The Good Dinosaur

[DisneyFan09]

That's disappointing about Dinosaur but Pixar went through a similar situation with Cars 2 in 2011: not breaking the $200 million mark domestically and getting a 6.3 on IMDB and 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. And coming off a huge hit back then as well.

But they were able to bounce back so who knows.

Yeah, but "Cars 2" was destined to fail anyways. "Cars" was the lowest rated of the Pixar films, which really created the stigma. Also, reviews were lackluster and overall the majority seemed to really loathe it. So "Cars 2" was overall doomed.

I know that I've defended this movie previously on the board, mostly due to the fact that is so neglected. It's not as it's the greatest movie ever made, but I enjoyed it for what is was. The funny thing is that I saw the movie twice theatrically. The first one with a crowd who clearly enjoyed the movie and even applauded at the end. The second one with a crowd with parents and the parents were obviously bored.

[Semaj]

Just got finished seeing this movie.

While there is nothing really wrong with this film, there's nothing particularly special about it either. They seemed to be going the more mythical route like with Brave. But this didn't read as a "must-see" film like WALL-E, Up, or Inside Out.

I will give that the "alternate universe" aspect works better here than with Cars. Probably because this time, the scenario is offered as a "what if".

The only minor quibble is with the humans depicted as "critters". The scenario suggests that humans are the lesser life forms in a world dominated by dinosaurs, but that same scenario should mean that humans are still evolved from monkeys and primates. I get that modelling them instead after wolves make the concept more appealing, but yeah.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Just got finished seeing this movie.

While there is nothing really wrong with this film, there's nothing particularly special about it either.

That's the perfect statement to sum up this movie. I didn't hate it, it was cute, but I have no desire to see it again anytime soon (just like Brave and Monsters University).

And if someone finds the hallucination scene offensive (because everything is these days...), than they should stay FAR away from Walt's 7th animated feature; The Three Caballeros.

[Mooky]

This movie felt so bizarre to me... I almost think it was made as a parody or a test. Like, it's as if the filmmakers came together in a meeting and asked, "How many tonal shifts and jarring visuals can we have in this movie in a span of several minutes, and how many disturbing on-screen and off-screen deaths can we cram into it, use every known movie trope in order to tug at audiences' heartstrings, shamelessly rip a bunch of other movies off, use the least imaginative title ever, put a bunch of off-the-wall stuff in it *and* still get positive reviews?"... I mean, it has to be a joke seeing there was a freaking GRAVESTONE FOR A DEAD DINOSAUR in it, right? I don't know if that is either insane or brilliant, but at least I was never bored watching it.

[Tangled]

This was alright. My taste in Pixar films seems to differ from the norm (I personally loved Monsters University, Ratatouille is by far my favorite Pixar film, and neither the Incredibles or Up are even close to my top 5) but I do think that critics have hit it on the nose with this one. Visuals are fantastic (and worth seeing the movie for at least once, even if not in theatres), humor is plentiful, the tearjerker/emotional scenes work alright even if they aren't as unique as Inside Out's, and the story brings nothing new to the table but that's okay because its entertaining, even if its not groundbreaking.

The thing is, though, I feel as though if this exact same film came out from Sony, Blue Sky, or even Dreamworks then this film would probably be praised as one of the best animated films of the year. I'm not sure if that's a good thing (because Pixar raises the bar for mainstream animation, and audiences expect more out children's entertainment in general, rather than shrugging off a mediocre animated film as "for kids") or a bad thing (because Pixar raises the bar too much for themselves, and audiences expect more out of only Pixar, shrugging off other studios).

Also, how many Pixar films are there going to be when they realize that they've reused the "characters have to find something that is lost" storyline far too much? From the top of my head: all 3 Toy Story films (all those rescue missions), Monsters Inc (Boo's door), Finding Nemo, WALL-E (the plant), Up (the falls), Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur, and (inevitably) Finding Dory. That is more than half of Pixar's films. It's like if more than half of the Disney Animation movies formed the basis of their plots around roadtrip stories where the two opposite leads bond and grow together (although most of them since Meet the Robinsons have...wait, maybe that wasn't a good example, but my point still stands).

[DisneyJedi]

Personally, Tangled, I don't mind the "road trip" plots of Disney's recent movies. As long as they can manage to be enjoyable.

[Lady Cluck]

The thing is, though, I feel as though if this exact same film came out from Sony, Blue Sky, or even Dreamworks then this film would probably be praised as one of the best animated films of the year.

Agreed. It's amazing how many merely average to good films get praised as masterpieces due to low expectations from other studios. Sadly there are just as many people out there ready to nitpick the latest Pixar effort as there are people who act like anything they put out is an instant classic. People are already declaring this a critical and commercial flop when most of its reviews are actually good if you take out references to comparing it to other Pixar films, and it's probably going to have a decent box office in the long run.

And I do generally agree with a lot of the criticisms about The Good Dinosaur. You can tell it was a troubled production, but I think its pros (stunning visuals, effective moments of pathos, large ensemble of fun characters, limited low brow humor compared to things like the dreadful Minions) still make it worth seeing and better than the average American animated film, which isn't saying much

[milojthatch]

The thing is, though, I feel as though if this exact same film came out from Sony, Blue Sky, or even Dreamworks then this film would probably be praised as one of the best animated films of the year.

Agreed. It's amazing how many merely average to good films get praised as masterpieces due to low expectations from other studios. Sadly there are just as many people out there ready to nitpick the latest Pixar effort as there are people who act like anything they put out is an instant classic. People are already declaring this a critical and commercial flop when most of its reviews are actually good if you take out references to comparing it to other Pixar films, and it's probably going to have a decent box office in the long run.

And I do generally agree with a lot of the criticisms about The Good Dinosaur. You can tell it was a troubled production, but I think its pros (stunning visuals, effective moments of pathos, large ensemble of fun characters, limited low brow humor compared to things like the dreadful Minions) still make it worth seeing and better than the average American animated film, which isn't saying much

If you look at the numbers from week two at the box office, it kind of is a commercial flop. I guess it could start to pick up, but realistically, it probably won't.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-r ... 25045.html

I hear that the visuals are amazing, but with it being $10+ a ticket to see the dang thing, I need more then visuals to win my limited movie money. Disney pulled this crap 15 years-ago with a stunning Dino movie that also had no real story or characters, but at least movie tickets we still under $10 then.

[Kyle]

After not really being sure what I thought about this, I've had a while to let it simmer a bit, and I guess I'd say as far as pixar goes this was a little disappointing. There was nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't feel like a movie I'll be wanting to see again any time soon. And there were more moments I was reminded of other Disney movies than usual. And I still don't think the photo real backdrops worked well with the character designs. Also, they completely failed to deliver on the original premise of dinosaurs evolving. They completely ignored it really.

[Semaj]

For a time, I haven't paid much attention to the negative press this movie has gotten from the box office, only because some critics have been hungry for a Pixar failure for quite some time. (Remember when Ratatouille started smaller than the Pixar norm at the time?)

Now that it's been confirmed for The Good Dinosaur, there are a set of factors that I had predicted, but hoped to have been proven wrong about. The troubled production was one thing, as was the limited promotion time, but the release date of this film was a poor choice. Although it's the first Pixar movie to get a holiday release since The Incredibles, they put it smack dab in the middle of a tsumani consisting of Hunger Games, the Peanuts Movie, and the latest James Bond movie. Not to mention, this is only five months after Inside Out, so their could be brand fatigue setting in. And we're still only weeks away from the newest Star Wars movie, which Disney will turn much of their attention to.

This poses an even bigger problem for Pixar. One of their ORIGINAL movies have underperformed, which now puts into question how this will affect their original-sequel ratio. Will this movie set a precedent for Pixar making originals a lesser priority? Will this lead to an upheaval in their Brain Trust?

[milojthatch]

For a time, I haven't paid much attention to the negative press this movie has gotten from the box office, only because some critics have been hungry for a Pixar failure for quite some time. (Remember when Ratatouille started smaller than the Pixar norm at the time?)

Now that it's been confirmed for The Good Dinosaur, there are a set of factors that I had predicted, but hoped to have been proven wrong about. The troubled production was one thing, as was the limited promotion time, but the release date of this film was a poor choice. Although it's the first Pixar movie to get a holiday release since The Incredibles, they put it smack dab in the middle of a tsumani consisting of Hunger Games, the Peanuts Movie, and the latest James Bond movie. Not to mention, this is only five months after Inside Out, so their could be brand fatigue setting in. And we're still only weeks away from the newest Star Wars movie, which Disney will turn much of their attention to.

This poses an even bigger problem for Pixar. One of their ORIGINAL movies have underperformed, which now puts into question how this will affect their original-sequel ratio. Will this movie set a precedent for Pixar making originals a lesser priority? Will this lead to an upheaval in their Brain Trust?

I wonder about the sequel-original story ratio myself after this. I guess if Cars 3 bombs the way I expect it to, maybe balance will be brought back to the PIXAR force?

Part of me wonders if they shouldn't of just killed this project and gone from Inside Out to Finding Dory next year. I don't know. At a budget of $200 million, it's going to be a race to break even. International markets and winter break in North America are going to be crucial. I mean it's not like I feel THAT bad for Disney though. Between Avengers, Ant-Man, Cinderella, Inside Out and soon Star Wars, Disney has had a good year at the Box Office even with flops like Tomorrowland and now possibly Good Dinosaur.

[blackcauldron85]

This article talks about some earlier concepts for The Good Dinosaur]:
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... -film.aspx

[JeanGreyForever]

This article talks about some earlier concepts for The Good Dinosaur]:
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... -film.aspx

I like this better. The whole amish western thing didn't really work for me in the final version of the film, mainly because we never really saw its full scope. This version seemed to remedy that and also seemed to stay away from the whole killing off a parent cliche.

[D82]

I saw The Good Dinosaur the weekend of its release, but I haven't had time to comment lately. Though I was excited about the film, my expectations weren't too high, firstly because I was worried about the production problems it had gone through and then because the reviews weren't as good as they usually are for a new Pixar film, so I was actually surprised by the film. I really enjoyed it. It's not one of Pixar’s best films and, though the concept is quite original, the story itself is maybe simpler and more conventional than usual for the company, but it's very enjoyable, it has great characters and a lot of heart. I think it’s a very good film. And I agree with Tangled, if the film had been made by other studio, it would’ve received better reviews.

I loved both Arlo and Spot and their relationship, but especially Spot. He's adorable and very funny, and although he doesn't speak, he expresses more than the rest of characters. The bits of score I heard before in clips from the film didn't impressed me, but I also liked the music in the film. About the weird scenes and characters that some people disliked (the hallucinations, one animal being devoured, etc), I actually liked those touches, I think they differentiate it from other films, making it more unique. I also think they fit with the vision of the world being a dangerous and threatening place the director wanted to give. I thought the same about the humour in Brave, that it fitted the time period and contributed to the film’s identity. By the way, I was right about the Japanese poster, it was spoiling the ending. As soon as I saw it, I knew how the film was going to end.

This article talks about some earlier concepts for The Good Dinosaur:
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... -film.aspx

Interesting article. I would've liked to see more dinosaurs and how they'd have evolved, but I think they probably made the right decision on this occasion, simplifying the story and concentrating on the main two characters.

This poses an even bigger problem for Pixar. One of their ORIGINAL movies have underperformed, which now puts into question how this will affect their original-sequel ratio. Will this movie set a precedent for Pixar making originals a lesser priority? Will this lead to an upheaval in their Brain Trust?

What about Inside Out, their other original film from this year? It was a big hit both critically and commercialy.

So, where were the easter eggs? I don't recall hearing ratzenburger or seeing a pizza planet truck. Or any type of reference to another pixar film, aside from a newt, if that even counts.

I didn't spot them either, but the director says there are easter eggs in this film too, they are just more difficult to find:

As is the norm, there are some "Easter eggs" referencing other Pixar characters that you can look out for in The Good Dinosaur.

Dory is in there somewhere - as an obvious clue, look closely at the various river scenes in this.
"I think we did the hardest Easter egg," says director Peter Sohn.

"We have the most difficult ones to find because everything is outdoors so we had to cheat some of the materials like the pizza planet truck [that's appeared in every Pixar movie], it's not essentially metal."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... s-scrapped

[Semaj]

This poses an even bigger problem for Pixar. One of their ORIGINAL movies have underperformed, which now puts into question how this will affect their original-sequel ratio. Will this movie set a precedent for Pixar making originals a lesser priority? Will this lead to an upheaval in their Brain Trust?

What about Inside Out, their other original film from this year? It was a big hit both critically and commercialy.

I'm recalling what happened when Disney released Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet months apart in 2002. Neverminding that Lilo & Stitch had done well enough in the box office, it didn't stop the whispering about the future of 2D animation, which Treasure Planet's failure was used to declare that "2D was dead".

With Pixar, their films have been consistently profitable, though there have been lingering critiques about their increasing reliance on sequels. The production problems behind the Good Dinosaur might influence how they make films from now on, as to how they develop original stories, versus using characters they're already familiarized with.

The point behind both scenarios at Disney and Pixar is that it took ONE film to change an entire roster.

[milojthatch]

I'm recalling what happened when Disney released Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet months apart in 2002. Neverminding that Lilo & Stitch had done well enough in the box office, it didn't stop the whispering about the future of 2D animation, which Treasure Planet's failure was used to declare that "2D was dead".

With Pixar, their films have been consistently profitable, though there have been lingering critiques about their increasing reliance on sequels. The production problems behind the Good Dinosaur might influence how they make films from now on, as to how they develop original stories, versus using characters they're already familiarized with.

The point behind both scenarios at Disney and Pixar is that it took ONE film to change an entire roster.

That is actually a good example. It still amazes me in the same year Lilo & Stitch did not only very well at the box office, but also did strong sales in merchandise, that because Treasure Planet bombed, Disney decided to scrap hand-drawn animation. What is at stake here in 2015 isn't a switch in animation format, but story format. I truly hope this does not lead to more sequels.

[PatrickvD]

At the rate it's going right now it doesn't look like it will even pass The Princess and the Frog in ticket sales. And maybe only barely in US Domestic gross.

I take some satisfaction in that. Overseas it's also bombing epically. PIXAR does not deserve to rake in cash from something that was so phoned in at the last minute.

Also, I'm not sure the lesson here will be more sequels. Inside Out was more successful than Cars 2 and Monsters, University. Disney will always need to be making original films either way. And the current slate is already packed with sequels to begin with.

[disneyprincess11]

I really think this is because of Inside Out. People are either confused or they just don't want to see another Pixar movie. My family was excited about seeing Inside Out. But for this, they are showing no enthusiasm, what so ever

This would have been more successful if the movie came out, last year.

[milojthatch]

At the rate it's going right now it doesn't look like it will even pass The Princess and the Frog in ticket sales. And maybe only barely in US Domestic gross.

I take some satisfaction in that. Overseas it's also bombing epically. PIXAR does not deserve to rake in cash from something that was so phoned in at the last minute.

Also, I'm not sure the lesson here will be more sequels. Inside Out was more successful than Cars 2 and Monsters, University. Disney will always need to be making original films either way. And the current slate is already packed with sequels to begin with.

I agree, PIXAR doesn't deserve to make money for something phoned in at the last minute. However, I disagree, this is about sequels. Outside of Inside Out, every "Disney" film that did or is doing well at the box office this year is a sequel or remake. You site Cars 2 and Monsters University as examples of PIXAR sequel films that didn't do as well. Let's look at them though. Cars 2, on a budget of $200 million made around $560 million back, and that isn't even counting the millions made on merchandise. There is a very good reason they are making Cars 3, and it's not just because John Lasseter loves it so much. Then there is Monster's University, which on a budget of $200 million, made back over $740 million! Both were money makers, with the former also being big in generating high sales in toys, backpacks, T-Shirts and whatever else.

Like I said, this is about original films verse sequels, and right now sequels are killing it at the box office. Outside of a few exceptions (like The BFG) the closest thing to an original film from Disney will be live-action remakes of their animated hits and Marvel super heroes that haven't gotten their solo movie yet. Yes, PIXAR has Coco coming out, but it's really crowded with a serious of PIXAR sequels. As they figure out what they want to do after Incredibles 2, don't be surprised if Good Dinosaur's crappy box office makes an impact into their choices.

[D82]

I'm recalling what happened when Disney released Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet months apart in 2002. Neverminding that Lilo & Stitch had done well enough in the box office, it didn't stop the whispering about the future of 2D animation, which Treasure Planet's failure was used to declare that "2D was dead".

With Pixar, their films have been consistently profitable, though there have been lingering critiques about their increasing reliance on sequels. The production problems behind the Good Dinosaur might influence how they make films from now on, as to how they develop original stories, versus using characters they're already familiarized with.

The point behind both scenarios at Disney and Pixar is that it took ONE film to change an entire roster.

I know that not only animation studios but Hollywood in general works that way. But in Pixar’s case, I agree with PatrickvD. Pixar is already been criticised for doing too many sequels. If they make even less original films from now on, they will start to lose their reputation. So I think they will continue making original films from time to time. But maybe you’re right. We’ll see.

And you’re right about Lilo & Stitch. Disney didn’t take its success into consideration when they decided to drop hand-drawn animation. But I think it wasn't only Treasure Planet's failure that made them take that decision, though it was key to it. Previous traditional animated films like Fantasia 2000 or Atlantis had underperformed at the box office and that may have contributed too. And they still made Brother Bear and Home on the Range after it. I know that those films were already in development when Treasure Planet was released, but if they had been successful, maybe Disney would’ve continued making 2D films. But for Pixar, this is their first real failure. The way I think this should influence them is to learn to not release two films the same year again.

Anyway, one thing’s for sure. There won’t be a sequel to The Good Dinosaur. Well, unless it sells a lot of dinosaur toys, of course.

At the rate it's going right now it doesn't look like it will even pass The Princess and the Frog in ticket sales. And maybe only barely in US Domestic gross.

I really think this is because of Inside Out. People are either confused or they just don't want to see another Pixar movie. My family was excited about seeing Inside Out. But for this, they are showing no enthusiasm, what so ever

I also think that's the main reason why it's failing at the box office. People are used to one Pixar film a year, and they probably feel like they have already seen the film for this year. Perhaps they need more time to build anticipation for the next one. That, and the promotion maybe wasn't the most appropriate for this film.