Trailer: Pixar's 'The Good Dinosaur'
After all the recent 2016 movie trailers last month, we're going back to the present of 2015 with this month's movie trailers. Though a teaser was dropped last month, Pixar's first ever second movie of the year, The Good Dinosaur, has a brand new trailer. It neither confirms nor denies the possibility of migration.
The Good Dinosaur is directed by Peter Sohn, who replaced Bob Petersen, and it used to star the voices of John Lithgow, Lucas Neff, Bill Hader, Neil Patrick Harris and Judy Greer, but now features Raymond Ochoa, Jeffrey Wright, Steve Zahn, Marcus Scribner, Anna Paquin, AJ Buckley and Sam Elliott. Frances McDormand managed to survive the cast extinction event, but this movie has been incredibly troubled, even by Pixar standards. It was meant to be Pixar's 2014 movie, but it will now finally hit theaters November 25.
About the author
crossaffliction (Brendan Kachel) — read stories — contact (login required)a reporter and Red Fox from Hooker, Oklahoma, interested in movies, horror, stand up comedy
Formerly Wichita's only furry comic.
Comments
Considering that Wikipedia has announced that "The Good Dinosaur" will include such characters as Arlo Apatosaurus (the dinosaur in the trailer), his father Henry, mother Ida, and brother Buck Apatosaurus, Thunderclap Pteranodon, and Butch, Nash, and Ramsey Tyrannosausus, I think that we can count on "The Good Dinosaur" being anthropomorphic.
Fred Patten
Lots of comments on YouTube saying "I hope the dinosaur doesn't die!" but I think they're missing the point; the twist is pretty obviously the dinosaur isn't the pet in danger of the Ol' Yeller treatment.
Though, admittedly, I don't think the kid is in any danger, either.
I've heard some people grumbling about the fact the dinosaurs, especially Arlo, are sooooo toony in design. Could Pixar be trying to distance themselves from the realistic look of Disney's "Dinosaur" and last year's "Walking With Dinosaurs"? [Remember, neither of those was especially successful at the box office.]
If so, whoops, because ultra-realistic CGI dinosaurs aren't exactly suffering this year.
However, speaking of ultra-realistic, the decision to go with super-toony dinosaurs with the other wise very, very, almost photo realistic look of the world is what seems to really get people.
It may look ultra- or photo-realistic, but is it accurate? The BBC had an article just yesterday (July 28) claiming that:
“It may be hard to swallow, but Tyrannosaurus-Rex, the fearsome predator that seems to be all teeth and bad attitude, could have sported a jaunty tuft of plumes. Perhaps also Dippy the Dinosaur, the huge replica skeleton of Diplodocus that has impressed visitors to the Natural History Museum in London for 100 years, was covered in soft down. "The medium-to-small dinosaurs all had feathers - the giant ones had shed feathers by the time they got to adult size," says Benton.
"Aficionados of old films will remember the famous sequence in 'One Million Years BC', produced in 1966, when Raquel Welch, dressed only in a fur bikini, is chased across a barren landscape by a huge slavering dinosaur. Would that have been so scary if the pursuing monster had been feathered? And what about the Velociraptors in 'Jurassic World' - why don't they have feathers?
"Will Hollywood ever change with the new science and portray dinosaurs as being more like a blue tit than a terrible lizard?”
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33678744
Fred Patten
Apparently the Jurassic Park series takes place in a multiverse where the dinosaurs failed to carry these avian genomes.
Intriguing, but since "The Good Dinosaur" is already set in a multiverse where the dinosaurs never became extinct, that’s probably too subtle a distinction to make.
Come to think of it, the biggest flaw has already been pointed out by the late Scott Ciencin in his 2000 “Dinoverse” series. If the dinosaurs never became extinct in the long-ago past, then by the time of the cave men, they would’ve evolved physically as well as mentally. Having intelligence and being able to talk along with having a primitive, four-legged body like Arlo Apatosaur just doesn’t make sense, except in a zany fantasy like Pixar’s movie.
http://dogpatch.press/2014/12/17/dinoverse-scott-ciencin/#more-7467
Fred Patten
There was a conversation in the Michael Crichton book where a scientist argues that they should, say, make the raptors less ... raptory, as nobody outside of paleontologists and paleontology fanboys knew there were dinosaurs like them. Besides, they weren't even sure the dinosaurs were accurate; they filled in the gaps of the incomplete dinosaur DNA. In other words, Crichton left himself room for things like "oh, hey, they all have feathers!" being discovered down the line. Though, the book sequel featured baby T. rexes with down; that was not used in the movie sequel.
You cannot change Hollywood's perception of their dino multiverse! Besides how they heck are they going to put feathers on dinosaur children's toys? Think of the children, good sir!
Jurassic World actually acknowledged their dinosaurs were nonsense. When there's the discussion with the lead geneticist he says that they changed the dinosaurs and nothing in the park is real. I for one took it as an acknowledgement that they had messed stuff up but didn't want to risk turning people off.
Of course while the original Jurassic Park under Michael Crichton at least attempted to have a veneer of credibility, Jurassic World was apparently drafted by watching a five-year-old fantasise. "Ooh, and it can change colour and hide from security and detect people from miles away and it's super intelligent and can talk to raptors!" However, I mostly forgive them for all that because the movie was a lot of fun to watch.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Actually, the color changing is directly from the books; the first book featured a juvenile, kind of nice raptor who could change colors, but it wasn't until the second book that it got really cool (or ridiculous, depending on you tolerance level for these things) with the Carnotaurs who could basically go full Predator.
If anything, I was disappointed with how little the Indomitus rex used its camo.
I remember one of the books had dinosaurs that could camouflage and they chased them away with a bunch of torches. I don't have an issue with that. Some animals can do it. However they didn't have a million ridiculous abilities, just one that was easily overcome (for humans). The Indomitus had so many ridiculous abilities and most of them didn't make sense and were only used or mentioned once then completely forgotten about. It was over the top and a waste.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
The animation looks pretty damn good but the content makes me sick. Lots of dinosaurs had feathers. We know that know and there's no excuse for leaving them out these days. Secondly, dinosuars with modern birds and humans? Who's writing this movie? Ken Ham? Sure you can take artistic liberties with these movies but do we really need the equivalent of Ramses leading a fleet of chariots against ISIS while a commentator streams it live from the Hindenburg?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
The teaser trailer explains the whole human/dinosaur thing; the asteroid missed, basically, so this is a world where dinosaurs never went extinct, but humans ended up evolving anyway.
However, if you want to be nitpicky, I believe sauropods like the main dinosaur character were already extinct long before the actual KT extinction event that took out the rest of the dinosaurs.
Meh. I suppose that's an explanation. It's horribly inadequate since dinosaurs wouldn't have stopped evolving and humans could've only evolved without the dinosaurs but it's better than nothing and I did forget about that bit.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Post new comment