DVDizzy Forum

unprincess wrote:whu? why do the dinosaurs look so cartoony but the backgrounds look photorealistic? it just looks really wrong. Everything about this movie Ive seen so far has really underwhelmed me(or just plain confused me) and Im a huge dinosaur fan...I dunno.

Come to think of it, Jurassic World's dinos have me kinda underwhelmed too. Seriously why did they stick to the 1990's drab outdated look for the dinosaurs? meh...

John Lasseter did say one of the characters was a fully feathered Dinosaur. Although a bit odd that many outdated designs still prevailed.

I wish Pixar went all the way with the cartoony look. It'd be so lovely to have a fully immersive art-driven world.

I don't understand the strong reactions to this teaser. I thought it was decent and there's very little to go off - just a tease. The first actual trailer should give more of a feel.

With that said, I'm not really looking forward to this either All of the long delays make me worry that it'll be uneven and visionless and I agree that the cartoonish dinosaurs look weird with the hyper-realistic environments.

I find with animated films, you can't really predict what the film's quality is going to be based on a troubled production. Almost single animated feature has reports of things going wrong during the making, directors getting replaced and the filmmakers desperately attempting to fix it. Which can also lead to delays, as happened with The Good Dinosaur. Just read up what happened during the making of Frozen, Tangled, The Emperor's New Groove, Shrek, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, How to Train Your Dragon, the Toy Story movies and Cats Don't Dance and yet they all turned out to be well liked and acclaimed movies.

If anything, the year and a half release delay is a good thing. I'd prefer something that was made with time over a rushed product hastily put together to meet a set deadline.

estefan wrote:I find with animated films, you can't really predict what the film's quality is going to be based on a troubled production. Almost single animated feature has reports of things going wrong during the making, directors getting replaced and the filmmakers desperately attempting to fix it. Which can also lead to delays, as happened with The Good Dinosaur. Just read up what happened during the making of Frozen, Tangled, The Emperor's New Groove, Shrek, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, How to Train Your Dragon, the Toy Story movies and Cats Don't Dance and yet it all turned out to be well liked and acclaimed movies.

If anything, the year and a half release delay is a good thing. I'd prefer something that was made with time over a rushed product hastily put together to meet a set deadline.

I wonder how troubled Hunchback's production was. The only book who really adresses the juicy behind the scenes info, is "Mouse Under Glass", but I still want to know more, haha.

While the troubled production has me a bit wary, I agree with the point that delaying the film by an entire year-and-a-half is enough time for them to turn the entire thing around. So I'm cautiously optimistic.

I'm actually intrigued by their visual choices here. As beautiful as their films are, Pixar has hardly ever gone outside of their safe zone in terms of their visuals, but I personally find the contrast between the characters and the backgrounds that they have here to be interesting. The designs are refreshingly cartoony too. Honestly, I think that it's about time that they played with the visuals a bit.

I wasnt expecting realistic dinos in this film, it is Pixar after all and they tend to go for very cartoony childlike designs (like Monsters Inc) but these dinos looks worse than the ones from Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs(which weren't too bad actually).

You know, in Jurassic World, they explained why these dinos look different (they are mutations, not real dinosaurs) and the dinos are so incredibly detailed and well realized. The dinos in this movie just look bad.

I know that the idea behind the JP dinos is that they're meant to be genetically altered monstrosities rather than real animals but Im not talking so much about scientific accuracy(the ones from the original film although the most up to date at the time still had errors.) I'm talking more about how boring and meh the cgi looks. They just look like any other cgi creature from any other sci-fi fantasy film. Its like the "omg they looks so real!" thrill of the original films is gone, I guess b/c we've become so accustomed to seeing CGI creatures in films now. I kinda miss the wow visual factor of the first films.

aside from that, I also think they could have spruced up the color and design of them as well. JP3 has some feathery headed raptors, why are we back to featherless lizards again? why no stripes or interesting patterns. Cracked desert skin on the sauropods. Monotone earth colors. Just so boring.

unprincess wrote: I know that the idea behind the JP dinos is that they're meant to be genetically altered monstrosities rather than real animals but Im not talking so much about scientific accuracy(the ones from the original film although the most up to date at the time still had errors.) I'm talking more about how boring and meh the cgi looks. They just look like any other cgi creature from any other sci-fi fantasy film. Its like the "omg they looks so real!" thrill of the original films is gone, I guess b/c we've become so accustomed to seeing CGI creatures in films now. I kinda miss the wow visual factor of the first films.

aside from that, I also think they could have spruced up the color and design of them as well. JP3 has some feathery headed raptors, why are we back to featherless lizards again? why no stripes or interesting patterns. Cracked desert skin on the sauropods. Monotone earth colors. Just so boring.

They look really real to me... I think the time for animatronics are done. You are limited to what you can do with animatronic, and the only reason why Speilberg used them was because CGI did not exist back then. These look like Dinos to me and not like any other creature.

Also.. Your talking about them not doing something creative with the dinos.

1. I-Rex can camo and it has spikes, ridges, and a new look for the teeth and gums.
2. T-Rex is scratched up and injured.
3. All 4 raptors in the movie look visually different. The most obvious one being Blue having a blue stipe. One of the other ones has the strips all over it's body but not too obvious.

taei wrote:

unprincess wrote: I know that the idea behind the JP dinos is that they're meant to be genetically altered monstrosities rather than real animals but Im not talking so much about scientific accuracy(the ones from the original film although the most up to date at the time still had errors.) I'm talking more about how boring and meh the cgi looks. They just look like any other cgi creature from any other sci-fi fantasy film. Its like the "omg they looks so real!" thrill of the original films is gone, I guess b/c we've become so accustomed to seeing CGI creatures in films now. I kinda miss the wow visual factor of the first films.

aside from that, I also think they could have spruced up the color and design of them as well. JP3 has some feathery headed raptors, why are we back to featherless lizards again? why no stripes or interesting patterns. Cracked desert skin on the sauropods. Monotone earth colors. Just so boring.

They look really real to me... I think the time for animatronics are done. You are limited to what you can do with animatronic, and the only reason why Speilberg used them was because CGI did not exist back then. These look like Dinos to me and not like any other creature.

Also.. Your talking about them not doing something creative with the dinos.

1. I-Rex can camo and it has spikes, ridges, and a new look for the teeth and gums.
2. T-Rex is scratched up and injured.
3. All 4 raptors in the movie look visually different. The most obvious one being Blue having a blue stipe. One of the other ones has the strips all over it's body but not too obvious.

we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Indominus looks boring to me... Im not saying I wont enjoy the movie though, it actually looks like fun, even though I think they are copying too much from the first film.

Looks revolting.

I'm glad the still of the trailer is of the worse bit so it's easy for people to note what I am saying.

Th T-rex should be committed to the likes of Delgo and the Nut Job. What kind of shit animation and designs pass at Pixar these days. Woeful.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/12/go ... -cast-2015

Seems like most of the voices were recast after the director change...

BK wrote:revolting....shit animation....Woeful.

I'd love to see your art work.

ce1ticmoon wrote:http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/12/go ... -cast-2015

Seems like most of the voices were recast after the director change...

Well...that can't be good.

Mickeyfan1990 wrote:Well...that can't be good.

Or it means that they committed to a complete overhaul, which could be a good thing. I liked the previous cast though, so I'm a bit bummed.

WOW! ALL of the parts got recasted: And the main character (the green dinosaur) is a...kid?

The casting announcement is as follows:
RAYMOND OCHOA as an Apatosaurus named Arlo.
JEFFREY WRIGHT as Poppa, Arlo’s father.
STEVE ZAHN as a pterodactyl named Thunderclap.
AJ BUCKLEY as a T-Rex named Nash.
ANNA PAQUIN as a T-Rex named Ramsey.
SAM ELLIOTT as a T-Rex named Butch.
FRANCES MCDORMAND as Arlo’s mother.
MARCUS SCRIBNER as Arlo’s brother Buck.
JACK BRIGHT as Spot.

http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-pix ... ent-75546/
Read more: Pixar 'The Good Dinosaur' Cast Announcement - Stitch Kingdom
StitchKingdom.com - The #1 unofficial source for news on Disney

I feel bad for the original cast They really scrapped everything when they pushed it back.

I hope I'm wrong, but there is real concern about this film.

Pushed back a year and a half, late trailer, and the film is up for a MAJOR butt-whooping from Charlie Brown and friends.

PatrickvD wrote:

BK wrote:revolting....shit animation....Woeful.

I'd love to see your art work.

Ad hominem.

They revealed the voice cast and how boring to see that it is true, our characters are, besides the family of apatosaurus are, not one but three fucking t-rexes. Pixar, King of Originality.

The last one is a pterodactyl. Okay, I suppose. Been there, done that by the Land Before Time.

Not excited for this anymore.

All of these changes are getting me worried though. Another Brave in their hands, maybe.

disneyprincess11 wrote:All of these changes are getting me worried though. Another Brave in their hands, maybe.

At least Brave's character designs weren't nearly as horrendous (although Merida's head shape remains questionable).

BK wrote:

PatrickvD wrote: I'd love to see your art work.

Ad hominem.

Considering the fact that we haven't seen any full character designs yet, only far from a distant three second shots of the main characters, terms like revolting and shit animation are not only ridiculous, they are borderline idiotic because PIXAR has never released 'revolting shit animation'. Even their least interesting films were visually stunning.

You're just trying to provoke. Adversus solem ne loquitor.