this film, if it really does stick to these character designs, clearly is sticking to a certain style of an animated world. Sure, they could have gone the Finding Nemo route and made them look more realistic. But instead they chose a style that looks more like that Bob The Dinosaur art I posted in this thread. Maybe it truly is intentional, in trying to be nostalgic with this kind of art? Since no one will ever truly know dinosaur colors and designs and etc... maybe they decided it was best to just go this route and not be bothered by it since documentary films (again, like Walking With Dinosaurs) tackle this kind of animation struggles every time one gets made. Perhaps they just wanted to bring us something... different.

Not that I am supporting the film. This news of a new director is an eye-opener. As mentioned, this happened to Brave, and it was still a good film, I thought. But how does one know if it was better or worse than it would have been without changes? Perhaps Brave could have been a lot better if they would have just left it alone? A story from a singular vision is almost always better than someone stepping in to take over. I'm not sure how much will change... but I may bet right now that they may delay this film. Let's see.

[tyrantqueen]

So in around another decade...

Yep, this can only end horrible. Especially given the track record Pixar and Disney ( who owns Pixar ) have with Dinosaurs.

And what track record is that? Disney has made only one dinosaur movie, Pixar was not attached to that film. Other than that we have a scene in "Fantasia" that includes dinosaurs which was actually really good. That's it...hardly a track record.

Well, asides from this one and the Lemur-infected one, there was also the laughing stock T.rex in that Robinson Movie, but he was atleast competent enough to see that he was not suited for that mission.  And then there was Rex in Toy Story. Seriously, how did a Dino Riders T.rex end like that? Unless Woody is like the Revoltech Version, which is one creepy toy...
Ofcourse opinions vary regarding those attempts , and I accept that, but I don't like those....

So yes, I think that this film will be terrible. No offense to those who think it will be good.

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion...but you should have a little more faith in Pixar Nearly all of their movies may have been aimed at kids, but there has always been an element to them that is deeper than that, which the adults can enjoy and appreciate.

On the surface, Toy Story 3 looks like a funny movie about toys brought to life. And you can see it that way if you want. But I think there is a deeper meaning to it- there were themes like the loss of innocence that adults can appreciate. A lot of people said that they cried in the cinema when it was released. In Toy Story 2 there was that poignant scene where Jessie was abandoned and dumped by her owner who had outgrown her.

Just because a film is aimed at kids doesn't mean it has to be shallow fluff.

I can understand not liking the film because it's not realistic. However, I think you're looking at the film in the wrong way. It is not intended to be WWD type story that documents every scientific detail about the dinosaurs' lives. There are some films that go for a stylised look and they still work well. Also, stylising isn't done without reason- Disney designs their characters so that the audience can identify with them. The big eyes make the characters look cute and sympathetic.

From what I can see, this new Pixar dinosaur film is more about the story than about dinosaurs and paleontology. Dinosaurs are only the medium through which the story is told. If the dinosaurs were super realistic, that would hinder the story telling, because dinosaurs can't talk. Plus, the designs look cute and appealing to young children, which is a big demographic for this film.

I'll admit I was a bit put off by the designs of the dinosaurs when I first saw them. But now I can see the style fits pretty well with what the writers intend to convey.

Don't you think the story is set up in a way that would lend itself to some interesting themes? We have a kid who like to hang around with a herd of sauropods. The sauropods look like they have colourful personalities. I think there is potential for some amusing and heartwarming storytelling.

[CityRaptor]

Honestly speaking, the story also does not sound good. And the whole token human thing is rather annoying. Beides, making a new story about a Dinosaur with a Human sidekick is kinda pointless, given that they also could have used Devil Dinosaur instead. Okay, yes, Moon-Boy is not quite Human, but close enough...

As for Rex: With him being some bad toy Dinosaur ( assuming he is actually a knock-off ), his looks are okay, but his personality is not that great.

As for assuming this movie will be terrible: Well Disneysaur looked pretty good at first, but we all know how it turned out. Now this one looks terrible to begin with, from both aspects, Design and Story.

Maybe it is just not my cup of tea.

[tyrantqueen]

Honestly speaking, the story also does not sound good. And the whole token human thing is rather annoying.

I would assume that this kid is intended to be an audience surrogate. A young child that people in the audience can relate to.

As for assuming this movie will be terrible: Well Disneysaur looked pretty good at first, but we all know how it turned out. Now this one looks terrible to begin with, from both aspects, Design and Story.

Dinosaur wasn't made by Pixar, it was made by Disney. And honestly, I think that WWD: In Name Only has more of a chance of being bad. I trust in Pixar's reputation to deliver something good. But I guess that's just me.

As for Rex: With him being some bad toy Dinosaur ( assuming he is actually a knock-off ), his looks are okay, but his personality is not that great.

He's just supposed to be a generic toy dinosaur. Everyone has those cheap chinasaur toys when they're growing up. And I guess his personality is pretty lame, but that's kind of the point. He's kind of ironic.

[CityRaptor]

I would assume that this kid is intended to be an audience surrogate. A young child that people in the audience can relate to.

The whole "Most Writers are Human" trope...yet Pixar managed to not need humans in Cars. So a movie about Dinosaurs needs human characters, but one about machines does not?

Dinosaur wasn't made by Pixar, it was made by Disney. And honestly, I think that WWD: In Name Only has more of a chance of being bad. I trust in Pixar's reputation to deliver something good. But I guess that's just me.

Well, Pixar is owned by Disney...and WWD3D atleast is visually appealing, even if it seems to have some flaws.

He's just supposed to be a generic toy dinosaur. Everyone has those cheap chinasaur toys when they're growing up. And I guess his personality is pretty lame, but that's kind of the point. He's kind of ironic.

Well, he comes off as a cowardly scavenger.  Especially the cowardly part.
If they wanted to be ironic, they should have made him a Gentleman or something...

[tyrantqueen]

Well, he comes off as a cowardly scavenger.  Especially the cowardly part.
If they wanted to be ironic, they should have made him a Gentleman or something...

He's supposed to be ironic because he is a Tyrannosaurus rex- a dinosaur which has a reputation for being large, frightening and ferocious. Yet, he is timid and can't roar in a convincing manner.

The whole "Most Writers are Human" trope...yet Pixar managed to not need humans in Cars. So a movie about Dinosaurs needs human characters, but one about machines does not?

They behave in a human manner, do they not? They feel emotions, they are able to speak, and even inhabit a world that is similar to our own. I was actually referring to an audience surrogate, a character is specifically intended for the audience to insert themselves into. They don't necessarily have to be human.

Well, Pixar is owned by Disney...and WWD3D atleast is visually appealing, even if it seems to have some flaws.

I believe there is more to a film than pretty visuals. If "The Good Dinosaur" tells a better story, then I will favour it over WWD. Visuals don't make a film, character development and story do.

From what I've seen, WWD is pretty lame too. It's sporting just as many cliches as Pixar's film, why don't you complain about those too?
Let's see:

-Main character is the runt of the litter, who grows up to be a hero
-Carnivores are evil (Gorgosaurus)
-Cute furry animal as a sidekick/comedic relief
-Herd migrating/going a journey to the "Promised Land" (akin to Land Before Time)
-Main character getting an injury during childhood (scars are cheesy)

All I'm saying is...give the film a chance. It's not fair to write it off just because of how it looks (I admit that was my reaction, too, when first seeing it). I am considering getting it on DVD if it is good

[CityRaptor]

He's supposed to be ironic because he is a Tyrannosaurus rex- a dinosaur which has a reputation for being large, frightening and ferocious. Yet, he is timid and can't roar in a convincing manner.

I think having him as a very well behaved Gentleman with a soft voice would have been funnier.

They behave in a human manner, do they not? They feel emotions, they are able to speak, and even inhabit a world that is similar to our own. I was actually referring to an audience surrogate, a character is specifically intended for the audience to insert themselves into. They don't necessarily have to be human.

Given what the know about the Movie, the same holds true for the Dinosaurs. Yet they need that Kid?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The human kid could be for a reason story-wise..Pixar usually likes to touch base with emotions that drive many of us. I could see this child being used to remind us of how we felt toward dinosaurs as a kid.

[Hermes888]

I think attacking Rex from Toy Story is just looking for a way to prematurely claim this film will be bad, sorry CityRaptor.

Walking With Dinosaurs: The 3D Movie may have good-looking dinosaurs, but the story looks completely generic. It's already been done before in many ways. Visuals don't make a film.
Take Avatar for example - sure the film was amazing to see in IMAX 3D, but the story, the characters, it was all very generic. District 9 on the other hand is probably one of the greatest science fiction films of all time, and it had a surprisingly small budget compared to most other blockbuster sci-fi films.
I'll take good storytelling and characterization over visuals any day. Think of all the low-budget classics we still remember today!

As TyrantQueen said, Pixar has a great method of appealing to both children and adults. I know adults who cried over the opening of Up! or the trash compactor scene in Toy Story 3, those are really great moments that not a lot of kids will fully understand. Pixar has a great history of making family films, and I know that at the very least, this film will be an entertaining experience for both kids and adults.
As long as they're not blatantly lying - like mentioning a "second brain" in the sauropods' rear - I have no problem with this not being an accurate film. It's not trying to be.

[CityRaptor]

Well, I also mentioned other examples. But you ignored them due to not directly being Pixar, but Disney, which owns Pixar. As far as I'm concerend, Disney meddles with Pixar, therefore I consider the given examples valid.

That being said, the plot given so far does sound fairly generic, so while the same holds true for WWD3D, that movie atleast looks good, something that can not be said about "The Good Dinosaur".

The Good Dinosaur will probably play out like this:
Ario is an outsider, but manages to befriend Spot. Turns out that Spot's people are in trouble, likely due to either:
a ) farming Dinosaurs taking away their land
b ) feral Theropods hunting them
c ) civilized Theropods hunting them and/or keeping them in meat farms ( bonus points if one of those looks like Talon )
Hunting Dinosaurs is probably some ritual of manhood aswell.
Ario and Spot fix their trouble somehow.

[Gwangi]

Disney may own Pixar but so what? Disney owns a lot. ESPN, ABC, rights to the Marvel Avenger movies and Lucius Films. If Pixar were so heavily influenced by Disney than why weren't they attached to the latest Disney cash grab called "Planes"? Because even though they exist under the larger company of Walt Disney, they're still their own company within. That is why the produce quality movies when Disney often produces crap.

"The Good Dinosaur" may very well ending up being a bad movie but I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt. Until I see it I'm going to assume it can be held to the same high standard as other Pixar films and not discount it based on one Disney movie and two minor characters from two other movies. One of which was a toy! 

[CityRaptor]

Well, it's your opinion. Won't argue with that. I will however remain pessimistic about it.

But  I wonder: Why not just make "Devil Dinosaur: The Movie"?

[Hermes888]

Well, it's your opinion. Won't argue with that. I will however remain pessimistic about it.

But  I wonder: Why not just make "Devil Dinosaur: The Movie"?

Because it's better to make an original film instead of an adaption.