It's out on individual release on Nov 3
http://www.amazon.com/Toy-Story-that-Time-Forgot/dp/B013F4VQSM
(tho I agree it would be better if they at least bundled it, Toy Story of terror and the various Bonnie-era shorts into a single release)
It's out on individual release on Nov 3
http://www.amazon.com/Toy-Story-that-Time-Forgot/dp/B013F4VQSM
(tho I agree it would be better if they at least bundled it, Toy Story of terror and the various Bonnie-era shorts into a single release)
A DVD bundling all the post-TS3 Toy Story material? Funny, in Norway we already have that. I have said DVD. Including Toy Story That Time Forgot.
Oh hey, it's my ringtone.
Though I don't see much point in a video like that when the song has such a clearly defined starting and stopping point. For these "song looping for hours"-videos I'm used to them just editing it so that it just seamlessly loops without ever actually playing the end of the song, not just… playing the entire song over and over and over again.
With Pixar sequel season resuming next year, heres the first look at Finding Dory:
My overall impression is a big "Meh, I did not ask for this", and the "Lets introduce X's parents/family!" is just such a rote sequel idea that I can't really get excited. But then again, Nemo was the most episodic Pixar film of the lot, so it probably lends itself well to a sequel.
Finding Nemo remains my favorite Pixar movie so, while I don't necessarily think this is gonna be anything great, I'm still excited to see these characters again. And the trailer was nice enough.
Trailer did nothing for me. I'm sure the movie will be fun once it's out, but didn't see any of that here.
I'm honestly afraid of the "They didn't handle _________ mental condition properly" backlash.
Finding Nemo is still my favorite Pixar movie, so I am very excited for this. The trailer was very cute. Nothing fantastic yet, but it's a teaser.
Finding Nemo is one of those movies where almost everyone has seen it but it's hard to find anyone who didn't like it. My only fear for Finding Dory is that expectations might be too high based on how Finding Nemo did. Same thing for Frozen 2.
Finding Nemo is one of those movies where almost everyone has seen it but it's hard to find anyone who didn't like it.
Not that hard. I didn't like it.
I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it.
I'm not a fan of the Alice in Wonderland format in general, where its basically entirely unconnected five minute skits with crazy people before moving onto the next one with little real carry over between them.
(And before you ask, yes, I've watched it a couple times now to make sure it wasn't just a bad first viewing. WHile my opinion on UP changed considerably after my second viewing, mostly due to my having first seen it right after a break up and really not being in the mood for it, Nemo just doesn't work for me.)
Not that hard. I didn't like it.
I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it.
Thanks a lot, Robby. You broke my 12 year I-can't-find-anyone-who-dislikes-Nemo streak.
You haven't looked that hard. I've said it plenty of times in this thread in the past.
And "dislike" is a stronger word than "didn't like". I don't actively disdain it. I just didn't care for it. It's like Bug's Life. Its there.
Cars 2 is the only Pixar film I've actively felt betrayed by while watching it due to how terrible the story was where I just wanted it to be over while I was actually in the theatre. (To the point that afterward I went and watched Kung Fu Panda 2 to cleanse it out.) Any of the other films have mostly been hindsight analysis and comparison.
Brave is a special case where I was expecting and wanting something else based on all their early chatter and previews, but that clearly changed a lot in the last year of development when it switched directors. A couple years out that's harder to hold against the actual film, but… those trailers, man. What a thing they'd pretended they were doing.
I guess I didn't care about Monsters University either. It doesn't offend me though, it was just pointless and did nothing for me on any level.
I haven't been actively searching for all the people who "don't like" Finding Nemo in recent years. Probably because I don't care that much. Afterall, I "didn’t like" Up but I've only seen it once and to be fair I was already half asleep when I turned it on. That's no way to watch a movie so I plan on watching it again, I just haven't put my mind to it yet. On the first viewing I didn’t like Ratouille and I felt the romance plot was too forcrd. Well, after a second viewing I still feel the romance plot is a little forced but I really liked the movie overall.
Brave is a movie I feel I will not like that much no matter how many times I watch it. In fact, it'll probably make it worse. I saw it in theaters and came away thinking it was "ok" but not what I was hoping for which was a badass female Robin Hood of sorts.
I saw Brave in theaters and left feeling… mildly positive. Then a little later I saw it again in theaters and left feeling... mildly positive. I then proceeded to all but forget the movie entirely and did not see it again until September this year during my rewatch of every Pixar-movie released to date...
All of a sudden I found myself liking it a lot more. I mean it's still like a 7/10 at best, but for a movie I remembered just being completely indifferent to, I was surprised at how much I ended up enjoying it now three years later. Heck, I even went and rewatched it again a little after that again.
Oh, right, teaser for Finding Dory. Well, I'll go see it, but I'm not really hyped about that one either. Funny, that… Pixar just released what is at the moment my favorite movie period, and yet precisely none of their upcoming projects have me excited in any way…
I saw a midnight screening of Brave and I probably would have liked it more had I not had a voice in my head screaming at me to stay awake.
Finding Dory looks like it's going to handle Dory the same way Cars 2 handled Mater.
I knew Finding Dory was coming but I still felt a brief moment of shock when I watched the trailer like… It was so cool to see NEW footage with these characters. Unlike Toy Story that puts out a short every X months, Nemo was kind of one of the first early pixar juggernauts that just kinda ended and was never really revisited at all
I hope it's good. Not too keen on the Meet the Family thing (like the new Kung fu panda) but I'm hoping that Pixar comes up with something really smart
Am I the only one who isn't particularly excited about The Good Dinosaur? I just don't know why, the trailers didn't snag me.
Am I the only one who isn't particularly excited about The Good Dinosaur? I just don't know why, the trailers didn't snag me.
Well, it's Pixar, so I'll almost certainly see it, but….yeah. It's almost two weeks from the release date and we still don't much about it aside from the boy-and-his-dog story turned upside down. And nothing in the trailers has been particularly engaging; no standout humor or innovative scenarios. Plus, everyone's put off by the goofy designs. Also, this movie just hasn't had a whole lot of build-up to it and it's kinda weird that Pixar would release another film within a few months of its last one.
Am I the only one who isn't particularly excited about The Good Dinosaur? I just don't know why, the trailers didn't snag me.
I have heard very good things from people I know that have already seen it. Their reviews make me more excited than anything that's actually been shown.
Well, it's Pixar, so I'll almost certainly see it, but….yeah. It's almost two weeks from the release date and we still don't much about it aside from the boy-and-his-dog story turned upside down. And nothing in the trailers has been particularly engaging; no standout humor or innovative scenarios. Plus, everyone's put off by the goofy designs. Also, this movie just hasn't had a whole lot of build-up to it and it's kinda weird that Pixar would release another film within a few months of its last one.
I think in this case theyre REALLY trying to hold back showing off too much.
And no, its perfect sensible that they'd want to release 2 movies a year, they've been trying to manage that for a while now. There's 2-3 Marvel movies a year now for instance (Plus the Fox and Sony marvel films). Not to mention EVERY major studio puts out more than 1 film a year.
Yes, there's something to be said about keeping an animated film as a special event and having it only once a year, but… nothing wrong with having two films in two different seasons, as long as they're not stepping on each other's toes creatively or affecting the quality. Especially when you consider Disney and Pixar are two companies doing that anyway... there was no problem with having Brave and Wreck it Ralph in the same year even though they're linked at the hip. After Lasseter stepped into Disney its been like we've been getting 2 a year anyway.
I find it odd none of the trailers show the dinosaurs actually talking. Like, there's dialogue, and characters on the screen, bit noone has a voice attributed to them. Its really bizarre.
Well, some clips of the move are up if anyone's interested
!
My mom says she doesn't want to see this movie because it looks too sad.
The Good Dinosaur was, well, good.
Story was nothing amazing, but they did all the meat and potatoes well. The character work was solid, and the visuals are just gorgeous throughout, (Was that really all CG? They didn't just use live footage backgrounds like the 2000 Dinosaur movie did?) and the music had me thinking Lord of the Rings more than once. It was fun, and emotional, and it hit all its beats well, the leads were likeable, and there was a stint in the middle where it entered another genre that I was not expecting.
It's not their very best, (And we really need to stop comparing everything to Wall-E's silence or UP's gut punch) but its definitely a very solid outing, I imagine it'll be on the top half of most people's lists. I wish it was 20 minutes longer and I want to see it again.
Far better than 2000's Dinosaur. Better than Croods. Can't compare with Land Before Time since I have 30 years of baggage on that one. Not better than How to Train Your Dragon.
Also, the short in front was pretty neat too, I want a full movie made out of that.
That's kind of how I feel about it as well; the film does kinda feel disjointed at times (it almost feels like several television episodes carved down to movie length) but it's such a beautiful film.
And that seems to be the general consensus with it's 80% score on Rotten Tomatoes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_good_dinosaur/
I'll probably go see it on Friday.
Better or worse than Inside Out?
Better or worse than Inside Out?
Personally I liked it better than IO, but I know most people loved that one like crazy while I only thought it was okay.
We really need to get out of the habit of comparing Pixar movies to other Pixar movies though. Because you keep getting the comment "If this was from any other studio it'd be amazing but because it's Pixar it's only okay" which is just… dumb. And we all have our own favorites and least favorites.
That 80% on Rotten Tomatoes would easily be a 90 if this was Dreamworks or Blue Sky or some other studio.
From what I could tell it sounded definitely worse than Inside Out. Though I may be just a tiny bit biased there being that Inside Out is my favorite movie and all.
We really need to get out of the habit of comparing Pixar movies to other Pixar movies though. Because you keep getting the comment "If this was from any other studio it'd be amazing but because it's Pixar it's only okay" which is just… dumb. And we all have our own favorites and least favorites.
Well, isn't that sort of inevitable when you've got such a consistently great track record as Pixar does though? I mean okay, Cars 2 was pretty garbage, and neither the first Cars nor A Bug's Life was anything to write home about either, and personally I'm not that fond of either of the Monsters movies… but that's five movies. Out of fifteen. The entire rest of their filmography I'd consider "good" at worst and "literally my favorite movie in the world right now" at best. Of course, I do try to distance myself from this viewpoint somewhat… I mean I am one of the people who will actually stand up for Brave being a perfectly good movie on its own rights.
It's inevitable, but also silly when they're SO different in subject matter, setting, theme, and what they're going for. If they weren't under the Pixar Umbrella you would never compare Good Dinosaur to Inside Out in the first place, they're completely different movies doing completely different things, that are going to appeal to different tastes. If they weren't both released this year, Inside Out wouldn't be the first comparison asked, but instead probably Finding Nemo or Bambi or Dinosaur or Land Before Time.
Even within the same director, you don't compare Brad Bird's Iron Giant to Incredibles to Ratatouille, aside from "Yeah, they were all good and X was my favorite." And you certainly don't then group those in with his work on Mission Impossible 4 or King of the Hill.
Outside of the Pixar Umbrella, you'd instead be comparing them to other things in similar genres. Even the animation umbrella is pretty ridiculous given its a style and not an actual genre.
Compare Disney Musical fairytale princess movies? That's fair game, sure, Little Mermaid should be compared to Cinderalla and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. But Compare Beauty and the Beast to Aladdin to Lion King to Pocohantas to Hunchback to Mulan to Hercules? Outside of being released in the same decade they have very little in common. (Some overlap in creatives and general style of the era, sure, but all very different movies.)
ANd after that, opinions will vary a lot. You say Pixar is 10 for 15, I'd say their only real mis-step has been Cars 2. Couple films I personally don't care for, but I can see the quality there.
Better or worse than Inside Out?
I liked each film about the same really.
The Good Dinosaur wasn't breaking new ground or anything (it's "a boy and his dog in the wilderness" film but with a dinosaur and human after all), but didn't really have any segments that dragged to me. Inside Out seemed stretched out at times but did have a more imaginative concept.
Why is everybody so meh about A Bugs Life? :sad:I watched it a gazillion times as a kid and I still find it hilarious. And Hopper may be Pixar
s best villain character.
Why is everybody so meh about A Bug`s Life?
Because it was completely overshadowed by Toy Story 1 and 2, and then Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo (which was a HUGE success)., and then it really pales compared to the films from 2004-2010. If it had been Pixar movie 7 instead of movie 2, it might be better liked but…
Its not that it's bad, it's just on the weaker end of the scale. It had so many characters that none of them got really developed. It also came out the same time as Antz ANd while that Woody Allen flick has been pretty much forgotten, there was still direct comparisons at the time.
. :sad:I watched it a gazillion times as a kid and I still find it hilarious. And Hopper may be Pixar`s best villain character.
Just because you watched something a ton as a kid and have a personal fondness doesn't make it good by default.
Why is everybody so meh about A Bug
s Life? :sad:I watched it a gazillion times as a kid and I still find it hilarious. And Hopper may be Pixar
s best villain character.
I love A Bugs Life. It doesn't have emotional gut-punches or deep hidden messages about the acceptance of retirenment/death, and its a pretty straightforward story without any subversions. But it does that really, really well. The world is well realized. It pays off its setups. It has a memorable score. The direction and cinematography is solid. Theres a lot of good jokes. The villain is very effective. Theres a sprawling cast, but almost everyone gets at least a few memorable scenes and lines each, from the cranky Ladybug who softens up, to Hoppers doofy brother who gets to not die. And the pacing is spot on, ratcheting up the tension expertly from the grasshoppers takeover of the island until Hoppers gruesomely cute demise.
Theres a lot to like in the movie; Like shown by How to train your dragon, Wreck it Ralph, Kung-fu Panda etc, it doesn't matter that you're not original if you do your unoriginality really well.
As for comparison of the Pixar movies, I agree that calling out Bugs Life for not being as heartbreaking as Up is like sneering at Karate Kid for not being as emotional as Rocky. But I still think you can compare the movies in terms of how well they achieved what they set out to do, in more technical terms; does Cars pay off its setups better than Finding Nemo? Is the buildup and pacing of the 3rd act of Brave more satisfactory than in Toy Story 2? Does Hopper work better as an antagonist for his movie than Auto or Charles Muntz?
Or, to move away from Pixar, how come the comedy of Hercules (consistently wowen into the entire tone of the movie from the first scene) works so much better than the Comedic relief in Hunchback (because the Gargoyles clash horrifyingly with the tone and even undermine themes).
Even though they're not much alike, its still fair to say that Toy Story 2 is better than cars 2, because Toy Story 2 executes what it does the best.
Why is everybody so meh about A Bug`s Life?
I liked the original cast's Chevy Chase-Martin Short-Steve Martin trio a lot better.
Just because you watched something a ton as a kid and have a personal fondness doesn't make it good by default.
I know, I know. I was trying to say that it still holds up without nostalgia goggles, unlike other movies I used to watch a lot when I was little. The humor is great, the threat by the villains is very well-displayed (again, Hopper is great) so that you fully feel whats at stake. I can also relate to a lot of the themes of the movie ("stand up for yourself and realise your own strengths", "don
t feel useless just because you are not like everybody else" etc.). I dont know, it
s a hilarious movie with some nicely dramatic beats and a plethora of memorable side-characters. How are the secondary toy characters in Toy Story honestly better developed than the circus crew that helps Flik? Obviously only counting the first movie.
I really like Bug's Life too and it holds a special place in my heart because, like Riddler, I watched it a whole lot as a kid (I guess we never owned Toy Story or I never had that big an interest in it).
And yeah, it's still a really solid film on its own and Hopper may still be the best villain Pixar has ever made (well, Syndrome and Lotso are up there too)
How are the secondary toy characters in Toy Story honestly better developed than the circus crew that helps Flik? Obviously only counting the first movie.
They aren't really, but TS is built around Woody and Buzz. The majority of the interaction and plot is based around those two,and they are really well developed opposites and are fun to watch. Everyone else is secondary but that's okay, they're secondary. Getting one or two jokes off each is all they need to do. (And there's only 5 or 6 of them with dialogue, and then the human characters.)
Bug's Life is built around Flik and… .... everyone. All the secondary characters are of equal importance, and most of them get by on one personality trait and maybe 3 minutes of screentime. Meanwhile, Flik has no real personal connection or interaction with them except as a group, and Flik himself is incredibly boring, in personality and design. (It was a major mistep to make the ants all monochrome.) Princess is really forgettable too.
So yes, there's a plot going on between the 15 or so characters vying for screentime, but none of them specifically shine and carry the movie, except for the villain. Heck, the circus troupe doesn't even enter the movie till 1/3 of the way in. "Oh, he gets confused for a stick!" "Oh, he gets confused for a girl!" "He's fat!" "Oh, those two don't speak English and are weird!" is about as far as any of them get personality-wise.
I actually preferred antz to bugs life. Bugs life just seemed like a ok movie first time I saw it. I still think it is. It has a fine message and does a fine job executing them but it isn't something that left a lasting memory or that I would try to go rewatch.
Huh, I can't think of anything in particular that made Bug's Life BAD. It's just that it really didn't do anything particularly special aside from being CG animation at the time. If anything, I think its greatest crime is its mediocrity (especially Flick. My god what a boring flat uninteresting protagonist. Heck, I can't even remember what his motivation was. At least with Cars, I remember Speed McQueen and what his deal was, but…Flick? I think he was some sort of socially awkward inventor bug or something? Even so, I can't remember if Flick learned anything. Had character flaws or something that needed to be developed? With most Pixar movies they are clearly defined, but with Bugs Life I can barely remember Flick's development or what he learned at the end or something...shrug
Heck even with Cars I can easily figure out Speed's flaws and see how he progressed from it. But Flick? Ehhh...shrug)
I feel like A Bug's Life may have been most notable for its animation quality. Like, nowadays it's completely overshadowed by more recent CGI outings, but at the time Toy Story came out, it was the most impressive-looking thing ever. And A Bug's Life was even better animated than that, with better texture work, no extremely creepy-looking humans, more detailed environments etc…
I mean I think the animation-quality in Toy Story dates the film quite a bit, but it's still a memorable, well-told story. A Bug's Life? Well I can't say that I didn't like it, but at the same time nothing about its plot really impressed me either.
Good Dinosaur was easily worse than Inside Out. Like fuck, it's not even close.
One aims to do something completely different and manages to tactfully hit all of the notes you would expect from Pixar while also remaining true to the theme of emotions and growing up. Good Dinosaur is a good story but aside from the novelty of "lol dinosaurs survived" there was no reason whatsoever for it to be dinosaurs, and what that winds up doing is creating a bunch of situations where the dinosaurs stick out super hard and it's hard to suspend disbelief and actually just enjoy the concept of the movie.
Probably the best parts in the film are what Pixar does best, where they are able to convey the emotions of the characters entirely without dialogue, just through the motion of the characters and how the music goes with it. But then outside of it, it's hard for Arlo's voice not to become insufferable, particularly in the beginning, and if you don't happen to be from middle america the accents that the characters have are rather distracting when you see those voices coming out of dinosaurs.
! Not to mention the narrative elements that are essentially classic disney color by numbers. Of course the dad was going to die right after he had the emotional moment with his son beneath the stars. I actually thought "goodbye Mufasa" the second they were in the canyon with the storm going on.
Then everything that goes on between Arlo and Spot feels almost non-sensical. The way that Arlo goes nearly instantaneously from hating Spot for killing his dad to then suddenly name him (because of the suggestion of a random-ass crazy triceratops, for some reason) and suddenly they're in love or something … damn, it felt fucking forced. Emotions are way more complicated when you consider the fact that, from Arlo's perspective, this single critter is responsible not only for indirectly causing the death of his dad but also singehandedly eating the food his family is gathering to survive winter. So technically, because of this human character, his entire family is at risk of death, and he was as well. But nope, cute human dog, gotta love him.
! Then you have the random end conflict with the pterodactyls that was telegraphed merely from the fact that there was no other possible final confrontation in the movie due to lack of threat from, well, anything. Once you take away the fact that Arlo is afraid of everything, you take away from pretty much all the danger in the movie and have to forcefully bring back villains that hardly have anything to do with the theme. A successful antagonist is something or someone that represents an antithesis of what the protagonist is about. Here we have crazy birds (um, dinos) who are just crazy for some reason and are for some reason hunting a baby human where they could have easily remained in their area and kept on gathering weak critters from a huge-ass storm.
Why not just have the storm situation happen without the involvement of the pteros? Like, a particular situation where Spot is away and needs to be saved and Arlo has to prove he can overcome the fear he has of that storm. It's much more elegant that randomly bringing back pteros. That could have easily taken Spot way fucking up high into the snow peak to eat him properly (how did he get in that fucking log again?)
Buuuut, that's a huge digression. It's still an enjoyable movie, hits the tone well and is overall entertaining, but you don't compare this to more well thought-out pixar experiences like the one we got earlier this year. The troubles that production had with this one clearly show with the stilted narrative, and I personally don't understand why they stuck to the concept of the dinosaur-human reversal. Also, it's very hard to watch this movie where supposedly dinosaurs survived while not wondering what this civilization is all about and how it functions.
For the record, I also think that it's far below Brave in terms of quality, and that one had production issues as well, but at least with Brave (and Monsters U, another commonly cold-shouldered one) the theme was strong throughout and the concept doesn't distract.
I would put this one with Cars, personally. Not bad, enjoyable to watch and experience, but there's nothing giving me the incentive to watch it again or even remember it. Well, except maybe the T-rexes and dreamcrusher.
They aren't really, but TS is built around Woody and Buzz. The majority of the interaction and plot is based around those two,and they are really well developed opposites and are fun to watch. Everyone else is secondary but that's okay, they're secondary. Getting one or two jokes off each is all they need to do. (And there's only 5 or 6 of them with dialogue, and then the human characters.)
Now dont get me wrong, I
m not arguing that A Bug's Life is the best Pixar movie or even better than Toy Story…I dont believe that myself. In fact, if I were to rate the Pixar movies (which I
m not going to do, since I havent seen some of the newer ones) it would actually be a lower tier movie for me too. But the reason for that is not that I think A Bug's Life is a bad or even mediocre movie, the competition is just too good. I guess the biggest strength of the film is ultimately its humor, which is obviously a very subjective thing. It's not the kind of movie to take you on an emotional rollercoaster like some Pixar masterpieces, though as mentioned it does have some very nice dramatic moments, but it
s a great choice for a fun movie evening. I guess I'd ultimately rate it a bit above Monsters University.
And the fat caterpillar is freaking hilarious in the German dub. Just thinking about some of his scenes makes me giggle
Bug's Life is built around Flik and… .... everyone. All the secondary characters are of equal importance, and most of them get by on one personality trait and maybe 3 minutes of screentime. Meanwhile, Flik has no real personal connection or interaction with them except as a group, and Flik himself is incredibly boring, in personality and design. (It was a major mistep to make the ants all monochrome.) Princess is really forgettable too.
I'd say it's built Flik and the Princess and their relationship, but it is definitely more of an ensemble type of movie. I was a bit surprised that people find Flik boring at first, but I guess I have to agree here. I liked him just fine, but in comparison with characters like Buzz and Woody, Sully, Wall-E etc., he does come across a little forgettable, and the uninteresing design doesn`t help, as you mentioned.
Just saw Good Dinosaur and, like everyone, I have to agree that, for Pixar, this is just a decent movie (which is to say it's a perfectly good movie in its own right)
! The characters are fine, the story is basic, but perfectly serviceable, and the animation is, of course, stunning. But as Noqanky said, the way the handled the story makes you wonder why this even had to be a dinosaur film. The idea of an alternate universe where dinosaurs didn't go extinct and live alongside humans; I mean, that's carte blanche for some really amazing ideas, but the story is so (comparatively) ordinary and these characters really may as well have been anything.
! As for where this fits in the collection of Pixar films, yeah, this is definitely a lower tier film. I didn't like it as much as Monsters Inc., but I think I liked it more than Brave (well, maybe about as much)
! Also, as someone who liked but didn't adore Inside Out, I have to say that Inside Out is definitely the better movie.
I'd say it's built Flik and the Princess and their relationship,
It's really not. Outsie of Flik terrorizing the colony with his nonsense, how much interplay do the two really have? How are they both changed in the course of it all? How much screentime do they share together? What's their back and forth banter? If you took the princess out entirely and just left in the elder queen, would the movie be changed in any major way at all? Or was she mostly just a placeholder to voice the opinion of 100 other characters? What role or agency did she have in the film, what did she do personally to shape the story or affect the ending?
She was little more than a trophy to be won. Just as bland and dull as Flik was.
It's not that the movie was bad, its just not as good with as strong a set of characters as most of the Pixar films… and that was obvious even early on when they were only 4 or 5 movies in.
It's better than Antz. If that says anything.
If you took the princess out entirely and just left in the elder queen, would the movie be changed in any major way at all? Or was she mostly just a placeholder to voice the opinion of 100 other characters? What role or agency did she have in the film, what did she do personally to shape the story or affect the ending?
She was little more than a trophy to be won. Just as bland and dull as Flik was.
I don't think thats entirely fair; Atta did have an arc, which was learning to become a leader, trusting her own decisions, and not just blindly following preceding traditions. She puts Flik on trial for upsetting the status quo, she puts him on his quest on the behest of others, shes confused as all hell when he comes back and pitches the bird-plan. She was designed to be insecure and young, unlike the old queen, whos more laid back because she doesn't have responsibilities anymore. Attas character development builds up to getting the courage to tell Hopper that "the natural order is that Grasshoppers fuck the hell off our damn island", and trusting Fliks new ideas, instead of dismissing anything new.
It's better than Antz. If that says anything.
Some people would argue otherwise.
@Daz:
I don't think thats entirely fair; Atta did have an arc, which was learning to become a leader, trusting her own decisions, and not just blindly following preceding traditions. She puts Flik on trial for upsetting the status quo, she puts him on his quest on the behest of others, shes confused as all hell when he comes back and pitches the bird-plan. She was designed to be insecure and young, unlike the old queen, whos more laid back because she doesn't have responsibilities anymore. Attas character development builds up to getting the courage to tell Hopper that "the natural order is that Grasshoppers fuck the hell off our damn island", and trusting Fliks new ideas, instead of dismissing anything new.
I haven't watched the movie in years, I'll take your word on it. But compared to Woody/Buzz, Mike/Sully, Marlin/Dory, or any of the main character pairings that came afterward… their chemistry and shared screen time just wasn't that much. She serves a role and has a bit of an arc, but its shared with 10 other characters also getting 3 minute arcs, so its overall minimized.
Now I'm rather interested in re-watching a Bug's Life, since in the greater context it does seem like that rare pixar movie where the entire movie doesn't revolve around a unique pairing and instead focuses more on a larger ensemble with one main character serving as a catalyst for change.
In that sense I always found it weird that promotion for the movie focused so much on Flik/Heimlich.
Now that several days have passed since seeing The Good Dinosaur and it's had some time to churn in my brain, all I can say is I find the movie to be exceedingly mediocre and forgettable. The short before the movie stands out far more in my mind. That was super cool. Honestly the only thing I can really praise in TGD is the animation, but even then it seems goofy to have these cartoony, brightly-colored dinosaurs in this super-realistic wilderness environment. Still, for what it was, it looked really good.
If I had to pick out the single most disappointing aspect, it would probably be how formulaic it all was. The general plot becomes obvious within about a minute of Arlo's introduction, and then each event that happens is just a clear telegraph of the intended progression. There was nothing surprising, nothing new or interesting being done in terms of storytelling. Literally zero. There was some clever writing that got some chuckles out of me, but for the most part even all the characters are basically extreme stereotypes. I get that they were going for this rustic feel, but it still felt weird for all the characters, down to their names, to feel so… redneck? They were all either that or just plain insane.
The "dinosaurs are people and people are dogs" thing also just grated on me. Just, why? Honestly it's not funny, and it adds nothing to the story. Maybe they just got bored and felt like challenging themselves to make semi-realistic dinosaur faces properly expressive and emotional. But that is also highly negated by the insufferable sounds of humans (or Arlo) howling. Actually for that matter, Arlo was insufferable altogether for the first half of the movie. He's a freaking terrible protagonist. Littlefoot was already the same character that Arlo is without being intolerable.
As a side-note I wonder if Arlo was meant to inbreed since as far as we know there's no other civilization within miles of the farm.