The Good Dinosaur (2015)

[Avatree]

Anyone who didn't like this can suck my dick.

[Gopher]

OOF. This was a tough watch. Talk about a movie with low aims and low execution. Whatever story they had here was never cracked. Arlo's story of fear we've seen done by Disney and Pixar to death and with far more layers. Whenever the film wants to go quiet with him and Spot (by far its most engaging material) it gets too afraid and throws in physical comedy or grossout humor or another hokey southern voice. I thought Pixar was better than that. The design of the central dino family is gross (and distracts from how photoreal the backdrops are). They do nothing with the "what if the astroid" concept - it's the wrong rule to provide for this movie, because why dinosaurs are cowboys/colonialists/farmers is what needed establishment. It never feels congruous with the rest of this world. Not even to mention Arlo is the studio's worst character this side of Mater. He's whiny and annoying and like the rest of the film does nothing of consequence and makes no decisions.

 

I hated hating this because there's definitely moments where they touch greatness, even if it's only in a visual, visceral sense (Arlo putting Spot's head through the clouds). But in the year of arguably their best film they make their most disappointing too (there's something here about failed potential that puts it over the utterly inept Cars 2 for me).

Edited December 2, 2015 by Gopher

[Goffe]

1 hour ago, Gopher said:

OOF. This was a tough watch. Talk about a movie with low aims and low execution. Whatever story they had here was never cracked. Arlo's story of fear we've seen done by Disney and Pixar to death and with far more layers. Whenever the film wants to go quiet with him and Spot (by far its most engaging material) it gets too afraid and throws in physical comedy or grossout humor or another hokey southern voice. I thought Pixar was better than that. The design of the central dino family is gross (and distracts from how photoreal the backdrops are). They do nothing with the "what if the astroid" concept - it's the wrong rule to provide for this movie, because why dinosaurs are cowboys/colonialists/farmers is what needed establishment. It never feels congruous with the rest of this world. Not even to mention Arlo is the studio's worst character this side of Mater. He's whiny and annoying and like the rest of the film does nothing of consequence and makes no decisions.

 

I hated hating this because there's definitely moments where they touch greatness, even if it's only in a visual, visceral sense (Arlo putting Spot's head through the clouds). But in the year of arguably their best film they make their most disappointing too (there's something here about failed potential that puts it over the utterly inept Cars 2 for me).

5

UGH. Any interest I had in watching this in theaters is now gone.

 

I'm truly heartbroken. Pixar is becoming more and more like every other animation studio in town.

 

Maybe I will netflix it.

[AniNate]

I kind of expected Gopher wouldn't like this much, but I feel his review really gives off the wrong impression about the film. I really don't recall slapstick or grossout humor being as prominent as its made out to be. Only thing I can think of standing out is Spot ripping off the bug's head but I found that amusingly shocking in context.

And personally I liked Arlo. He's insecure without being obnoxious about it and I completely disagree that he does nothing of consequence. The character design complaints are a particular berserk button for me so I'll just leave those be.

[AniNate]

And I double down on everything I said above after seeing it again

[Gopher]

Maybe they shouldn't have done any voicework. Convey it entirely through the visuals. The only moments in this thing that work are visual (sand circle, cloud, water scenes). 

 

But this might just be a personal fantasy because I wanted to tune out Arlo's screaming like 20 minutes into the film. Also the putrid script.

[Avatree]

On 02/12/2015, 08:16:26, Goffe said:

UGH. Any interest I had in watching this in theaters is now gone.

 

I'm truly heartbroken. Pixar is becoming more and more like every other animation studio in town.

 

Maybe I will netflix it.

Maybe you should just watch it and make your own mind up for yourself?

[Goffe]

3 minutes ago, Treelo the Good Treenosaur said:

Maybe you should just watch it and make your own mind up for yourself?

I will, someday. 

 

You know, time is a precious thing.

[Jim Shorts]

This was obviously made for a younger audience, my 9 and 3 year old, as well as my 8 year old nephews loved it. They weren't even afraid to admit they cried at certain parts. I gotta say, for the most part, I really enjoyed it as well.

 

I was 8 when Land Before Time was released, and this reminded me so much of that movie.  Arlo was just as annoying as Little Foot and Spot just as cute and scene stealing as Ducky.  

 

Overall, I didn't mind the minimal plot, it is a kids film after all. My kids and I watch Inside Out a few times a week, and I find myself laughing at jokes they'll never get until they're a little older.  To me that's a shame because they can't truly appreciate the movie since some themes and scenes are over their heads.  At least with The Good Dinosaur, I noticed that my kids connected more with Arlo and followed along a lot easier. 

 

Oh, and the background visuals in this are the best I've ever scene! I could have sworn the water and the mountain ranges were real. 

 

A-

[BK007]

On December 2, 2015 at 8:07:53 AM, Treelo the Good Treenosaur said:

Anyone who didn't like this can suck my dick.

 

You're not even a guy. 

 

17 minutes ago, Jim Shorts said:

This was obviously made for a younger audience, my 9 and 3 year old, as well as my 8 year old nephews loved it. They weren't even afraid to admit they cried at certain parts. I gotta say, for the most part, I really enjoyed it as well.

 

I was 8 when Land Before Time was released, and this reminded me so much of that movie.  Arlo was just as annoying as Little Foot and Spot just as cute and scene stealing as Ducky.  

 

Overall, I didn't mind the minimal plot, it is a kids film after all. My kids and I watch Inside Out a few times a week, and I find myself laughing at jokes they'll never get until they're a little older.  To me that's a shame because they can't truly appreciate the movie since some themes and scenes are over their heads.  At least with The Good Dinosaur, I noticed that my kids connected more with Arlo and followed along a lot easier. 

 

Oh, and the background visuals in this are the best I've ever scene! I could have sworn the water and the mountain ranges were real. 

 

A-

 

Pixar never wanted to make kids films, so the fact the mindset has changed already tells you something.

 

6 hours ago, Gopher said:

Maybe they shouldn't have done any voicework. Convey it entirely through the visuals. The only moments in this thing that work are visual (sand circle, cloud, water scenes). 

 

But this might just be a personal fantasy because I wanted to tune out Arlo's screaming like 20 minutes into the film. Also the putrid script.

 

I agree with this. Maybe I didn't say it here, but I said it somewhere. It would be great to watch the movie without voices but with the score. I don't think it is possible to separate the two though, quite unfortunately. I don't know if anyone would be so passionate as to try to do so. 

 

I just think the characters work so much better when we are not specifically told what the fuck to feel or take from each situation. Plus it gets rid of the awful character development. 

On December 2, 2015 at 5:41:50 PM, tribefan695 said:

 

I kind of expected Gopher wouldn't like this much, but I feel his review really gives off the wrong impression about the film. I really don't recall slapstick or grossout humor being as prominent as its made out to be. Only thing I can think of standing out is Spot ripping off the bug's head but I found that amusingly shocking in context.

And personally I liked Arlo. He's insecure without being obnoxious about it and I completely disagree that he does nothing of consequence. The character design complaints are a particular berserk button for me so I'll just leave those be.

 

He's annoying. Just desperately annoying. I don't know if he has any character trait to ground him. He really does do nothing of consequence. I am not even sure how he grows up through the film, to be honest. It was written for him to, at the end, but do I see or feel it? Not really. He would have had to spend days wandering or perhaps hobnobbing with the T-rexes etc but the film seems to take place within like 2-3 days. 

 

Do go berserk. Haha. But seriously, I still cannot fathom why you are defending them? The T-rexes were poorer than the ones in IA:DOTD which honestly, for animated cartoonish dinosaurs, that would have been a better choice (T-rex). The pterodactyls and hillbillies are terrible. If Mater and his ilk were not enough, we have more redneck annoyance. Jesus. Enough with the bloody rednecks. 

[BK007]

On December 2, 2015 at 5:03:56 AM, tribefan695 said:

So I get that you weren't satisfied with the character development but I still don't see how that makes it "Dreamworks". To me it just comes off as a vaguely negative comparison to make when you don't like an animated movie by another studio.

I don't agree that it could've been any species pairing. There are subtleties in Arlo and Spot's relationship that are distinctly human and Dino in character. And I guess I just didn't need an obvious positive relationship with his family to make his longing for them work. Our families piss us all off from time to time but that doesn't mean we don't miss them, especially if we were to all of a sudden find ourselves alone in the world.

Admittedly I'm no expert on psychology but it makes sense to me that Arlo would develop a fearful personality by virtue of being the runt of the litter. Being constantly in others' figurative and literal shadows can be intimidating.

 

When I say "Dreamworks" do note I am not talking about the Shark Tale one that people used to berate them for.

 

I loved the Dragon movies, Panda, Rise of the Guardians, etc. But, I use it in the term of "nearly there, but misguided" which I believe fits a lot of their recent movies. From Turbo, to Peabody & Sherman to Home, they are trying to focus a bit more on story and substance, and yet still manage to miss it by a wide mark. 

 

Spot was almost a dog instead of a human, so I guess that didn't come through too well. Plus, if the dinosaur had been a giraffe or an aardvark or something, it would have its own intricacies that would mirror the "uniqueness" of the dinosaur's, so yeah, there did not seem to be a concrete reason as to why the premise/tagline exists.

 

It didn't have to be a positive relationship, it had to be a relationship. That does not come through before he leaves. Most of what we see, if not all of what we see, is Arlo failing to do his chores and getting bullied. There is merely a mirage of a relationship, not a real one. 

 

True, but to that extent? That he doesn't seem to learn anything? Or try anything new? Did he believe his brother could be killed by a chicken? Why did he let Spot go? Why was he scared after he washed down the river? He had already thrown Spot into the river, threatened him and received no more growling etc. 

[AniNate]

I invoke the law of conservation of detail regarding the opening. All that was of immediate importance to the story was that Arlo felt inferior and incapable (and also more compassionate than his family, which could very well be related to his fear). But I suspect you won't be convinced by that so there's no point pressing it further.

I always felt the character designs were an infuriatingly shallow complaint and there was an artistic reason for designing them as such beyond the cynical reasoning of selling more toys. And I think Ramsey and Butch especially have enough pretty cool details to justify their designs.

The antagonistic nature of the pterodactyls and raptors makes me forgive their accents. They're not intended to be likable, though I did get a few laughs out of Thunderclap's ramblings. But in any case they weren't in the movie long enough to have a chance of getting on my nerves. I didn't even think Mater was the main problem with the first Cars.

What I know for sure is this movie gave me a high at the end of two viewings that I didn't get with any viewing of Inside Out, and it's as entertaining, visually stunning, and atmospheric as anything Pixar's done for me. I refuse to subscribe to the notion that it's a "minor" effort from them

[Jim Shorts]

8 hours ago, BK007 said:

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Jim Shorts

[BK007]

On December 4, 2015 at 12:16:36 AM, tribefan695 said:

 

I invoke the law of conservation of detail regarding the opening. All that was of immediate importance to the story was that Arlo felt inferior and incapable (and also more compassionate than his family, which could very well be related to his fear). But I suspect you won't be convinced by that so there's no point pressing it further.

I always felt the character designs were an infuriatingly shallow complaint and there was an artistic reason for designing them as such beyond the cynical reasoning of selling more toys. And I think Ramsey and Butch especially have enough pretty cool details to justify their designs.

The antagonistic nature of the pterodactyls and raptors makes me forgive their accents. They're not intended to be likable, though I did get a few laughs out of Thunderclap's ramblings. But in any case they weren't in the movie long enough to have a chance of getting on my nerves. I didn't even think Mater was the main problem with the first Cars.

What I know for sure is this movie gave me a high at the end of two viewings that I didn't get with any viewing of Inside Out, and it's as entertaining, visually stunning, and atmospheric as anything Pixar's done for me. I refuse to subscribe to the notion that it's a "minor" effort from them

 

Feeling inferior or incapable didn't really need the meteor missing Earth. 

 

I never said it was to sell more toys, I just don't like them at all. See, unlike Rise of the Guardians, which loads of people call the characters ugly and what-have-you, these creatures do not fit the world. In that sense, I feel there is valid criticism for the art design and character design teams because they stick out of the world and instead of going full-on creative liberty with that idea of a meteor not hitting Earth and allowing the dinosaurs (millions? hundreds of thousands?) thousands of years more to develop, we get this awful generic future. The difference between old Pixar and new, is that the old Pixar would have really gone and done a lot more research into evolution, environment etc. This token T-rex, brachiosaurus, triceratops, pterodactyl use of common dinosaurs is just lazy. And the designs of generic creatures, even lazier. 

 

I don't know why being antagonistic needs to come across with redneck accents. To me, perhaps not to everyone else, that accent just reeks off attempted humour or rather just a complete stereotypical, uneducated racist. I am not American, so that stereotype sticks longer too, and it is fucking annoying. Mater was not the problem of the first Cars, in fact, I like Cars. But he was the problem with the second, along with everything else. 

 

Inside Out gave me a high after first viewing, on second you can see some of its flaws. Still nothing touches Ratatouille for me, which I know you don't really like, but that's my favourite movie too. 

[AniNate]

I guess I just think the decision to design the cartoonish characters against the realistic backgrounds was an ambitious move in itself and wasn't deserving of the vitriolic reactions a lot of people were giving it. And since the movie is a fantasy I don't see a point in complaining that they didn't do enough research, especially since our ideas of dinosaurs and evolution may look completely different in ten years anyway

I shouldn't make any guarantees but I think you'll at least find that this movie offers a lot more on a storytelling level at least if you're willing to give it a second look. There's a lot of subtle visual cues that I know I missed the first time I watched it. The contemplative, visual driven tone Sohn promised was the reason I was looking forward to this movie so much and am so actively defending now that I've seen it.

[rukaio101]

13 hours ago, BK007 said:

I don't know why being antagonistic needs to come across with redneck accents. To me, perhaps not to everyone else, that accent just reeks off attempted humour or rather just a complete stereotypical, uneducated racist. I am not American, so that stereotype sticks longer too, and it is fucking annoying. Mater was not the problem of the first Cars, in fact, I like Cars. But he was the problem with the second, along with everything else. 

I don't know about the pterodactyls, but I assumed the raptors had redneck accents because that entire segment with the T-Rex's was effectively a western pastiche with dinosaurs (also my favourite segment of the movie, FYI. Because Cowboy T-Rex Sam Elliot is made of win.)

 

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie. Certainly didn't think it was outstanding and a lot of the ground it took has already been covered much better by films like Lion King, Land before Time or Ice Age, but it was hardly an unpleasant watch. The problem is the film does feel like a patchwork of different ideas, some of which are derivative of other films and many of which aren't developed all that well. (Especially the whole 'dinosaurs survived' concept and most of Arlo's family.) It definitely feels its troubled production. But it was a pleasant watch and outside of Arlo grating a bit towards the beginning, I still got through it with no issue. And the animation and soundtrack go without saying.

 

Sure in the end it doesn't live up to Inside Out and it's really not the sort of movie I'm going to go out of my way to defend (and I can understand why people dislike it) but I found it perfectly serviceable.

 

(Plus this getting a fairly mixed reception only makes it more likely that The Boy and the Beast will get that Oscar nomination. Or that I'll get a Cowboy T-Rex Sam Elliot spinoff.)

 

[Ezen Baklattan]

I wouldn't have minded the more contemplative, visually focused story that was being marketed, even if it was rather formulaic. In fact, it could have really worked. There was a really great movie in somewhere, but it never really pulls through.

 

The characters are never truly engaging aside from Spot. A lot of other characters, feel one note and more like plot devices. (The western aesthetic is fun to watch, but it never really goes beyond that) Arlo's growth in the movie feels so artificial, putting him through hell but giving him no struggle when the occasion comes. Arlo is as competent as the plot demands him to be, and it never feels real. The ending scene with the human family also feels forced. I won't even get into just how many contrivances this plot has (like, how the pterodactyls dont eat Spot before Arlo manages to reach them).

 

All that said, I still enjoyed it. The journey and visuals are fun enough (not to mention the music) that I wouldnt stop anyone from seeing it. We've gotten stronger from Pixar, but given its noticeably troubled production, it still turned out decently okay.

[AniNate]

Generally you're opening a can of worms when you talk about plot contrivances in animated movies, but I think there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that one: Spot put up a struggle, and the pterodactyls decided to force him into that branch and try to wear him down before eating him. I imagine they all wanted a piece anyway and weren't going to let Thunderclap just gobble him up

[Fancyarcher]

Just saw TGD. Did I think it was better than Inside Out, no? Was it completely useless and among my least Pixar films? Heck no. I liked the film a lot, and I especially really liked the relationship between Arlo and Spot. Some of the criticism about the film, I don't really get. I didn't mind Arlo's voice, it was just a young brash, typical kids voice. Nothing really exceptionally annoying about it. Plus the score by the Danna Brothers was absolutely fantastic, and the animation was stunning, really photo-realistic, and I appreciated it.  I actually thought the designs for the dinosaurs worked, too. 

 

9 / 10, it's in my top ten of the year so-far. 

[Webslinger]

It's far from Pixar's best, but it's still quite charming. As is the case even in Pixar's lesser efforts (sans Cars 2, whose few strengths came almost entirely in playing off of spy movie tropes), it does a very solid job of developing likable characters and connecting with audiences on an emotional level. 

 

B+