The Good Dinosaur movie review: bad dinosaur, bad

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

The Good Dinosaur red light

Shamefully banal, and such a confused mess that I cannot even figure out what the title is supposed to mean. Almost a slap in the face to Pixar fans after the triumph of Inside Out.
I’m “biast” (pro): big Pixar fan

I’m “biast” (con): nothing

(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

The Good Dinosaur, the latest animated flick from Pixar and Disney, is such a confused mess that I cannot even figure out what the title is supposed to mean. Clearly it refers to the movie’s putative hero, Arlo the vaguely apatosaurus-esque giant lizard, but in what sense is he “good”? It’s not like there are lots of evil dinos around for him to distinguish himself from. (There are barely any other dinosaurs at all, which is really weird.) It’s not like he was naughty and learns how to behave in the polite way that all decent dinos behave. The title is not disparaging or sarcastic, although a “good dinosaur” who was like a “good German” would have made for a far more intriguing film than we got here.

I am truly flummoxed.

I am truly flummoxed by the scientific spin that The Good Dinosaur wants to put on its Flintstones setting, which has dinosaurs and humans existing simultaneously. It posits, in its opening moments, that that big asteroid 65 million years ago missed planet Earth and so did not wipe out the terrible lizards. But humans — and other large mammalia, such as the longhorn cattle that bizarrely show up later — wouldn’t have evolved if the dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct. And yet the five credited screenwriters — including including Meg LeFauve (Inside Out) and Bob Peterson (Up, Finding Nemo) — can find no narrative or thematic justification for their impossible scenario: Arlo the vaguely apatosaurus-esque giant lizard isn’t even “good” in the sense that he is an adequate representation of dinosaur-ness. He could easily be, I dunno, say, a bear. Arlo could easily be a human boy, and it wouldn’t make a single iota of difference to the story. Yes, this is fantasy, but it is fantasy that doesn’t know what to do with itself.

Arlo’s shamefully banal, might-as-well-be-human story is all about how runty adolescent Arlo (the voice of Raymond Ochoa: Mr. Peabody & Sherman, Monsters University) has to “make his mark” on the world by doing something useful, which in his case requires that he overcome his cowardice and paralyzing fear of just about everything, from bugs to chickens to lightning. He will achieve this by having an accidental adventure when he is swept away from his family’s farm — yes, the dinosaurs have agriculture* — along a raging river and ends up far from home and very lost. As he struggles to find his way back, he adopts Spot (the voice of Jack Bright: Monsters University), a human toddler fending for himself in the wilderness (also an absurdity). At first I thought Spot — so named by Arlo, because the human doesn’t actually speak, just grunts and howls — was meant to be a feral anomaly. But later we see that all humans are wild and language-less: the homo sapiens are the animals in this world, and the dinos are the people.

I think this is meant to be charming, but it’s rather unpleasant. Even apart from how it makes no scientific sense at all.

(*I am flummoxed by how creatures with no opposable thumbs have managed to develop technology. The film tries to make some concessions to this, such as by having Arlo’s family “plough” their fields with their heads. But who made the rope they use for some chores? It’s impossible for apatosaurs to have done this. Have the dinos enslaved humans to do fine handiwork for them? Maybe the title is analogous to “the good German” after all!)

I am further truly flummoxed by the decision of director Peter Sohn — a Pixar animator making his directorial debut — to paint gorgeously lifelike landscapes for Arlo to journey across while rendering Arlo himself in a simplistically cartoonish way. The animated mountains and rivers and forests and grasslands are breathtakingly stunning, touchably real, and completely indistinguishable from filmed nature. Even Spot, while somewhat stylized, is a plausible approximation of a human being. Arlo, on the other hand, looks like an inflatable plastic pool toy.

The Good Dinosaur is certainly not suitable for grownup fans of animation — this is almost a slap in the face to such fans after Pixar’s earlier triumph this year with Inside Out, which is thematically, narratively, and visually one of the richest animated movies ever made. But I’m not even sure this is suitable for children: there are moments of casual violence that I can imagine would set off screams of terror in small tykes. (Example: a big colorful bug gets its head pulled off, revealing squishily organic guts and cutting short its lively squirming. This pretty creature gets killed dead as a joke.)

Perhaps the most effective smack to The Good Dinosaur’s lack of imagination comes from the Pixar short that accompanies it. “Sanjay’s Super Team” is a lovely bit of dreamery in which a little boy envisions the Hindu gods his father is praying to as superheroes. It’s beautiful, funny, exciting, and unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. It sadly highlights how stagnant mainstream Hollywood ideas of fantasy have become.


See also my #WhereAreTheWomen rating of The Good Dinosaur for its representation of girls and women.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
subscribe
notify of
94 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
RogerBW
RogerBW
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 4:29pm

I’ve seen a lot of puff pieces about how Pixar used real-world terrain models and other cunning stuff to get the backgrounds absolutely right… and then the protagonist looks like a cheap plastic toy, presumably to help the company sell cheap plastic toys.

Dan
Dan
reply to  RogerBW
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 6:15pm

I presume most of those pieces are written by people who have inside access to the studio themselves are and just making assumptions up? Okay!

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  Dan
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 10:07am

I’m thinking particularly of these pieces by Charlie Jane Anders at IO9 a few weeks back: http://io9.com/how-pixar-changed-all-the-rules-to-make-the-good-dinosa-1735364564 http://io9.com/how-pixar-rescued-the-good-dinosaur-from-creative-extin-1740125117
She’s less critical than many, but she’s generally not a mindless cheerleader for the latest thing to be promoted.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RogerBW
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 10:55pm

If only they had spent as much time and attention to detail on the script as they did on the visuals.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Oct 29, 2018 8:39am

What was so bad about the script?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Thu, Nov 01, 2018 12:01pm

Did you read my review?

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 12, 2018 8:06am

Sure did, but you only really pull out the scientific flaws in this fantasy movie which doesn’t make much sense.
You mention very little about the plot

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 12:51pm

Why do you need a plot recap? Why are you focusing on my nitpicking of the science when that it is far from my only complaint about the movie?

Why don’t you tell us what you loved about this movie so much that you must come to its defense?

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 9:50pm

“Why do you need a plot recap”

I Didn’t ask for a plot recap. I asked you what was so bad about it.

“Why are you focusing on my nitpicking of the science when that it is far from my only complaint about the movie?”

Sorry about that. I just thought it was silly to bash a Pixar film about it’s scientific inaccuracies. You are right about other nitpicking complaints too as you also mentioned how a ‘cartoon dinosaur looks like a ‘cartoon dinosaur’ ???

“Why don’t you tell us what you loved about this movie so much that you must come to its defense?”

I love this movie for so many different reasons.
– It follows the general plot rule that Pixar uses for the first film in their franchises.
– I love that the title character was flawed as any good Hero in their series is.
– I loved the Father figures that are in it. (poppa Henry in my opinion is the new Mufasa and Butch is an awesome cowboy)
– The score was done really well to the emotions that ran through the film (especially when Henry quotes to Arlo that “you are me and more”
– It has a good message about never giving up even if you are shat on constantly. because if you get through it you will grow and become better off. (this hit me real fucking hard as my childhood was shit until my grandparents took me in.
– Last, but least is the emotions that me and my two older kids felt when watching this was incredible and were moved to tears multiple times and no other Pixar film has done that for me.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 11:12am

I was not moved to tears, except perhaps of boredom. I’m happy you and your kids enjoyed the film, and my dislike of it does not invalidate your experience.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  RogerBW
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 8:59pm

my first thought on seeing the commercials and the sight of “arlo” was that he was a toy dinosaur of some kid, having adventures. sort of a calvin and hobbes thing… only hobbes looked “real” in calvin’s mind. (i remember being totally surprised after i had read a few strips that hobbes was a *stuffed* toy tiger… he wa such a vivid character i just assumed he was a real tiger). anyway, this review shows that the movie is much worse in dino representation than i’d thought. i wont be seeing it.

Meh
Meh
reply to  RogerBW
Sat, May 28, 2016 1:37pm

I don’t understand why they chose such cartoony designs when literally at the beginning of the movie we have relatively real looking dinosaurs. Even the snake/lizard thing looks like it belongs in the world more than Arlo does

Nina
Nina
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 6:10pm

Yowza, I’m seeing this with my Disney gal pal on Saturday…

Hank Graham
Hank Graham
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 6:24pm

I come to praise Pixar, not to bury it.

I’ve never seen a Pixar film I considered a total failure before. I didn’t much care for some of the Cars and Airplanes movies, but my nephew liked them.

But this one is pretty much a total misfire. Kurt and Royce and I (the adults) didn’t like it, their boys didn’t like it, and the crowd in general (at a preview screening) seemed pretty subdued in their response to it. It wasn’t fun; it wasn’t good, and it wasn’t memorable.

I’m put in mind of William Bayer’s comment, that films are so complicated to make, their problems so various and unpredictable, that failure, eventually, is almost inevitable.

Pixar’s track record is such that a bust of this magnitude stands out like black from white. How on earth did it get through their usual, painstaking story review process? How did the studio that famously side-tracked a release they thought wasn’t working (at great difficulty and expense) let this one out the door?

Whatever happened, I hope Pixar figures out that they missed, and wake up. We all know how good they can be.

Jesus Joseph Abeyta
Jesus Joseph Abeyta
reply to  Hank Graham
Wed, Jan 06, 2016 6:15pm

Planes IS NOT Pixar.

Tonio Kruger
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 7:35pm

I used to think it was impossible to make a bad movie about dinosaurs. But first Disney and now Pixar have proved me wrong. (Come to think of it, I wasn’t too impressed with Jurassic Park III either but that’s a subject for another thread.)

Nina
Nina
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 1:43am

You’re obviously not familiar with any of the “Land Before Time” sequels, and that’s for the best.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  Nina
Thu, Nov 26, 2015 2:34pm

Loved those when I was a kid, I don’t really remember them though. I remembered Star Wars Episode 4 just fine.

Nina
Nina
reply to  Nathan
Thu, Nov 26, 2015 4:02pm

I’ll shamefully admit that I stuck with the franchise up until the 6th one.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Nina
Tue, Nov 13, 2018 5:45pm

Apparently there are a lot of bad dinosaur movies out there that I either had the good luck to miss out on or that I forgot altogether. My bad.

Jesus Joseph Abeyta
Jesus Joseph Abeyta
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Wed, Jan 06, 2016 6:33pm

Really? You thought it was “impossible to make a bad movie about dinosaurs” until Disney and Pixar proved you wrong? So what, did you think movies like “We’re Back: A Dinosaur Story,” “Theodore Rex,” “Barney’s Great Adventure,” and ANY of the Land Before Time movies minus the very
first one were generally good? Oh you must of also LOVED “Tammy and the T-Rex” and “Adeventures in Dinosaur City.” Yeah, you’re totally right ONLY Disney and Pixar have made bad Dinosaur movies, THEM AND ONLY THEM RUINED DINOSAUR MOVIES FOREVER!!!!

I am truly sorry if I’m coming off as a total jerk, but I’m sorry that comment was dumb as hell.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Jesus Joseph Abeyta
Wed, Jan 06, 2016 8:33pm

You *are* coming off as a total jerk. If you have something constructive to add to the conversation, you are welcome to contribute. But there’s no need to drop in as a newbie and insult my regulars (or anyone else, for that matter).

Aaron Jones
Aaron Jones
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 8:09pm

I saw an early screening, and before then I wasn’t looking forward to the movie because I hated the character art, I thought it was just too simple and reminiscent of something like The Croods. I have to agree about the story, but yes, the landscapes created for the movie were absolutely incredible. Some of the best CGI rendering of the natural world I’ve yet seen is in service of the most pedestrian story one could imagine.

Movie Bear
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 8:51pm

The fact that you lead with a rant about how you’re ‘flummoxed’ over the title of The Good Dinosaur speaks volumes. Not about the movie, however. So let me offer a bit of help… The ‘Good’ in the title refers to Arlo’s internal struggles and his journey to overcome his feelings of inferiority in comparison to his siblings in order to be the ‘good’ son and a ‘good’ member of his family that he so badly wants to be. That’s it. Let it sink in and maybe the light will go on. Maybe you were expecting a ‘bad’ villain in the story and that maybe threw you off about the title. To quote a character…”Don’t overthink it”

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Movie Bear
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 9:24pm

So you think Arlo is not “good” until the end of the movie?

I’m not sure this is a “good” message to send to the kids who will make up most of the audience.

Movie Bear
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 9:33pm

Didn’t say that. You’re still missing it… HE thinks he’s not good enough until the end of the movie.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Movie Bear
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 10:56pm

Oh, I understand perfectly what you’re saying. I just don’t think it makes any sense.

Movie Bear
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Nov 26, 2015 1:09am

If you don’t think it makes sense, that’s fair enough. I’ll try to explain, at least in the way I saw it.. In the film, While he’s never directly referred to as a ‘bad dinosaur’, Arlo several times shows us how he himself feels inferior around the farm. His failures to ‘make his mark’ in a way that his parents and siblings do illustrate this clearly. Arlo’s entire character arc of self discovery (with help from other characters) throughout the film is about him growing his confidence, finding himself, and overcoming those inferior feelings so that he can make his mark and feel that he is a ‘good dinosaur’. The way this main theme is portrayed in the movie seems obvious (maybe too much so?) and makes total sense to me and I found it to be quite emotionally compelling.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Movie Bear
Fri, Nov 27, 2015 11:23am

As I said, I understand all this. And I still don’t see how it makes any sense. Arlo may overcome his cowardice, but his cowardice doesn’t make him “bad.” And how does Arlo “make his mark”? What has he done by the end of the film that is analogous to the ways his family members “made their marks”? How will his adventures have any impact on his family at all? We have no idea.

And even if I were to buy everything you say, this does not make Arlo a good “dinosaur.” A good son, maybe. If Arlo were a homo sapiens instead of an apatosaur, wouldn’t you find it bizarre if the title of the film were “The Good Human”? For either film to justify its title, its protagonist would have to exemplify something unique to his species, or something that specifically impacts his entire species.

MarkyD
reply to  Movie Bear
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 4:38pm

Wow. Way to be a condescending asshat. I’m pretty sure MaryAnn understands subtext, and how to watch movies. She’s been doing it FOREVER.
I’ll trust her opinion on this, that’s for sure.

Movie Bear
reply to  MarkyD
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 6:03pm

Maybe she “understands subtext”. Could be. But she points out herself that the main theme of the movie totally escapes her.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Movie Bear
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 10:57pm

Sorry, but you do NOT get to insult my integrity here. I do not review films that I have not seen. How could anyone even do that?

Movie Bear
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Nov 26, 2015 12:56am

Apologies for the insult and condescension.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Nov 26, 2015 2:53pm

Clearly you haven’t heard a “sparknotes” report before :) Nothing’s more hilarious than hearing a frazzled high-school student explain how Fahrenheit 541 is about a future where firemen aren’t allowed to read and one of them does and then get’s chased by a dog and then lives with some really smart hobos who also like books but don’t get chased by dogs and how 1984 was a really great book because it talked about how books are good and we should be allowed to read them… and stuff.

Or the one guy who watched the LoTRs movies and decides he can fake a report on the books. Who’s Tom Bombadill? errr, yeah… that guy, now I remember… he was in the fir- the hobbit right? Oh well I read it awhile ago…

Nikstarr
Nikstarr
reply to  Nathan
Sat, Nov 28, 2015 3:28am

To be honest, this film took a big step as far as its portrayal of a difficult situation. First off it didn’t rely on dialogue to illustrate the character’s feelings. It believed that the children were smart enough to feel emotion through simple actions and gestures. Snow White did just this when it was released to children in the year 1937. It portrayed raw emotion through simple actions, words, music, and need I remind you it was also a kid’s movie. I understand that you may not understand the movie. However, this leads me to believe that while you may “never quite get it”, that on what grounds it would be any reason to keep your children from understanding. I spoke with a little girl in 3rd grade about it and you know what she told me “I was so happy that arlo made it home!”. That’s all. She nor any other children at the theater cried because it was scary. You know why? Because the majority of children who saw it weren’t sheltered from the world and had some idea that people get hurt, people die, and that scary things happen in life. So while your child among the others of people reviewing here may have thought it to be scary and horrible experience, realize that outside your bubble people with children who have had even a taste of real struggle know that those things are just part of life. And in no way does this knowledge make them any less capable than children of your own.

Think about it and you’ll get it. I have nothing left to say to you other than that I will not reply simply because I believe that you and everyone else here has the capability to understand if you try hard enough. With that I tip my hat to you fine gentleman and ladies. Adieu! ;)

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Nikstarr
Sun, Nov 29, 2015 11:59am

Did you not read the comment just above in which I warned about condescension?

Nina
Nina
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 1:44am

Personally, I started feeling pretty nervous about this one when it was announced that they changed the main cast really late into production.

MarkyD
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 4:39pm

This looked bad from the get go, which baffled me. I thought maybe it was only a sort of Pixar movie that Disney was pushing out under their moniker.
Your review makes it sound even worse than I was expecting. Bummer.

natef
natef
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 10:55pm

Personally I applaud this movie. Appreciated Pixar going for a more lyrical, serious tone as opposed to their usual humor driven scripts. It felt almost like an extended short film in its simplicity and it saddens me that everyone wasn’t as entranced by this as I was. I feel like it’s one of Pixar’s most ambitious and unique efforts

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  natef
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 10:58pm

You thought this was *serious*? With all the slapstick? Really?

natef
natef
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Nov 25, 2015 11:01pm

The only real slapstick I can think of was involving the raptors and it was done in an uninsistent manner. If you’re referring to Arlo falling down a lot, that was definitely not intended as slapstick. He sustains real, visceral injuries. In fact I thought that was one of the film’s bolder choices.

And I wasn’t put off by his design at all

Movie Bear
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Nov 26, 2015 1:27am

To be fair, there were a few moments that could definitely be considered slapstick (the Arlo as a bridge on the cliff scene). But that’s OK, because slapstick is certainly present in ANY kids movie, including many Pixar classics. However, it was brilliant that TGD stayed away from allowing the slapstick moments to drive the story, but used it sparingly and only to provide some welcomed comic relief in what was otherwise a pretty serious and sometimes even somber movie.
But I am totally in agreement with you in applauding this movie, Natef. I really appreciated that this Pixar took the time to give us a more lyrical, wondrous tone than what we’d typically expect. For me, it was a wonderful switch from the pummeling, ‘funny-quip-every-10-seconds’ dialogue that we’ve seen in too many recent ‘family’ films. (I’m looking at you Minions). Bravo to Pixar for the care and quality that went into this move, not just with the stunning visuals and out of the box world-building, but also with the heart that was put into the story and characters.

Nathan
Nathan
Thu, Nov 26, 2015 2:54pm

The B team must have worked on this while everyone else was on Inside Out.

atollintercomsystems
Mon, Nov 30, 2015 12:01am

Damn, somehow I saw this coming just by the trailer, it really didn’t look good. Didn’t read your review entirely because I’m waiting to see it still, but I’m not optimistic and I see that I was right in my fear.

You know what the trailers made me feel like ? I thought I was looking at a Dreamworks movie.

Also, Inside Out was a fantastic movie with a downright awful short at the beginning, and so this is backwards, apparently ? They should just have re-released Inside Out with that new short, I’d have gone and seen it again right away…

natef
natef
reply to  atollintercomsystems
Mon, Nov 30, 2015 5:27am

This isn’t anything like a Dreamworks movie. You’d understand how utterly ridiculous that comparison is after seeing it.

I’m certain history will be kind to this film. It’s a lot more ambitious than people are giving it credit for right now.

Danielm80
Danielm80
Thu, Dec 03, 2015 12:51pm

If this sheep can take a selfie without opposable thumbs, then dinosaurs can master agriculture:

http://rainbowrowell.tumblr.com/post/134444746286/chubcakes-what-a-good-sheep-selfie

Rod Ribeiro
Rod Ribeiro
Sun, Jan 10, 2016 1:49pm

But I’m not even sure this is suitable for children: there are moments of casual violence that I can imagine would set off screams of terror in small tykes.

You’re absolutely right. I saw this with two kids, 11 and 3. The 11-year-old was bored to death (she could anticipate every move and twist of the plot); the 3-year-old was scared of (SPOILER) Arlo’s dad’s death, Arlo getting seriously injured, big carnivorous dinosaurs (even after they weren’t bad at all), (SPOILER) a boy her own age almost drowning… It was really a lose-lose.

Bob Shook
Bob Shook
Fri, Sep 30, 2016 6:39am

Dead parent in the first 15 minutes, too scary for young ones, rediculous story line and nothing original. I didn’t enjoy explaining what the word ‘murderer’ meant to my 7 year old. He finally had enough of the scariness of every other scene and asked me to turn it off. Happily. Don’t waste your time on this one.

Kielioss
Kielioss
Mon, Oct 29, 2018 8:34am

Woah! Ripping into a Pixar film about scientific inaccuracies seems a bit harsh!

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Thu, Nov 01, 2018 11:59am

When there are real people in the world teaching their children that evolution is bullshit and dinosaurs and humans *did* coexist, and when this kind of anti-science, anti-reason crap is going to be the death of us all, you sure as hell had better believe I am going to complain about such nonsense being depicted in a children’s movie.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 05, 2018 9:19am

Fair enough, but you do know that this is fantasy right and Peter Sohn didn’t make the movie to feel that way. I am curious though as to what religion believes that humans coexisted with dinosaurs?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Kielioss
Mon, Nov 05, 2018 12:00pm

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2015/03/science-doubters-climate-change-vaccinations-gmos/

And I find that when a movie is based around an outlandish fantasy premise, everything else in the film needs to seem ultra-realistic, or I have trouble taking the premise seriously. That’s probably why J.K. Rowling defined the rules of magic, and of Hogwarts, in such precise detail, and why the Nolan Batman films explained the reasoning behind every single feature of the bat costume and the Batmobile.

Also, a lot of kids become experts on dinosaurs at a very early age, so a film about dinosaurs needs to be even more accurate than usual. But if they don’t know the facts, teaching kids bad science is an especially terrible thing to do, especially when there are so many adults around to compound the damage.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Nov 05, 2018 5:02pm

And yet my generations managed to grow up watching The Flintstones without thinking it was a documentary. Or at least most of us did.

Then again I used to be one of those kids who became an expert on dinosaurs at a very early age, once going so far as to argue with an older cousin when I was in grade school about whether the creature in a particular dinosaur movie was an allosaurus or a T Rex. And I still miss the word “brontosaurus”, even though that word is as obsolete as “Piltdown Man” and considering Pluto to be a planet…

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Nov 12, 2018 7:45am

I don’t want to sound like a dick, but using Harry Potter and Nolan Batman as a counter is not a good example as they both contain really bad math. (Both area amazing franchises though and I really don’t like saying bad things about them.)
I actually take shitloads of pride in my dinosaur knowledge from when I was a kid in the 90s till now, but did not let that get in the way of enjoying a film like Land Before Time or a certain segment in Fantasia.
Most kids love super heroes so should we all stop letting them watch Spider-man because it’s scientifically flawed?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Kielioss
Mon, Nov 12, 2018 9:50am

If you watch any movie often enough, and carefully enough, you’ll find a plot hole somewhere, even if it’s your favorite film. And if you watch any movie often enough, and carefully enough, you’ll find something to love about it, no matter how much you might hate it.

When MaryAnn saw The Good Dinosaur, she found a lot more to hate than there was to love. The characters didn’t engage her much, and she thought the plot was illogical and banal. If you, personally, were charmed by it, then you may find it easy to overlook the flaws. That doesn’t mean the flaws aren’t there.

I’m going to say something that should be obvious: No one will ever write a movie review that the whole world agrees with, and most critics don’t even try. The review is just a reflection of how well that critic, personally, thinks the movie balances its flaws and its charms. Each person in the audience will make their own assessment, as they should (which may help them decide which critics they trust).

It does bug me, however, when people suggest that children’s movies are beyond criticism, as though children don’t have the critical faculties or the intelligence to recognize that a movie is terrible. Kids will, of course, respond to movies in a different way than they would as adults. Sometimes that makes them more forgiving, sometimes less, depending on the child (and on how awful the movie is). But filmmakers should still strive to give children the best movie they possibly can, by putting in lots of things for the audience to love.

If filmmakers use the age of the audience as an excuse, then kids may get used to bad science and bad writing, and never expect more from the world. They may also never develop the ability, or the knowledge, to question the bad science, unless they have teachers or parents or film critics to point it out. I’m afraid that, for a lot of people, that’s already happened.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Nov 13, 2018 9:58am

Well put!
I gotta say though that I’ve never meet any kids that take teachings from animated fantasy movies, but if they do then it’s up to us parents to inform them that it’s just make-believe.
Have to admit that I have to tell my kids that a lot of what they see in live action films couldn’t happen in real life.
once again your comment is amazing. Thank you DanielM80

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Kielioss
Tue, Nov 13, 2018 11:14am

Grownups probably didn’t think they were taking any teachings from Will and Grace, but after it had been on the air for a while, gay marriage became legal.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Nov 13, 2018 5:39pm

I think it’s safe to say that most of Will and Grace‘s audience was already either pro-gay marriage or leaning in that direction before it became legal, if for no other reason that W & G wasn’t exactly the type of show that appealed to outright homophobes. Personally I would like to think that 1970s sitcoms like All in the Family and Soap were far more influential in changing people’s minds in regards to gay rights but your mileage obviously varies.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 12:59pm

W & G wasn’t exactly the type of show that appealed to outright homophobes.

C’mon. Surely you know that no one needs to be an outright bigot to be a good German, don’t you?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 12:58pm

it’s up to us parents to inform them that it’s just make-believe.

And what happens when the parents believe the make-believe crap, too?

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 8:58pm

Then I’d feel real sorry for them and hope that when the children grow up they can grow, become more open minded, think for themselves and question their authority, but you gotta point the blame to the source and not a movie

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 11:09am

There’s plenty of blame to go around.

I’d feel real sorry for them and hope

That’s not how this works. You don’t just “hope” that things get better. You work toward making them better.

And this movie would still be shit even if everyone was an atheist.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 4:27pm
Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 6:15pm

including teaching that Moses had an influence on America’s Founding Fathers

I mean, that’s not exactly… wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Of course, saying the Founders were steeped in and influenced by the Hebrew Scriptures (kind of unavoidable at the time) isn’t the same as saying the Constitution is directly founded on Scripture. I’m not confident the Texas board won’t cross that line…

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 11:06am

Yeah, I don’t think Texas is proposing that we teach children about Deism, how that influenced the founding fathers, and why it was considered a reasonable and logical position to hold before we understood evolution.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 4:53pm

Ahem. I learned about Deism while attending a Texas high school. Apparently times have changed since I was a teenager…

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Thu, Nov 22, 2018 10:29am

When were you a teenager? I was a teen in the 1980s, and I don’t recall ever hearing the word “Deism” in school. And this was in New York, not the Deep South.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Nov 22, 2018 3:49pm

Late 1970s. In Plano, a suburb of Dallas. (I’m not sure I’d consider Texas to be part of the Deep South because I usually hear that term used to describe states like Mississippi and Alabama but yes, it was a Southern state.)

And to be fair, Deism did not get a lot of emphasis in our lesson plans but it was mentioned. Just like one of my high school history teachers chose to tell us that early Christians were never meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, just his death and resurrection. And that even if they did, it was not likely that His birth would have occurred in December because of the part in the Bible that mentions the shepherds being out in the fields –or at least their Mideastern equivalents — with their flocks.

Yes, that must seem an odd topic for a history class but most of that info fell upon the deaf ears of many of my classmates anyway though some of the most intellectual students I hung out with did make a point of emphasizing the connection between Christmas and a certain pagan celebration.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Sun, Aug 16, 2020 4:10pm

Late 1970s.

So, pre-Reagan. Education has been deliberately and continuously dumbed down since then.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Kielioss
Mon, Nov 05, 2018 1:51pm

Look up Young Earth creationism.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Sun, Nov 11, 2018 4:15pm

Peter Sohn didn’t make the movie to feel that way.

So what? The problem is still there.

I am curious though as to what religion believes that humans coexisted with dinosaurs?

You’ve really never come across this nonsense before?

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 12, 2018 7:27am

I was raised on Christianity by my grandparents and have read both testaments and nowhere in the bible does it state that dinosaurs even existed.
The only other religious books that I have read are the Bhagavad gita and the Bhagavatam and while they mention giant dwarfs stepping over half the f**king universe. They don’t mention dinosaurs

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Kielioss
Tue, Nov 13, 2018 2:53pm

I was raised on Christianity by my grandparents and have read both testaments and nowhere in the bible does it state that dinosaurs even existed.

Whatever the Bible actually says, it doesn’t stop anti-science people from using their religion to justify their ignorance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/opinion/blow-dinosaurs-and-denial.html

https://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html

If your religious faith doesn’t blind you to the validity of scientific evidence, then good for you. But too many religious people in America believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs were therefore created alongside humans. This would be funny if it were a harmless idea, but it’s not. It’s part of the same anti-science mindset that denies the reality of climate change; it leads anti-science voters to elect anti-science leaders; and it’s eventually going to be the death of us.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Bluejay
Thu, Nov 15, 2018 5:40am

I was only raised like that. I believe in the cosmos. I agree with what you’re saying, but I do have to enlighten you on one thing. These nutjobs believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old not 10,000.
Crazy aye.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 12:48pm

nowhere in the bible does it state that dinosaurs even existed.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say lots of shit that plenty Christians today literally preach as literal Gospel.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 12, 2018 8:27am

‘Peter Sohn didn’t make the movie to feel that way.’

“So what? The problem is still there.”

So why didn’t you badmouth the “Toy Story” franchise as there are people out there that believe in living dolls and tell their children about them.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Kielioss
Tue, Nov 13, 2018 5:42pm

Perhaps because those people have yet to acquire the same amount of political influence that the creationists and the anti-evolution folk have had.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Thu, Nov 15, 2018 5:36am

Very good point.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 12:54pm

people out there that believe in living dolls and tell their children about them.

Citations needed. Also you need to cite how these people are trying to force the rest of the world to accept their bullshit, like by basing laws on it.

Anyway, the *Toy Story* movies use their fantasy to tell a story that IS ACTUALLY FANTASTICAL, and is chuck full of wonder and emotion. This movie does.

I’m starting to think you’re a troll. Either that or you genuinely do not know how storytelling works, never mind not knowing how criticism works.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Nov 17, 2018 11:07pm

Troll? haha you’re the one you is giving me the worm here. Okay I’ll take your bait.

“Citations needed. Also you need to cite how these people are trying to force the rest of the world to accept their bullshit, like by basing laws on it.”

I never stated that these people are trying to convince the world of that. I said that they are telling their kids that. Please don’t spin my words.
Also Why do I need to cite them? Everyone knows who Ed and Loraine Warren are

“Anyway, the *Toy Story* movies use their fantasy to tell a story that IS ACTUALLY FANTASTICAL, and is chuck full of wonder and emotion. This movie does.”

You’re right this movie does.

“I’m starting to think you’re a troll. Either that or you genuinely do not know how storytelling works, never mind not knowing how criticism works.”

You’re the one being a troll by luring me with insults. Every other person who has replied to my comments on this thread wrote in a way that was informative and I accepted what they had to say, backed off and let them know that they were on point, but you keep coming back with remarks on convos that have already stopped. Keep going if you want, but I’ve still got more billy goats to cross that bridge if you do.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Kielioss
Sun, Nov 18, 2018 4:45am

Everyone knows who Ed and Loraine Warren are.

They do?

I’m old enough to remember the original Amityville Horror controversy and I used to read books about the paranormal for fun. Yet I still had to look up those names.

I guess my knowledge of Mulderology (the science of anything likely to be mentioned by Fox Mulder*) is not what it used to be.

Then again, most people I know are lucky if they recognize the names Mulder and Scully.

* Yes, I did just make that word up.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Sun, Nov 18, 2018 10:17am

Mulderology is a good word to make up. Would you mind if I use it?
I’ve always wandered what it would’ve been like to have heard the amityville case when it first happened.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Kielioss
Mon, Nov 19, 2018 12:14am

I don’t mind.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Mon, Nov 19, 2018 5:23am

Thhhaaank you!
Already used it a few times today, but only a couple of people at work understand the ref. I work with too many young people/ uneducated folk who just don’t know who Fox is

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Sun, Nov 18, 2018 10:19am

“They do?”

Sorry. I did kind of assume that the majority would know them due to their horror franchise.

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Mon, Nov 19, 2018 4:39am

My grandparents taught me a lot about specific fields of “Mulderology”

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 11:15am

I never stated that these people are trying to convince the world of that. I said that they are telling their kids that. Please don’t spin my words.

I’m not spinning anything. I am explaining to you how your example is not at all the same thing I am talking about.

You’re right this movie does.

Typo. You know damn well I intended to write “doesn’t.” Why does it matter to you what I think of the film? Why does it bother you that I don’t like it the way you do?

you keep coming back with remarks on convos that have already stopped

You… do know that this is my site, right? That you came here to provoke me?

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 12:29pm

“Typo. You know damn well I intended to write “doesn’t.” Why does it matter to you what I think of the film? Why does it bother you that I don’t like it the way you do?”

I admit that I was being an ass at this point. I’m very sorry about that. I’ll also apologize about unintentionally offending you. I didn’t know I was raising a subject that is very sensitive to you. I should’ve stopped once religion came in. Too many religious wars too begin with. I’ll try not to be as ignorant as I have been. If I start being a dick just say Nothronychus.
(Real dinosaur by the way. It was a fucking badass too)

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Kielioss
Wed, Nov 21, 2018 1:09pm

MaryAnn isn’t angry because she’s a fragile snowflake who’s sensitive about religion. She’s angry because you keep making really bad arguments. You’ve implied—intentionally or otherwise—that confusing a sergeant with a corporal is a serious error that calls into question MaryAnn’s qualifications as a critic, but when The Good Dinosaur misrepresents evolution and the history of life on Earth, you treat it as a minor oversight.

As I said earlier, most films have errors, but those flaws need to be taken in the context of the entire film, and the degree to which they affect its quality as a whole. And as I said earlier, some errors are genuinely dangerous, because they have an impact on the political decisions people make after they leave the movie theatre.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Thu, Nov 22, 2018 10:25am

In what way were you “coming from” the ideas represented in those links?

Also, wait a damn second! You previously wondered what religion thinks humans and dinosaurs coexisted, but you were “coming from” links that made it perfectly clear which religion that is?

Kielioss
Kielioss
reply to  Danielm80
Thu, Nov 22, 2018 5:59am

Probably the reason why I am so puzzled with Creationists thinking that this movie supports their insane theory is because none of this sort of stuff happens in Aotearoa.
I do appreciate all the links that people have sent in regards to creationists and their wild theory of people co-existing with the mighty haumaru nui, but I have to say that none of them quote this film to being a connection to this ever growing issue of these cults trying to take over our textbooks. I would love it if someone can find a link that shows this as it would be very educational for me and I would be able to show others in this iti whenua in which I call home.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Thu, Nov 22, 2018 10:28am

this film to being a connection to this ever growing issue of these cults trying to take over our textbooks

Absolutely no one has suggested such a thing.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kielioss
Thu, Nov 22, 2018 10:23am

I didn’t know I was raising a subject that is very sensitive to you.

Don’t put this on me. I am not being “sensitive.”