Pixars "The Good Dinosaur Toys".

[Silvanusaurus]

Really? They don't bother me.

I just think they're heavily stylised. I love the Lion King but it's a different style of animation. Neither one is "wrong", like all art it's subjective. I would argue there's actually of lot of thought behind the designs. They seem to be going for the caricature look. Take Arlo for example. His large eyes are obviously meant to be appealing and his oversized legs make him look awkward and endearing. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but it's still a valid form of stylisation. I think the squinty eyed Tyrannosaurus is hilarious. I love what they're doing with him.

Also, Pixar has done heavily deformed/stylised animation before, have you seen the dog from Up? It seems to be a style of animation they're moving towards now.

Btw, there's more to art than just visuals. There is also the story telling and the acting, which we have yet to witness.

I think there's plenty of "ugly" or not visually appealing animals. But I don't care- for me beauty is not necessarily an indicator of worthiness.

But, like I said before, art is subjective, I'm happy to agree to disagree If you don't like the art style it's cool with me.

I appreciate all these points you have raised, it's just my personal preference really. I think A Bug's Life is a good example of similar stylization, and I really don't like it in A Bug's Life either. And make no mistake, I think as a film it could be great and the narrative is the most important thing to me anyway, I was only focusing on visual style because of these toys.

[stargatedalek]

Other than perhaps the beetle none of these are particularly interesting to me, I preferred the other hard plastic figures (namely the Nyctosaurus).

[Paleona]

It's cool to see how much these look like cartoons brought to life, but I agree with Silvanusaurus... most of these designs are just ugly to me.  Particularly that Stego and the very strange Triceratops.  I'm all for stylized dinosaurs, but I'm just not digging these. 

Maybe some of them are supposed to be ugly? Not every animal in real life is beautiful looking.

Its the stylization that is ugly; they have been unnecessarily deformed to the point that they appear as an affront to the human perception of biological reality. See something like the Lion King, in which the animals are stylized cartoons, but still resemble actual animals; i.e. there are no lions with foreheads as tall as their legs, or elephants with trunks coming from their chins and pies for feet. The stegosaurus' head doesnt even resemble that of an animal any more, it looks like someone sculpted a human-eyed frog and then stretched out the clay so that it has a mouth for a chin and a bizarre formless edifice where the rest of face had been. And the 'cute' ones look the worst, as though they've been designed by a blind person whose only knowledge of aesthetics is a vague description of low-budget, early european imitation pixar/dreamworks films.
I know there are many many cartoons with similar deformed designs, but coming from pixar it's a disappointment. And yes this is all just my personal opinion, and no, I'm not actually taking it as seriously as this makes it sound, I'm just an artist who likes to see art-work with more thought behind it than this.
Also, I don't think I've ever seen a real animal that couldnt be described as beautiful, but thats just my perspective.

I think this explanation of the "uncanny valley" and how it applies to animation is a good example of why many of these don't appeal to us: http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/730
The baby Triceratops has that "nightmare fuel" look to it, with the human-esque eyes x_x  (Which yes, I know that is a recurring feature in Pixar's designs; it still seems pretty creepy.  I love Finding Nemo, but even the toys from that look creepy to me.  Some things just look better in motion than still, I guess?)

Anyway, I do enjoy and love certain Pixar films, so we'll see.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Viking Spawn]

The overall look of the characters isn't my cup of tea either.   However, I will reserve my final judgment until after the film's release.  Pixar has released some excellent movies in the past like the Toy Story series & The Incredibles; which are some of my favorite animated titles of all time.   

[Gwangi]

I won't deny their apparent lack of research, but paleontology being what it is they can always fall back on the idea that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If the goal is accuracy then I'd think the bigger problem would be explaining away how dinosaurs with enough intelligence to engage in agriculture are nevertheless anatomically identical to their less-intelligent forebears. If you're willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept that a sauropod could have a functional larynx then it shouldn't take too much more to accept some of the other (clearly more economically-driven) choices.

In any event, I agree that it's worth getting excited over the movie's release. Hopefully this is more of an "Wall-E"-type Pixar movie and less of a "Cars 2"-type Pixar movie.

Talking, farming dinosaurs don't bother me because that's a plot device for the story Pixar is telling. I can suspend disbelief on those points because it's necessary. Elephant feet on sauropods are not plot devices, I'm not even sure they're creative choices. And while one can argue that anatomical accuracy in a talking dinosaur flick is not necessary I would still argue that an attention to those details would have been appreciated by those of us who take interest in these things.

"Finding Nemo" did it right more or less. Dory is a blue tang (Paracanthurus hepatus), a species of fish that feeds on plankton and algae. When her character is asked by the sharks when was the last time she ate a fish she proclaims "I don't think I've ever eaten a fish". This is clever, because the species of fish being asked does not in fact eat fish! The general audience will see it as a joke. People "in the know" will appreciate little details like this. Remember the song about the zones of the ocean sung by the ray? That's factually sound information! "The Good Dinosaur" could have been equally clever, by giving their sauropods anatomically accurate limbs. By NOT giving a Styracosaurus brow horns. By feathering their Tyrannosaurus. By not designing a half-plucked Velociraptor. By only including late Cretaceous dinosaurs instead of dinosaurs that died out over 80 million years prior to Tyrannosaurus! Are these things needed to tell the story? Of course not. I'm just saying it would have been a nice touch and those sorts of clever touches are what makes Pixar great.

[stargatedalek]

I agree with Gwangi entirely. I don't mind characterization or anthropomorphism in children's movies, but I still prefer when designs are both detailed and recognizable. In finding Nemo the characters are easily recognizable to at worst a genus level, but aside from Nyctosaurus we can only know the genus of any of these dinosaurs because we can assume the cliche dinosaurs were used. In any other Pixar movie the characters will all have a lot more detail than these, look at even the other more heavily stylized ones, such as the Dodo(?) from Up, it still has a lot of detail to it, not just subtle things but also textures and lighting. The problem with the designs in The Good Dinosaur isn't just that you can't tell by looking what animal they are, it's that you can't tell if it's a lump of clay or a living breathing character.

[Tapejara1122]

These figures are uh... rather disturbing...

[Gwangi]

I agree with Gwangi entirely. I don't mind characterization or anthropomorphism in children's movies, but I still prefer when designs are both detailed and recognizable. In finding Nemo the characters are easily recognizable to at worst a genus level, but aside from Nyctosaurus we can only know the genus of any of these dinosaurs because we can assume the cliche dinosaurs were used. In any other Pixar movie the characters will all have a lot more detail than these, look at even the other more heavily stylized ones, such as the Dodo(?) from Up, it still has a lot of detail to it, not just subtle things but also textures and lighting. The problem with the designs in The Good Dinosaur isn't just that you can't tell by looking what animal they are, it's that you can't tell if it's a lump of clay or a living breathing character.

I believe I read somewhere that Kevin (the bird from "Up") was supposed to be a Phorusrhacid (terror bird), which makes sense since it takes place in South America.

[alexeratops]

I won't deny their apparent lack of research, but paleontology being what it is they can always fall back on the idea that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If the goal is accuracy then I'd think the bigger problem would be explaining away how dinosaurs with enough intelligence to engage in agriculture are nevertheless anatomically identical to their less-intelligent forebears. If you're willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept that a sauropod could have a functional larynx then it shouldn't take too much more to accept some of the other (clearly more economically-driven) choices.

In any event, I agree that it's worth getting excited over the movie's release. Hopefully this is more of an "Wall-E"-type Pixar movie and less of a "Cars 2"-type Pixar movie.

"Finding Nemo" did it right more or less. Dory is a blue tang (Paracanthurus hepatus), a species of fish that feeds on plankton and algae. When her character is asked by the sharks when was the last time she ate a fish she proclaims "I don't think I've ever eaten a fish". This is clever, because the species of fish being asked does not in fact eat fish! The general audience will see it as a joke. People "in the know" will appreciate little details like this. Remember the song about the zones of the ocean sung by the ray? That's factually sound information! "The Good Dinosaur" could have been equally clever, by giving their sauropods anatomically accurate limbs. By NOT giving a Styracosaurus brow horns. By feathering their Tyrannosaurus. By not designing a half-plucked Velociraptor. By only including late Cretaceous dinosaurs instead of dinosaurs that died out over 80 million years prior to Tyrannosaurus! Are these things needed to tell the story? Of course not. I'm just saying it would have been a nice touch and those sorts of clever touches are what makes Pixar great.

The big question is... would any of these things sell well? They still need to make money, and their target audience is the way to get it. Odds are most people would see a fully feathered raptor and think "another movie about birds". Its just this stuff doesn't appeal to the public. Pixar is a good company and they make good movies, but they can't make everything right. Besides, none of you even seem to be giving them credit that they at least tried to make feathered dinosaurs better than JP3. I just feel like you guys are complaining a bit too much.

[alexeratops]

It's cool to see how much these look like cartoons brought to life, but I agree with Silvanusaurus... most of these designs are just ugly to me.  Particularly that Stego and the very strange Triceratops.  I'm all for stylized dinosaurs, but I'm just not digging these. 

Maybe some of them are supposed to be ugly? Not every animal in real life is beautiful looking.

Hence your sig 
(yes I know Oviraptor was covered in feathers in reality)

[stargatedalek]

It's not just a matter of accuracy, they just aren't very detailed. Even JP level of accuracy is better, and I can guarantee you it would sell better.

[ITdactyl]

Do you remember the very first few concept art they shared for "The Good Dinosaur"?


The sauropod shapes seem to be better (if still not accurate).  Thankfully they didn't continue with those "bird" and "pterosaur" designs.
This gives me the impression that they consciously went for these stylized designs.  On a related note, if you look for [more recent] TGD concept art, most of those for Arlo have a more traditional sauropod body with his unique sausage head - so it seems the animation team also made conscious decisions to deviate from the concept art.

I personally like these designs (and some of the toys).  They have a unique charm.

[Gwangi]

would any of these things sell well? They still need to make money, and their target audience is the way to get it. Odds are most people would see a fully feathered raptor and think "another movie about birds". Its just this stuff doesn't appeal to the public. Pixar is a good company and they make good movies, but they can't make everything right. Besides, none of you even seem to be giving them credit that they at least tried to make feathered dinosaurs better than JP3. I just feel like you guys are complaining a bit too much.

Would they sell well? I can't imagine why not. "Finding Nemo" was a tremendous success. This is a kids movie about dinosaurs, they could do whatever they wanted with those dinosaurs and they would still sell. Just look at "Dinosaur Train". Kids eat that stuff up. They don't have hang-ups about feathers, or anatomical accuracy. So with that in mind, why not go the extra mile and put a little bit of research into your characters? The Velociraptor is barely even in the trailer, I don't see how people would see a feathered Velociraptor in the trailer and yet somehow miss the Apatosaurus and Tyrannosaurus and pass it off as a movie about birds. And oh yeah, bird movies..."Rio", "Happy Feet", "Legend of the Guardians"...people like birds too.

[alexeratops]

would any of these things sell well? They still need to make money, and their target audience is the way to get it. Odds are most people would see a fully feathered raptor and think "another movie about birds". Its just this stuff doesn't appeal to the public. Pixar is a good company and they make good movies, but they can't make everything right. Besides, none of you even seem to be giving them credit that they at least tried to make feathered dinosaurs better than JP3. I just feel like you guys are complaining a bit too much.

Would they sell well? I can't imagine why not. "Finding Nemo" was a tremendous success. This is a kids movie about dinosaurs, they could do whatever they wanted with those dinosaurs and they would still sell. Just look at "Dinosaur Train". Kids eat that stuff up. They don't have hang-ups about feathers, or anatomical accuracy. So with that in mind, why not go the extra mile and put a little bit of research into your characters? The Velociraptor is barely even in the trailer, I don't see how people would see a feathered Velociraptor in the trailer and yet somehow miss the Apatosaurus and Tyrannosaurus and pass it off as a movie about birds. And oh yeah, bird movies..."Rio", "Happy Feet", "Legend of the Guardians"...people like birds too.

yes they would sell, I just don't think they would sell as well. Remember this?

[Halichoeres]

yes they would sell, I just don't think they would sell as well. Remember this?

I don't remember that at all, but I guess that's sort of the point.

[EarthboundEiniosaurus]

yes they would sell, I just don't think they would sell as well. Remember this?

I remember hearing about this movie, but I could never find any information about it beyond the trailer. It came out already, right?

Thanks,

EarthboundEiniosaurus

[stargatedalek]

The problem with that movie wasn't that most of their animals were accurate (a few were close but not quite). It was never meant to be a big Hollywood movie, If I recall correctly it was actually a direct to DVD movie made by an Australian indie studio. Pixar can do accurate dinosaurs and still have them sell, but that movie would not have been a commercial success no matter what.

[tyrantqueen]

The insects from Bug's Life weren't accurate per se. Do insect fanatics complain about that movie? (not a rhetorical question, I'm wondering). Shouldn't Flik have been female, being a worker? Why wasn't the Queen ginormous? And the Queen ant isn't really ruler of the colony, she just is there to make babies.

[Gwangi]

The insects from Bug's Life weren't accurate per se. Do insect fanatics complain about that movie? (not a rhetorical question, I'm wondering). Shouldn't Flik have been female, being a worker? Why wasn't the Queen ginormous? And the Queen ant isn't really ruler of the colony, she just is there to make babies.

Yes, the answer is yes, we do. But that movie has it's own clever bits as well that make up for it. Like when the locust "smells" the princess with his antennae. Love that bit.

[stargatedalek]

Again I agree, and another good point about the clever little bits like that. For all we know the movie will have little bits like that pertaining to dinosaurs, or perhaps it will just be a good movie regardless. I don't think anyone is criticizing the movie itself when they talk about the designs, as I feel that those are two very separate things to talk about.