Dinosaur wasn't such a disaster!

[ichabod]

I've always been led to believe that Dinosaur is Disney's embarrasment, that it did absolutley nothing!

But while I was searching around Box office mojo, something caught my eye. While looking at the highest worldwide grosses of all time, I noticed that Dinosaur has a worldwide box office gross of $354,248,063!

This makes it the 93rd on the list of all time highest grossing films!

According BOM It is Disney's 12th highest grossing film!

1. Finding Nemo
2. The Lion King
3. Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
4. The Incredibles
5. Monsters INC.
6. Aladdin
7. Toy Story 2
8. Tarzan
9. Beauty and the Beast
10. A Bug's Life
11. Toy Story
12. Dinosaur


That doesn't seem too bad to me!

You can see the list here:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

Sorry, I just had to make a post to exclaim my surprise!

[Wonderlicious]

I think the reason why people view it as a bomb is that it didn't exactly make a huge proffit in America (I heard it lost money across the pond) and the reviews were fairly lacklustre.

[Jens]

I think it was more the return they got from it... Dinosaur had an estimated budget of $127,500,000 and at first Disney didn't really get their money back... Comparing the worlwide gross of $354,248,063 to the budget of $127,500,000, they really didn't have a very big profit... That's why everyone is saying it didn't do good... It's all financially.

[edit] Exactly Wonderlicious

[Siren]

When I first heard of the film Dinosaur and saw the first trailer with the egg, I was SURE they based it on an Ugly Duckling comic story that was in in a Disney Adventures. I personally thought it would have made a better story then their Land Before Time-like one. It was about a t-rex and not an iguanadon though. And the comic had some narration, but otherwise, the animals made grunts and roars, no speaking. A t-rex egg is picked up my a pteradon and flown across the jungles. Then it was accidently dropped, into an iguanadon (or maybe a maisaur) nest. The mother dinosaur has no ideas. The baby hatches and it's curious, but the mother accepts it anyways. She teaches it to eat plants and it doesn't like the taste, but eats them anyways. Then something happens, I think it was he was playing too rough, but the herd sees him for what he is and chases him off. My mind goes blank from there. I think it went that he found other t-rexes, knew what he was, stayed with them. But then on a hunt, his pack ends up hunting his adoptive mother and he stops them from killing her. But in the end, they still go on their seperate paths. I need to find that story again. I always liked it. It was still a rehash of Ugly Duckling, but at least ot didn't have the overused idea of a dinosaur utopia.

Also what annoyed me was how realistic the artists said it would be. And it was, but certain elements which they knew would be false, they did anyways, frankly because they were lazy. The grass was a pet peeve. There was no grass back then, they admitted it, but they wanted the valley to be lush and green. Why not blanket it in trees and ferns then?? Because it would cost more money to program a lot of ferns into it, then it would to recolor the lemur fur green and call it grass. Also the igaunadon lips bothered me. As far as we know, they had none. They try and say maybe they did because there were signs that perhaps they had blood vessels on their beaks, but no scientist has really backed them up. They said they needed lips to show emotion and mouth movement. Yes the old styrac had a beak and she did just fine. Just pet peeves of mine.

[abbatazappa]

I thought I'd post a different version of top-grossing Disney films. Also from Box Office Mojo, this is the ranking, adjusted for inflation. I thought the list above was skewed towards recent films, and indeed that is the case, simply because ticket prices are much higher! This list is more representative of a film's popularity. This is US domestic only.

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
2. 101 Dalmatians
3. Fantasia
4. Mary Poppins
5. The Lion King
6. The Jungle Book
7. Sleeping Beauty
8. Bambi
9. Pinocchio
10. Finding Nemo
11. Lady and the Tramp
12. Swiss Family Robinson
13. Aladdin
14. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
15. Toy Story 2

[Luke]

I'm tackling the very same issue in the review I'm doing. Certainly when international gross and home video (particularly VHS) sales are considered, <i>Dinosaur</i> can't be labeled a financial failure. But yes, it did underperform in the domestic box office, even as Disney's top-grossing film of 2000.

[Jens]

I thought I'd post a different version of top-grossing Disney films. Also from Box Office Mojo, this is the ranking, adjusted for inflation. I thought the list above was skewed towards recent films, and indeed that is the case, simply because ticket prices are much higher! This list is more representative of a film's popularity. This is US domestic only.

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
2. 101 Dalmatians
3. Fantasia
4. Mary Poppins
5. The Lion King
6. The Jungle Book
7. Sleeping Beauty
8. Shrek 2
9. Bambi
10. Pinocchio
11. Finding Nemo
12. Lady and the Tramp
13. Swiss Family Robinson
14. Aladdin
15. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
16. Toy Story 2
17. Shrek

Shrek and Shrek 2 are not Disney Movies! Shame on you!

[abbatazappa]

DreamWorks, my bad. I took both Shrek' off the list. Admittedly, I am one of the few who have not seen either of those films, for some reason I thought they were one of the Pixar/Disney productions. So sorry!

[ichabod]

DreamWorks, my bad. I took both Shrek' off the list. Admittedly, I am one of the few who have not seen either of those films, for some reason I thought they were one of the Pixar/Disney productions. So sorry!

I see we're going to have to give you some teaching!

There are some round here who would quite literally bite your head of for confusing Shrek for Disney?pixar!

[purplebluelove99]

I think Dinosaur sounds interesting. They had it on sale at Zellers(Canadian equivalent of Walmart) for really cheap so I am gonna go back there and pick up a copy. For that price who could go wrong. Plus the reviews I read on this forum make it seem more interesting to check out. Thanks guys. Cheers.

[Sunset Girl]

In the original concept of Dinosaur, none of the characters spoke. I suppose that was too risky of an endeavor for them, but I remember being excited about the idea.

[Siren]

SG>I heard of that too. But then Dreamworks went and did it and IMO, it worked. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, besdes the "well duh" narration by Matt Damon now and then, it was just horse sounds. Look at The Bear. No narration and yet the emotion they got from those live animals was fantastic. Same with Two Brothers. I think animating a movie with non-talking animals is easier then trying to get real animals to express emotion on cue.

[Ciaobelli]

DreamWorks, my bad. I took both Shrek' off the list. Admittedly, I am one of the few who have not seen either of those films, for some reason I thought they were one of the Pixar/Disney productions. So sorry!

*eats abbatazappa's head*

A few weeks on the forums will get your head straghtened out, or whatever is left of it

[MickeyMousePal]

Disney's Dinosaurs is one of my favorite Disney DVD but it reminds me of The Land Before Time.

[RJKD23]

Disney's Dinosaurs is one of my favorite Disney DVD but it reminds me of The Land Before Time.

yea it does!
Dinosaur was a good movie!

[singerguy04]

i always liked dinosaur. i wish it would've done better in the box office so that people don't see it as a failure.

[Luke]

Well my massive DVD review is now up here:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/dinosaur.html

Please read it. I poured so much into it! Please?

[Prince Eric]

I actually LIKED Dinousaur. The new concept of CGI really made an impression on me. I personally think the story is very original in terms of dinosaur flicks and the ominous conclusion that soon, all cold-blooded animals would be dead was very sobering. I think the pacing stayed true to the narration and I really don't think it was a flawed movie at all. At the time, animation was a hard sell, anyway you looked at it. It was a success, in the long-run, though. I wonder why it's not part of the classics line-up. Technically, I read Disney officially stopped numbering their classics after Mulan, and only Disney-philes keep counting. So, in conclusion, maybe it's not part of the cannon because WE don't consider it part of the cannon. (Why else would it have gotten a Collector's Set?)

[Luke]

Technically, I read Disney officially stopped numbering their classics after Mulan, and only Disney-philes keep counting. So, in conclusion, maybe it's not part of the cannon because WE don't consider it part of the cannon. (Why else would it have gotten a Collector's Set?)

<i>Tarzan</i> is called the "Disney's 37th Animated Release" in the Spring 2001 DVD catalogue. And for that matter, the list of "Animated Classics" on their website matches up with "The List" through <i>Home on the Range</i>, so even if they don't push it too much, I think the list is still valid and correct. Then again, they're missing <i>Pocahontas</i> and have <i>The Reluctant Dragon</i>, so go figure.

Why isn't <i>Dinosaur</i> counted? I'm not sure. I've heard different reasons stated, but none of them are that satisfactory for me. It's not listed at all on that page.

[Joe Carioca]

Well my massive DVD review is now up here:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/dinosaur.html

Please read it. I poured so much into it! Please?

Great work Luke, as always! I'm no big fan of "Dinosaur" either. Actually, it was the first Disney movie I remember being bored when I watched in the theater. Since I'm not really found of the movie (and since it is neither an animated classic nor a traditionally-animated film ), I ordered the Australian collector's edition. It is missing one of the audio commentaries and a few aditional extras, but considering this is "Dinosaur" we are talking about, I don't care that much (I would if this was an animated classic... even if it was the one I like the least).