Pixars "The Good Dinosaur Toys".

[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.

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.

I thought they were grasshoppers.

[stargatedalek]

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57104/whats-difference-between-grasshoppers-and-locusts

Some interesting reading! Assuming I've interpreted everything I've heard over the years correctly a locust is one of several grasshopper species that will change it's morphology when it becomes a part of a larger social group, similar to salmon except behaviorally triggered instead of triggered by reproduction.

[Gwangi]

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57104/whats-difference-between-grasshoppers-and-locusts

Some interesting reading! Assuming I've interpreted everything I've heard over the years correctly a locust is one of several grasshopper species that will change it's morphology when it becomes a part of a larger social group, similar to salmon except behaviorally triggered instead of triggered by reproduction.

Thanks SGD, I might also add that I haven't seen the movie in its entirety since 1998, when it came out. I've seen bits and pieces since then but even still not in a very long time.  The swarming behavior of the movie's insects is what led me to believe they were locusts.

[Gwangi]

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.

Yes, if one were inclined to look back I have vehemently defended this movie and Pixar repeatedly. And I've said here that I have little doubt that the movie will be good. Based on what I've seen though it seems this movie lacks the clever research-based creativity that that I've come to expect from Pixar. I see it as a missed opportunity is all. "Jurassic World" missed a lot of opportunities too but I loved that movie! Dosen't change the fact that I would have preferred feathered Velociraptor and dinosaurs that were any color aside from muddy grey.

[Dinoguy2]

While I don't doubt that the movie will be good I think my biggest gripe with the film so far is the evident lack of research. These dinosaurs survived the Cretaceous extinction, but many of these dinosaurs were already extinct millions of years before that event. Pixar just went with some well-known dinosaurs that have already been done to death and made generic caricatures of them. That's fine I guess but even though Pixar typically stylizes their characters it's at least evidence that they did some homework first. Take "Finding Nemo" for example, Pixar did a terrific job of bringing the Great Barrier Reef and surrounding waters of Australia to life, with many diverse species that behaved realistically and looked like the animals they were meant to represent. Why couldn't Pixar do the same here? Maybe exchange Apatosaurus with a late Cretaceous sauropod? Maybe throw some Therizinosaurs in there for a change instead of old Stegosaurus who should have died out back in the Jurassic? All well, it just shows that dinosaurs are never taken seriously. Like I said, I still have hopes the movie is good and I'm excited to see it.

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.

1. This is just a cartoon, I don't hold it to any standards of accuracy, any more than I would Loony Tunes.
2. "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" would apply evenly this way to late Cretaceous Dimetrodons, or Pleistocene Archaeopteryx. The idea that not only a lineage but specific genus would persist for that long would essentially prove evolution false

[Plasticbeast95]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

[tyrantqueen]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

All cartoons are, to varying extents, caricatures of reality. And who said they're supposed to be real animals? They're clearly not.

[Plasticbeast95]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

All cartoons are, to varying extents, caricatures of reality. And who said they're supposed to be real animals? They're clearly not.

But these...things... are beyond stylized, they look like the designers were on something when they drew them up. I'm not a fan of stylized designs in general, its true, but others have also pointed out how weird these things are. If your going to make them look like this, don't call them Dinosaurs.

[tyrantqueen]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

All cartoons are, to varying extents, caricatures of reality. And who said they're supposed to be real animals? They're clearly not.

But these...things... are beyond stylized, they look like the designers were on something when they drew them up. I'm not a fan of stylized designs in general, its true, but others have also pointed out how weird these things are. If your going to make them look like this, don't call them Dinosaurs.

So you want to watch a movie with completely realistic dinosaurs? Then I suggest you should watch a nature documentary. Even the 2013 Walking with Dinosaurs' protagonists were stylised (that movie sucked btw). Maybe not so much as Pixar's, but they still were. The Pachyrhinosaurs had large eyes with mammalian like eye whites. For this kind of movie, stylisation is important and necessary.

The ants from Bug's Life don't look like real ants at all. Should they not be called ants either? What should be they called?

[Halichoeres]

Just out of curiosity, how many people here had a problem with the character designs in Land Before Time?

[tyrantqueen]

Just out of curiosity, how many people here had a problem with the character designs in Land Before Time?

I didn't, because I was too young at the time and I was probably busy enjoying the movie

[Plasticbeast95]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

All cartoons are, to varying extents, caricatures of reality. And who said they're supposed to be real animals? They're clearly not.

But these...things... are beyond stylized, they look like the designers were on something when they drew them up. I'm not a fan of stylized designs in general, its true, but others have also pointed out how weird these things are. If your going to make them look like this, don't call them Dinosaurs.

So you want to watch a movie with completely realistic dinosaurs? Then I suggest you should watch a nature documentary. Even the 2013 Walking with Dinosaurs' protagonists were stylised (that movie sucked btw). Maybe not so much as Pixar's, but they still were. The Pachyrhinosaurs had large eyes with mammalian like eye whites. For this kind of movie, stylisation is important and necessary.

The ants from Bug's Life don't look like real ants at all. Should they not be called ants either? What should be they called?

You can make a movie about Dinosaurs without having to make them look like someone's acid trip. Theres stylization, and then there's this. Show Dinosaurs some respect people.

[tyrantqueen]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

All cartoons are, to varying extents, caricatures of reality. And who said they're supposed to be real animals? They're clearly not.

But these...things... are beyond stylized, they look like the designers were on something when they drew them up. I'm not a fan of stylized designs in general, its true, but others have also pointed out how weird these things are. If your going to make them look like this, don't call them Dinosaurs.

So you want to watch a movie with completely realistic dinosaurs? Then I suggest you should watch a nature documentary. Even the 2013 Walking with Dinosaurs' protagonists were stylised (that movie sucked btw). Maybe not so much as Pixar's, but they still were. The Pachyrhinosaurs had large eyes with mammalian like eye whites. For this kind of movie, stylisation is important and necessary.

The ants from Bug's Life don't look like real ants at all. Should they not be called ants either? What should be they called?

You can make a movie about Dinosaurs without having to make them look like someone's acid trip. Theres stylization, and then there's this. Show Dinosaurs some respect people.

Arguably the creators are showing their love and respect for prehistoric life by choosing them as the vehicle for this story. Do you think they would have chosen the subject if they hated it? From what I understand, Pixar's films are usually labours of love.

I don't think they look like an "acid trip" at all. I think they're pretty vanilla compared to some stuff I've seen.

[Plasticbeast95]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

All cartoons are, to varying extents, caricatures of reality. And who said they're supposed to be real animals? They're clearly not.

But these...things... are beyond stylized, they look like the designers were on something when they drew them up. I'm not a fan of stylized designs in general, its true, but others have also pointed out how weird these things are. If your going to make them look like this, don't call them Dinosaurs.

So you want to watch a movie with completely realistic dinosaurs? Then I suggest you should watch a nature documentary. Even the 2013 Walking with Dinosaurs' protagonists were stylised (that movie sucked btw). Maybe not so much as Pixar's, but they still were. The Pachyrhinosaurs had large eyes with mammalian like eye whites. For this kind of movie, stylisation is important and necessary.

The ants from Bug's Life don't look like real ants at all. Should they not be called ants either? What should be they called?

You can make a movie about Dinosaurs without having to make them look like someone's acid trip. Theres stylization, and then there's this. Show Dinosaurs some respect people.

Arguably the creators are showing their love and respect for prehistoric life by choosing them as the vehicle for this story. Do you think they would have chosen the subject if they hated it? From what I understand, Pixar's films are usually labours of love.

I don't think they look like an "acid trip" at all. I think they're pretty vanilla compared to some stuff I've seen.

well, this is one labor of love that should never have been conceived. If they loved dinosaurs, they shouldn't have made them look like that.

[deanm]

I picked up some of the various Good Dinosaur pterosaur figures (the small set of all the dinos, the larger plush, and the larger action figure with moving wings). 

I am good with them being stylized representations of pterosaurs because I still recognize them for what they are.

Pixar is not trying to be 100% accurate - their designs are meant to be recognizable and "friendly/immediately relatable" to the general audience, not scientifically detail obsessed people like ourselves.

I disagree - I think Pixar does love the dinosaurs but they are also using the motif to tell a story that is understandable to a general audience.  It is just another way of showing love for something. Just because it does not line up with your concept of love does not mean it is wrong - just different that is all.

[Plasticbeast95]

I picked up some of the various Good Dinosaur pterosaur figures (the small set of all the dinos, the larger plush, and the larger action figure with moving wings). 

I am good with them being stylized representations of pterosaurs because I still recognize them for what they are.

Pixar is not trying to be 100% accurate - their designs are meant to be recognizable and "friendly/immediately relatable" to the general audience, not scientifically detail obsessed people like ourselves.

I disagree - I think Pixar does love the dinosaurs but they are also using the motif to tell a story that is understandable to a general audience.  It is just another way of showing love for something. Just because it does not line up with your concept of love does not mean it is wrong - just different that is all.

And that's the problem, they are too different from the species they are based on. I guess I'm just too realistically minded.

[Dinoguy2]

Woah, some of these guys look like they got lost in a funhouse, I get that stylized designs are in at the moment, but some of these dinosaurs just look weird. Of course I wasn't expecting something looking like Dinosaur, but these toys look like caricatures of the real animals their suppose to be.

All cartoons are, to varying extents, caricatures of reality. And who said they're supposed to be real animals? They're clearly not.

But these...things... are beyond stylized, they look like the designers were on something when they drew them up. I'm not a fan of stylized designs in general, its true, but others have also pointed out how weird these things are. If your going to make them look like this, don't call them Dinosaurs.

So you want to watch a movie with completely realistic dinosaurs? Then I suggest you should watch a nature documentary. Even the 2013 Walking with Dinosaurs' protagonists were stylised (that movie sucked btw). Maybe not so much as Pixar's, but they still were. The Pachyrhinosaurs had large eyes with mammalian like eye whites. For this kind of movie, stylisation is important and necessary.

The ants from Bug's Life don't look like real ants at all. Should they not be called ants either? What should be they called?

You can make a movie about Dinosaurs without having to make them look like someone's acid trip. Theres stylization, and then there's this. Show Dinosaurs some respect people.

Replace dinosaurs in those sentences with any other animal, including humans. Nobody would say this show is disrespectful to its subjects, right? Why would they disrespect donuts like that?

[deanm]

I picked up some of the various Good Dinosaur pterosaur figures (the small set of all the dinos, the larger plush, and the larger action figure with moving wings). 

I am good with them being stylized representations of pterosaurs because I still recognize them for what they are.

Pixar is not trying to be 100% accurate - their designs are meant to be recognizable and "friendly/immediately relatable" to the general audience, not scientifically detail obsessed people like ourselves.

I disagree - I think Pixar does love the dinosaurs but they are also using the motif to tell a story that is understandable to a general audience.  It is just another way of showing love for something. Just because it does not line up with your concept of love does not mean it is wrong - just different that is all.

And that's the problem, they are too different from the species they are based on. I guess I'm just too realistically minded.

That is aslo cool too. Viva la difference!

[Plasticbeast95]

I picked up some of the various Good Dinosaur pterosaur figures (the small set of all the dinos, the larger plush, and the larger action figure with moving wings). 

I am good with them being stylized representations of pterosaurs because I still recognize them for what they are.

Pixar is not trying to be 100% accurate - their designs are meant to be recognizable and "friendly/immediately relatable" to the general audience, not scientifically detail obsessed people like ourselves.

I disagree - I think Pixar does love the dinosaurs but they are also using the motif to tell a story that is understandable to a general audience.  It is just another way of showing love for something. Just because it does not line up with your concept of love does not mean it is wrong - just different that is all.

And that's the problem, they are too different from the species they are based on. I guess I'm just too realistically minded.

That is aslo cool too. Viva la difference!

Thanks for understanding.

Dinoguy2: Oh how I loathe Adventure Time.

[stargatedalek]

Just out of curiosity, how many people here had a problem with the character designs in Land Before Time?

I did when I first saw it, but I didn't really watch many children's programs until I was around ten which is undoubtedly why. I mostly just re-watched the same 8-12 documentaries for much of my early childhood. I even complained that WWD didn't have enough feathers