Pixars "The Good Dinosaur Toys".

[Shadowknight1]

Nice artwork, although it doesn't look like it would suit Pixar's style. I'm pretty happy with what we have now.

I agree.  While that artwork may be more appealing, it isn't exactly Pixar style.

[LophoLeeVT]

wow awesome pic! love the coulors!

[CityRaptor]

That pic looks A LOT more appealing.  The Tyrannoaurus family even has feathers.  But if you read the link name, you will notice that this is fanart.

[Silvanusaurus]

Nice artwork, although it doesn't look like it would suit Pixar's style. I'm pretty happy with what we have now.

I agree.  While that artwork may be more appealing, it isn't exactly Pixar style.

This kind of thought process doesn't make any sense, it was never the visual style of pixar's films that defined them as great or made them as enjoyable as they are, and the aesthetic design style of the characters and worlds in their films should not be dependent on an adherence to a pre-defined 'style' anyway, that's the sort of outlook that leads to stagnation in any art form. Even classic Disney cartoons had variation in the specific visual style in the different films.
Besides this, in my opinion, the style they've gone with is more of a diversion from what i'd have expected from Pixar, which is why when I first saw the final designs I found them quite shocking, because a lot of them look closer to something from a low-budget childrens tv show than a sophisticated animation from the same people who created films like Finding Nemo and Wall-E. The design in almost all of their other films is relatively much more refined, cohesive and 'real' than what I've seen of this film (particularly in terms of animals), and when combined with the inconsistency of them in comparison to select other visual elements within the film (e.g. other non-dinosaur animals), it shows what I feel to be a severe drop in stylistic consideration. (Note that I am not talking about how 'realistic' something looks, I'm talking about whether the design cohesively makes the world and characters seem believable, and artistic consideration beyond 'let's make everything look as goofy and derpy as is conceivably possible, because children!')

[tyrantqueen]

Besides this, in my opinion, the style they've gone with is more of a diversion from what i'd have expected from Pixar, which is why when I first saw the final designs I found them quite shocking, because a lot of them look closer to something from a low-budget childrens tv show than a sophisticated animation from the same people who created films like Finding Nemo and Wall-E.

I personally find the animation to be gorgeous and lush looking. I've always been a sucker for big bambi eyes on characters.

To me the animation style is the same as previous Pixar films. Particularly the eyes. I think they're sort of a Pixar trademark.







I'm thinking of adding this thread to my ignore list to be honest. The Dinosaur Police have already decided the film is going to be bad because they don't like the way the characters look or because they're not accurate.

[MLMjp]

I'm thinking of adding this thread to my ignore list to be honest. The Dinosaur Police have already decided the film is going to be bad because they don't like the way the characters look or because they're not accurate.

The Dinosaur Police!!

Yes. There´s definitely something like that.

Even ourselves are part of it sometimes

[stargatedalek]

I feel like these go further than most Pixar characterization. In Finding Nemo you can tell they are characterized versions of fish, but these don't look like characterized versions of dinosaurs. Rather they look like characterized versions of dinosaur tropes.

[CityRaptor]

Compare them to their real counterparts. The fish in Finding Nemo are still pretty much proportioned like they are supposed to be, with the Bruce probably being the greatest offender.
Meanwhile the Pixarsaurs resemble those they are meant to be only vaguely. Sauropods even have two sets of hindlegs...

Speaking of the scenario this is based on, just today I saw a popular science magazin with an article on alternate histories. They claimed that the big fellows would still be extinct by now, being wiped out by humans. Totally ignoring that humans would not even have evolved if they were still around.

[TomWToyForum]

*snip*
For what it's actually worth, the graphics we could have gotten.

No, this isn't. This is a piece of fan art inspired by the current product. I really don't think it's fair to say it's something "we could have gotten" unless this kind of style was actually planned for.

[stargatedalek]

I was just trying to poke a little fun, I wasn't being serious. I agree that isn't at all in Pixars typical style, although I don't think what we are getting is particularly in the typical style anyway.

I stand by my other completely serious statement however when I say these don't look like characterizations of dinosaurs, but rather characterizations of tropes, and that is why I dislike the movies art direction.

[postsaurischian]

Because it's about modern Dinosaurs we should dicuss the accuracy problems in the upcoming Angry Birds movie .
..... I'm sure there will be some.

[stargatedalek]

The difference is that the general public is aware of what birds look like, whereas little kids watching The Good Dinosaur might go to school the next day and say Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers because they saw it in a movie. All through school I dealt with kids and even teachers claiming feathered dinosaurs weren't real because no movies ever had them. I actually had a teacher cite Land before Time as source material...

Just for fun though, no birds have true teeth and their beaks aren't flexible enough to bend.

[CityRaptor]

This makes me wonder how many people would be eaten because they think standing still in front of a Tyrannosaurus is a good idea...

But yes, people basing their "Dinosaur knowledge" on movies is a real problem.

[Silvanusaurus]

I genuinely find it disturbing that the two eyes of this creature must be touching each other inside it's head, a head in which they must also be the only contents... I can't not think about that when I see it... This is the kind of design which might work in a Hanna Barbera cartoon, but when it's rendered as a three dimensional 'living' creature in a realistic looking world, it looks deeply unpleasant.
Clearly pixar normally utilises stylisation of shapes and anatomy, but this just seems like they took it several steps too far, and it's got nothing to do with being an accurate dinosaur or not. My entire family, whose knowledge of dinosaurs doesn't extend beyond Jurassic Park, expressed severe distaste for the look of the characters in this, and we have loved almost all the previous films from Pixar without ever questioning the visual style, so that's really saying something. It's great for the many people who will enjoy it without questioning the style, but it's definitely not quite in line with what pixar have done before, if it was, it wouldn't get this kind of reaction purely based on promotional images.

[alexeratops]

Because it's about modern Dinosaurs we should dicuss the accuracy problems in the upcoming Angry Birds movie .
..... I'm sure there will be some.

Off topic... I'm really happy that this movie is coming out. Angry birds was my elementary school obsession and it brings back good memories.

[tyrantqueen]

I genuinely find it disturbing that the two eyes of this creature must be touching each other inside it's head, a head in which they must also be the only contents... I can't not think about that when I see it... This is the kind of design which might work in a Hanna Barbera cartoon, but when it's rendered as a three dimensional 'living' creature in a realistic looking world, it looks deeply unpleasant.
Clearly pixar normally utilises stylisation of shapes and anatomy, but this just seems like they took it several steps too far, and it's got nothing to do with being an accurate dinosaur or not. My entire family, whose knowledge of dinosaurs doesn't extend beyond Jurassic Park, expressed severe distaste for the look of the characters in this, and we have loved almost all the previous films from Pixar without ever questioning the visual style, so that's really saying something. It's great for the many people who will enjoy it without questioning the style, but it's definitely not quite in line with what pixar have done before, if it was, it wouldn't get this kind of reaction purely based on promotional images.

And I'm not bothered by it at all. Personally I'm more creeped out by Nemo's dad's creepy lips and human like facial wrinkles.

[Shadowknight1]

Just going by looks, I think the T-rex trio are probably my favorites.

[Gwangi]

I genuinely find it disturbing that the two eyes of this creature must be touching each other inside it's head, a head in which they must also be the only contents... I can't not think about that when I see it... This is the kind of design which might work in a Hanna Barbera cartoon, but when it's rendered as a three dimensional 'living' creature in a realistic looking world, it looks deeply unpleasant.
Clearly pixar normally utilises stylisation of shapes and anatomy, but this just seems like they took it several steps too far, and it's got nothing to do with being an accurate dinosaur or not. My entire family, whose knowledge of dinosaurs doesn't extend beyond Jurassic Park, expressed severe distaste for the look of the characters in this, and we have loved almost all the previous films from Pixar without ever questioning the visual style, so that's really saying something. It's great for the many people who will enjoy it without questioning the style, but it's definitely not quite in line with what pixar have done before, if it was, it wouldn't get this kind of reaction purely based on promotional images.

And I'm not bothered by it at all. Personally I'm more creeped out by Nemo's dad's creepy lips and human like facial wrinkles.

I was most bothered by the hammerhead shark's eyes and snout sticking out the end of its face on a stalk.

[Tyrannosauron]

The difference is that the general public is aware of what birds look like, whereas little kids watching The Good Dinosaur might go to school the next day and say Tyrannosaurus didn't have feathers because they saw it in a movie. All through school I dealt with kids and even teachers claiming feathered dinosaurs weren't real because no movies ever had them. I actually had a teacher cite Land before Time as source material...

Holy socks, there are people who actually think that "if it's real then it will have been in a movie" constitutes an argument?

...holy socks, I've never been in a movie. Am *I* not real?

[CityRaptor]

Yes, that is a real problem when people get their "knowledge" from movies. You know, the uneducated public.