What do you guys think about this movie? is it as bad as they say?

what do you guys think about this movie? is it as bad as they say?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=D0tcrafmFsc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's not bad at all.

it wasnt bad, it just wasnt great. It was pretty forgettable.

It's not bad, it's just pretty unfocused and the plot is kinda standard and derivative. But the characters are for the main part likeable and the visual are simply gorgeous.

But folks talk about it like it was the worst Pixar. It's not fucking Cars or Monsters University.

As someone who's always loved dinosaurs and Pixar, yes. Such a disappointment.

The cartoony style doesn't blend well with the realistic backgrounds at all, the main character's personality just comes across as whiny and unlikable, and in the end, it basically has nothing to do with dinosaurs. It could have just been about a boy and his wild dog he found and nothing would have changed.

>visuals
>gorgeous
The land? Yes. The characters? Ugly and disjointed as shit.

It failed because of the art style.

Oh yeah, he got his dad killed and then suddenly he fits in because he did not die and returned home.

>The characters? Ugly and disjointed as shit.
this, it was like some cheap claynimation

I personally liked the contrast, but I guess I can see your point. However it didn't fail because of the visual style, but because the plot was kinda good but forgettable.

I was actually a bit disturbed by Arlo's bruises. Guy got pretty banged up.

Being bland and forgettable is a far worse crime than being stupid.

Cars was stupid but still had lots of fun with it's ridiculous premise, same with Cars 2.

Monsters University was sort of the same, but it also had a third act which was legitimately good while delivering a cynical but true message which you rarely see in children's films.

>>little wild boy
>>uncivilized
>>wearing a grass skirt
>>no bare butt shots at all
>>also he's a dog for some reason

Dropped. Honestly, a western with T. rexes would have been good, and leave Spot and Arlo out entirely.

It was actually pretty good.

>everything is a dog.
>strange alien = dog
>kid = dog
>moose = dog
>cat = dog
I fucking hate this, why does it keep happening?

"pet" trope.

>pet = dogs only

Because cats are assholes

>Hey how did you get to put the mark?
I broke a couple trees
>How about you?
I domesticated a wild creature and then I traveled all the way from fuck you nowhere back home

It's not really bad, just very unremarkable in terms of plot and characters.
The backgrounds and water animation are pretty as fuck but they clash with the characters.

It's not bad per se. Just incredibly generic and boring. There is nothing of any unique value created in this story nor this work. Nothing that will stop you and make you think "Wow, I'd never imagined that before! I didn't see that coming."

Also, they pretty much ripped off all the setting from Yellowstone National Park in USA. Literally. I remember at one point they are running through some mineral-springs flats down a path and I realized "Wait a minute! I've WALKED down that path."

There is nothing original or worthwhile in this film. You won't laugh, and there are better things that can pluck your heart strings. Don't waste your precious time on this earth even checking it out.

The dragons in HTTYD were based on cats... so there's that.

There's also Max from Tangled. I hated that fucker. On top of falling into that trope, he was such a smug piece of shit.
The pig in Moana will fit the bill too.

>Cars was stupid
I have enjoyed Cars several times, but don't care for Mator or whatever his name is. The journey of McQueen was far more enjoyable and believable than this film.

But to each their own.

>Also, they pretty much ripped off all the setting from Yellowstone National Park in USA. Literally. I remember at one point they are running through some mineral-springs flats down a path and I realized "Wait a minute! I've WALKED down that path."

Yellowstone and Grand Teton. Pixar got the US Geological Department's topographical data for the whole Greater Yellowstone area and used that as the basis of the film's setting.

It's The Revenant for kids.

>Monsters University
I will never understand the hate for this movie. It's no Monsters Inc, but I still loved it.

It was an unnecessary movie and that's where the hate comes from

Not a bad one, though I agree.

I hated the film the instant I realized the kid was just a dog. I liked the T-rexes though.

>unnecessary movie

I hate this criticism, no film is 'necessary'.

That actually seems like a fair description.
I watched it with my 4 year old and its way too brutal/scary for him.

It's like everyone tries to one up each other with tragedy in these movies.

>"Why are they wasting time making a sequel instead of a new IP for a movie that didn't need a sequel or prequel"
There. That's what makes it unnecessary

"Unnecessary", maybe, but what they did with the premise made it as "necessary" as they could've.
Monsters Inc was Sulley's story, Monsters U was Mike's. I liked that.

They both feature a protagonist battling nature in a long journey. They both run into a trippy Native American (the triceratops).

And, both movies are great technical achievement in their fields, with great landscapes.

Yeah I think it was well done, but not really sure who it's made for. Too much of a bore for adults, not engaging enough for kids.

Not that user, but because of entertainment. Original or sequel/prequel, entertainment is entertainment. Secret Life of Pets, Nut Job, Escape from Planet Earth and Free Birds are original. Monsters University is way better than all of them. The only necessary thing a film (not including documentaries) should is entertain. Otherwise the philosophy of "unnecessary sequels, original IP is better' is based on nothing other than one's own feeling of superiority on judgement of things.

>If the dinosaurs never died out
There wouldn't be humans; this is poisoning the minds of children.

how dare you to question christian logic you pleb

too true

I seriously don't get why people dislike it so much. I thought it was a solid coming of age story. Hell, even the cartoony characters, which I despised in the trailers, actually kinda grew on me. Still not ideal, but it by no means ruins the entire movie or something. Not saying it's the best Pixar movie or something, it definitely isn't, but it's still damn good.
Fucking fantastic OST too.
youtube.com/watch?v=D0tcrafmFsc

It's good and looks fantastic
Story wise nothing original, simple kid lost and away from home (but kid is dinosaur and pet is caveman)
But nothing really to hate. Forgettable maybe, hate worthy nah.

Why would dinosaurs living mean no humans?
I mean tons of other animals lived along side dinosaurs and scraped along okay.

I thought it was fine. I'd totally shove my dick in Arlo's butthole though so maybe I'm just biased.

>entertainment is entertainment

That's a shit argument that could be used to defend all sorts of trash.

The point to be made is that sequels/prequels/spinoffs are with only the occasional exception worse than the original films. Hell there are entire franchises spanning decades worth of sequels and spinoffs where even the fans will tell you only the very first film was any good. You can say "feeling of superiority on judgement of things" all you want but most people will just look at you and think "shit taste".

Yes there are original films which can worse than shameless franchise milking sequels, that's not a fair judgement to make if the studios involved are different, or if the IP was just plain shit. The problem is when the studio could have made a better film if they had just worked on a new IP instead of milking one of their established properties, or if it's become apparent that they've lost their touch and are milking properties because they can't do anything better, which sadly probably sums Pixar up a fair bit.

>The pig in Moana will fit the bill too.

>not acknowledging best horse in disney animation

pleb.

Pros:
>fucking ATMOSPHERE: Visuals, Music, Location, Mood
>Gnarly masculine voice-acting
>The Idea: Dino Spaghetti Western, fucking 10/10

Cons:
>Only visuals that were bad: characters
>The story
>Rushed story at that
>Human kid and Dino kid
>humans
>The Petrie cult
>The raptor meth heads
>that. fucking. triceratops.
Seriously, it would have made ALL THE SENSE IN THE PREHISTORIC JOHN WAYNE WORLD for the triceratops to be a badass native american, not some crazed nutjob in the woods.

Possible improvements:
>Give the dinosaurs more textured design, not Rango-tier maybe but at least Finding Nemo level. (not finding dory, it got WORST)
>Remove boy and dog story, but instead, father and son story
>Optional: Still have the father death to cash in on feels, but make it more of an "earned" death. i.e. not just getting flood-rushed
>Arlo takes offer to head south to the watering hole (Read: Western town), which allows for ability to show civilization in new dino-dominated world
>Father's reputation proceeds him, saves Arlo many times, even makes him a target

I actually liked the idea of the pterosaur storm cult. But yeah, going all in on Dinosaur Western would have been so much better.

I liked it. It's pretty much a showcase for the environments, though.

the goofy looking dinosaur is probably why the movie did so poorly i'd say the landscapes are astonishingly beautiful.

My girlfriend and I found this movie excruciating. It was just one tribulation after another thrust into our faces and it was very sad. This movie is depressing and anxiety inducing with very little payoff at the end. Looks great..did not enjoy it much at all

Buck from Home on the Range would (literally) beat the shit out of Maximus

fucking boring

I forgot about that part. Blocked it out, maybe. I was wincing the whole time.

Because mammals probably would've stayed small, the K-T extinction allowed those small mammals to evolve into the empty ecological niches that were created when the dinosaurs died out.

Pixar had Black Science Man come up with an asspull excuse when the movie came out for how it could even work: Dinosaurs only survived in the Western Hemisphere. Humans and bison came over the land bridge having evolved on the other side of the world.

>also he's a dog for some reason

Perhaps my favorite part of this movie was that BOTH characters were the dog for the other character. The human clearly was trying to tame the dinosaur by bringing it food, etc.

The Good Dinosaur is weird in that it's most remarkable feature is that when you watch it, you can see all of the elements of a great movie, but it never quite coalesces into what you want it to be. It's obvious why people at Pixar greenlit it and also never gave up on it, but its also obvious that it was going through some development trouble. Perhaps they needed to scale down the team a bit and removing some focus testing / producers from the situation, let the more artsy creative side of Pixar express themselves more uninhibited. It's clear that the Pixar Braintrust of whatever has been tending towards playing it safe more often than not nowadays, to the detriment of their films.

Yeah, it's an ok movie, but I have no desire to see it again, kind of like Monsters U and the Cars movies.

To talk about the visuals, I think they work pretty well, to the point where Id love a Bone movie to kind of ape the style of it.

>What is Continental Drift

In a Dinosaur world, Mammals (and birds) would rule over small islands

it's bad

>Home on the Range

This is a good list. I'd add as a pro. The pain was extremely well depicted, you could really feel every bump and scrape.

I'd also add Arlo's personality as a negative. He was not a very likable character.

It's inferior of the two Pixar movies released in 2015.

The only thing I liked about this movie was that one female T-rex. Ramsay I think? She was the only one I legitimately liked. The dad was cool but forgettable just like everything else in this movie