Talk:Dinosaur (2000 film)

Meganeura?

It might not have been a Meganeura. If it wasn't as big as Meganeura, and it wasn't living at the time that Meganeura lived, then it could have been a regular dragonfly. It may have been a Late Cretaceous species. I just don't see what the point is of classifying it as a Meganeura if we don't have any evidence either way. Was it labled as a Meganeura in the book? That's how we cleared up the "Talarurus" issue, it seems. dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Egg thief

Was it an oviraptor or a velociraptor that stole the egg?

If I'm recalling the picture correctly, the things had beaks. Velociraptors didn't have beaks, but oviraptors did, so...

--Sparky the Seventh Chaos 01:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely true. It was an Oviraptor because of the head shape. Many people now reconstruct dromaeosaurs with beaks, and there's no evidence to suggest that velociraptors DIDN'T have them. dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oviraptor.61.230.78.58 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we construct dromaeosaurs with feathers, not beaks. Dora Nichov 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and animals featured

-There were no "Sceildosaurus" (Scelidosaurus) in the film, whoever wrote that needs to check their refrences. Scelidosaurus is an early Jurassic herbivore, not from late Cretaceous. The closest I can get to what you meant was Talarurus, those two ankylosaurs from the opening scene. There weren't any Leptoceratops either. Those were Microceratops.

Also, the "Factual accuracy" section (which I renamed to fit the section better) was poorly written and had multiple grammar and spelling errors in it. Some were fine in those departments, but just needed to be rewritten to sound better. There were also a lot of unneccesary things that I just removed altogether, such as the "Struthiomimus were omnivores and would not have traveled alongside herbivores" bit. For one, being omnivorous (having a diet that consists of plants and meat) does not exclude many of todays' animals from living in the same habitat with herbivores. Two, due to the dire circumstances in the movie that caused the herd to form in the first place, it's safe to assume that many of these THINKING AND REASONING creatures (in the movie) would have been tossed into unfamiliar living and social conditions. There was also "Iguanodon could not swim," and "Ankylosaurus aren't so weak" which I removed due to the fact that we really don't know either way, therefore it's an assumption or a guess.

I wrote that you punk! Sorry!61.230.78.58 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember there sre inaccuracies, so about the Scelidosaurus... But I REALLY was wrong with those Microceratops, thanks! 61.230.78.58 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here, look. There's an article about Scelidosaurus on Wikipedia. Would you please stop changing it? I'm tired of having to come here and change it back. It even states in the 2-disk collector's edition and the DK book, "The Essential Guide" that they were Talarurus. It's not a Scelidosaurus, it's a Talarurus.

I also expanded on the "animals featured," because it seemed vague.

By the way, living in the same habitat and traveling together aren't the same. So I'm re-adding that inaccuracy. Anyways, have you seen a mouse traveling with a rabbit or a mongoose traveling with a zebra just because they live in similar habitats. Come back and argue when you have. Dora Nichov 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

-Because these were portrayed as thinking, reasoning creatures, and not simply as animals following instinct, I think the "multi-cultural herd travel" concept is more plausable. I won't change it, however, because I've done enough here.

But it's still an inaccuracy. Anyways, everything so far has been setteled, so let's drop it. Dora Nichov 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

==Warning to whoever keeps un-editing this!==

Scelidosaurus was NOT an animal featured in this movie. The species in the opening scene (the two ankylosaurs squabbling) was Talarurus. If it gets changed back to Scelidosaurus again, I'm going to look up the IP of whoever is doing the un-editing and report their behavior to the Moderators and have YOUR IP ADDRESS BANNED FROM THIS SITE. What you're doing is an example of what they call "Sneaky Vandalism," (Wikipedia:Vandalism) going in after I've changed it, and after I've TOLD YOU THAT YOUR INFORMATION WAS WRONG, and changing it back.

Change it again, and I'll make sure that they ban your IP Address so you can't access the website at all!

All aboard the ego train! Woo-woo! dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Nov. 22, 06 Man, I'm sorry. I acted like an ass when I could have been civil. Sorry about that, Wikipeoples.'

Who are you?! The god of Wikipedia?! Don't talk so big. Fine, they're Talarurus, whatever. You're not "warning", you're "threatening". It's different. 61.230.78.244 08:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a guy who wants this page free of blatant misinformation. I just can't understand why you kept changing it back when it was so obviously wrong. But whatever. It's over, you said you'd stop, let's drop it.

Why is it obviously wrong? Dora Nichov 06:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it obviously wrong? Because Scelidosaurus didn't have a tail club like Talarurus, and Talarurus is identified in the book. Jerkov 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you.

OK. But you don't even see the tail of the ankylosaurs. Still, I believe you. Dora Nichov 09:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

sfFu! Lue3378 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Dora Nichov 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Go back to /b/, Lue-ser. Rofl. Dipstikk 16:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Stiil don't get it. Dora Nichov 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ITS A KID'S MOVIE! WHO CARES WHAT DINOSAUR WAS ON THERE!

We care, ya hyperactive, smelly douche. Now stop questioning our nerdiness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.3.5.8 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah! So there, Mr. Know-It-All who thinks he's the God Of Wikipedia! Dora Nichov 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• has any one noticed bruton looks bigger and stronger than kron yet he takes orders like a servant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.34.222 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

HELLO, PEOPLE! THIS IS A KIDIES MOVIE!

As I scrolled down to make a point about the content of this article, I notcied some people talking about inaccuracies. Please, go to a nerd club. I'm a dinosaur expernt or dinosaur nerd myself but this is a kidies movie. Who cares if there were no Lemurs around!

Secondly, what the hell is wrong with the editors of the following:

"Aladar, which is only complicated by Aladar's sexual attraction to Neera, Kron's sister"

I removed the word sexual. We can't have that word on a website like this. Shame on whoever wrote that. And don't give me any of that "oh kids see the word sexual and sex all the time" because some good parents can atleast protect their parent when they can.

And what sexual attraction? What demented pervert wrote sexual on an article about a Disney Movie?68.6.230.65 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we can , and do have the word sexual on a site like this. There is nothing wrong with the word, it is in no way harmful to children and, even if it were, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. However, there is no evidence of any sexual attraction in this movie, so yes, the word should be removed. A simple piece of vandalism, I expect. risk 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And the inaccuracies? We don't want people to take things seriously. Dora Nichov 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We can have the word sexual yes. But God forbid if Disney ever intended there to be sexual attraction in a kids movie! 68.6.230.65 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think the word "sexual" was necessary. Knowing Disney, Aladar's attraction was most likely intended to be innocent love, not lust. It could have lead up to that with the egg, but I think it's a stretch to say that it was full-on lust. dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"As I scrolled down to make a point about the content of this article, I notcied (noticed) some people talking about inaccuracies. Please, go to a nerd club (Please, go to a shutting-up club.). I'm a dinosaur expernt (expert, no kidding.) or dinosaur nerd myself but this is a kidies (kiddie's? kiddies?) movie. Who cares if there were no Lemurs around!(?)"

I'd say you're the last person to be telling us how to run this page, Mister "Expernt." Who cares about the lemurs? We care. We care so much, that it hurts. The "inaccuracies" portion of this article was to make sure that people who don't know a dinosaur from a gecko don't take it seriously (as Dora said), then go and, say, write a book report about it, get an F, and blame us for it.

Or something. Either that, or we just wanted to be nosey nerdies and spray our pretentious know-it-all-isms all over the place, just to stroke our egos. One of those, probably.

You needs to take yo'self a chill pill, buckaroo. It's not worth getting all militant over others not being as blithe about the movie as you.

Look who's talking. "IT IS A TALARARARARABOMDEEYAY, NOT A SKELEIDOSCOPOSAURUS! IM'A FLAUNT MY DINOGEEKINESS! WHEEEE!"

Shut up, me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.3.5.8 (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Look, we just don't want kids thinking that the Mesozoic era was a 160-million-year long Land Before Time movie. If they go to college with paleontology as their intention and start rattling off crap about dinosaurs singing and talking or lemurs riding on their backs they're obviously gonna blame Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree~! 13:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alexander listed with the Day after Tomorrow? It's a different type of inaccurate

Success?

I have no idea about how much people liked this movie, but is there any way the Box Office section could be expanded? i.e. how much money was spent during production . . . critical reception, etc., etc.Therequiembellishere 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dinosaurmovieposter.jpg

Image:Dinosaurmovieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disney animated features

Until recently, everyone counted The Emperor's New Groove as #39 and considered Dinosaur to not be part of the sequence of Disney animated features. But now Wikipedia considers Dinosaur to be #39. What does this come from?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some debate over that, but it comes from the OFFICIAL WDAS website: http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html - though they are not numbered. SWatsi (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs is not part of the animated feature canon

I'm here to say is Dinosaur is not part of the official canon of Disney Theatrical Animated Features. The movie belongs in the other section with Nightmare Before Christmas.

Here's the correct order: 39-The Emporer's New Groove 40-Atlantis: The Lost Empire 41-Lilo & Stitch 42-Treasure 43-Brother Bear 44-Home On the Range 45-Chicken Little 46-Meet the Robinsons 47-Bolt 48-The Princess & the Frog 49-Rapunzel 50-King of the Elves

So I suggest if you edit this terrible mistake.

Thank you.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Disney_theatrical_animated_features—Preceding unsigned comment added by TsWade2 (talk • contribs)

Why doesn't it belong? Do you have a source to back this up? The list on the Disney site linked from List of Disney theatrical animated features, here, includes Dinosaur on the list. -- Why Not A Duck 07:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see a source to back that information about Dinosaur not being part of the canon up. Until such a source is produced, it's not a good idea to just remove Dinosaurs from the official Disney canon and just say that it's incorrect, especially if the official website lists it as part of the canon. --SilentAria ^talk 11:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For a start technically anything after Bolt isn't part of the official canon - yet. Anything can happen. Second - WDAS and therefore the Disney Company consider Dinosaur to be part of their canon, and it is they who should know. Thirdly - This is not the first time that they have changed the canon to add or remove a film from the list. Fourthly - if we consider that the canon are all animated films produced by Walt Disney Productions\WDFA\WDAS then Dinosaur does belong there, because it was produced by animators who contributed SFX for Aladdin and The Lion King etc... Therefore not a terrible mistake thank you. Sorry if this comes across badly, I'm in a bad mood over something else and am here to vent. - lol. SWatsi (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A SERIOUS SUGGESTION: can we move discussion on what is or isn't canon over to Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features, please? That page is the WP page dedicated to the Disney Canon, so it makes sense that any discussion for or against Dinosaur would also be applied to all other canon-debate films. We can merge the various conversations that have already been held on related pages over there as well... of course, we could just have this discussion on the Disney Wikiproject instead if you think that is a better location. SpikeJones (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

And we've forked again. Please see the new discussion taking place at Template_talk:Disney_theatrical_animated_features#Added_New_Section regarding whether Dinosaur is or isn't part of the canon. SpikeJones (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This should have more info about EVERY dinosaur in the movie So I think that this is retarted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.184.234 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Protagonist/antagonist

I see that there seems to be some questions about the role of Kron and the carnotaurs in the film. First, to Kron ... he is not an "anti-hero". If a film has an anti-hero, it means the character has bad qualities, but ultimately should be considered the protagonist of the story. "Hero" and "anti-hero" are not meant to be opposites. Instead the relationship is more akin to a square and a rectangle ... a square is a rectangle (an anti-hero is a hero), but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square (a hero isn't necessarily an anti-hero). James Bond is an anti-hero. Dexter Morgan would be an anti-hero. Kron is a classic Disney villain.

As to the carnotaurs, it appears that they are presented more as a natural force than a thinking, scheming villain. In each of the carnotaur attacks in the movie, they are shown as raw, primal beings, simply in search of easy prey upon which to feed. Their goal is not to prevent the herd from reaching safety; their goal is to eat. Instead of plotting to trap or otherwise capture their prey, they catch a slow-moving dinosaur (the start of the movie) or take advantage of one that has made a tactical error (when the herd is cornered in the gorge).

We need to be careful of what characteristics we apply, making sure we use the proper terminology and that what's said here can be backed up either (a) by the film itself or (b) independent, published analysis of the film.

Also, I find it strange that the carnotaurs and raptors aren't able to speak but the protagonists are. All the protagonists are herbivores, and you don't need a very big brain to go around munching on weeds all day. Carnivores, on the other hand need larger brains to plan their attacks and work as a team to kill their prey. I'm not saying the creators should have made the protagonists not able to speak, but it would be a bit more sensical if all dinosaurs in the movie talked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Countdown to Extinction

I don't think the statement that Countdown to Extinction was rebranded as DINOSAUR is correct. I went to Animal Kingdom in the first few months it was open and it was definitely "DINOSAUR". I don't have the time to research it, but it needs to be either cited or deleted. 192.158.61.141 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, incorrect. Google images is your friend. SpikeJones (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Still another question about Dinosaur being part of the canon

Info says Dinosaur was officially made by The Secret Lab, which, despite being a special division of WDAS, was still part of WDAS. This clearly tells the difference between Dinosaur and Pixar's films. However, can anyone explain the difference between Dinosaur and the films like Mary Poppins which mix animation and live action?? Dinosaur is a live-action movie with animated characters. Georgia guy (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately what it comes down to is this: The main characters in Dinosaur are all animated, with backgrounds that are live. The main characters in Mary Poppins are humans and acting in front of live sets, except for a single, lengthy segment with them acting in front of green screens and interacting with animated characters. --McDoobAU93 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty easy. But how about the difference between Dinosaur and Victory Through Air Power?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Truth be told, I need to watch Victory Through Air Power before I can offer an opinion in that regard. However, at first blush, this film wouldn't be considered a true theatrical release (basically it, and the other war-themed Disney efforts, were propaganda and training films), even though it was up for consideration in the Academy Awards. I'll update my post after watching it (I do have the "Walt Disney Treasures" collection that includes the film). Of course, if anyone else has already seen it and can offer an opinion, please do so. --McDoobAU93 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the war-themed efforts mean the films from Saludos Amigos to The Adventures of Ichabod & Mr. Toad?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, since neither film has a war-related theme. The "package features" made during the war years (such as those you mention) were traditional theatrical releases. Disney made many films (mostly shorts, with Victory being the only feature-length outing, I believe) in this era that were designed to pump up public sentiment for the war effort (the stark Education for Death), train newly-hired factory workers on how to do their jobs (Four Methods Of Flush Riveting) or educate civilians in less-developed areas (Cleanliness Brings Health). --McDoobAU93 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But how does this reveal the reason VTAP is not a member of the Disney animated features canon?? Does Wikipedia have any article on the film category it belongs to?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK having just watched Victory Through Air Power, including the lead-in commentary from Leonard Maltin, a notable film critic, here are my thoughts ... and trying to prevent this from becoming a forum. The film was not produced as entertainment, like the other features. More to the point, Victory was not granted re-releases like all the other Disney animated features. After World War II, the film had basically outlived its purpose, and was placed in the "vault". Lastly, Disney itself, which maintains the count, doesn't count it, so that should be more than sufficient. --McDoobAU93 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I just revised the lead of the article to remove the points about where Dinosaur falls within the count of Disney's animated features, or "the canon" as some call it. First, the statement of when Dinosaur was supposedly added to the count: the cited source makes no such statement that "Dinosaur was added in 2008". It's just the list of films in the list per disneyanimation.com. If someone had a screen capture/cache of the site showing Dinosaur not there, then we might have something to work with. As to the second statement, saying The Emperor's New Groove was originally 39th, again we're dealing with something that could have been changed but was unknown to the author of the post. Even if taken accurately, putting two and two together like that is original thought. --McDoobAU93 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ankylosaurus?

Now I haven't seen this movie in years, but from what I remember, Url looked more like some kind of nodosaurid to me. Plus, if he was an Ankylosaurus he would be at least slightly bigger than Eima, but he's way smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Url is obviously an ankylosaurid (club-tail, hornlets, broad muzzle), not a nodosaurid. According to David Krentz, he was loosely based on Euoplocephalus (http://dml.cmnh.org/2000May/msg00735.html). The size of the animals in the movie do not reflect real life (Real Carnotaurus were much smaller than Iguanodon).Ozraptor4 (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding...

...and is the 39th animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series.

Specifically this sentence implies it is an animated movie. It is actually mostly live-action. Any objections to changing the sentence to:

...and is the 39th feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series, and the only one that is primarily live-action??

The word "animated" is already mentioned in the series' name, "Walt Disney animated Classics". Georgia guy (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In my best Phoenix Wright impression ... "OBJECTION!". The characters in Dinosaur are fully computer-animated, no different than those in Toy Story or in Tangled. The backgrounds are live-action, but that does not make the film live-action. Saying it's partially live-action would be making it comparable to Mary Poppins or Bedknobs and Broomsticks, which is not true. It's akin to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow in reverse; in that film, the actors are live, but all the backgrounds are animated or special effects, but that film is not considered animated. Again, I shall raise the question: What is your problem with Dinosaur? --McDoobAU93 23:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI this is not a section relating to the inclusion of Dinosaur in the canon. Note that the above sentence retains the statement that it is the 39th feature in the series. Georgia guy (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're trying to disclaim its inclusion by making a statement that simply isn't true. And my question had no direct relation to its presence in the list of animated features. Instead, it has to do with what I perceive to be some sort of personal vendetta against the film, period. You've questioned its inclusion in the list of Disney features in the past, and now you want to add disclaimers or similar modifiers that suggest it doesn't really belong. Again, I ask why? --McDoobAU93 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I just feel like I miss the days before disneyanimation.com revealed the film's inclusion. I would like for you (or any registered Wikipedian who sees this) to show to me that Dinosaur is not the only film in the canon that has been argued by fans should not belong in the canon. I best perceive its inclusion as an example of the following statement:

What is right is right. Whether it corrects early speculation that was well-established by consensus does not affect whether it is right. Georgia guy (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I give you The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. It was released in 1977 even though its three constituent films were all released separately as featurettes, notably the first one, Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, which was in theatres 11 years before the film appears in the list of features and predates three included films, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats and Robin Hood. If you look at the film's edit history, including a comment thread from this past November, you'll see that editors have had issues with its presence in the list. In that case and in this case, what Disney says goes. They count it, so we count it. That makes it right. --McDoobAU93 01:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lemurs

Regarding criticism from the scientific community over the lemur portrayal, do the sources listed actually discuss the film? If not, then it's synthesis, which infamously plagues many pages on dinosaur-related movies and TV shows. CtP (t • c) 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The three cited sources are all published books, not online resources. I don't have access to any of them, but if they do not specifically mention the film, then I agree we have some WP:SYNTH going on. If anyone within WikiProject Paleontology can assist, please encourage them to do so! :) --McDoobAU93 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Historical Innacuracy"

The section has little to do with the movie as a whole, beyond mentioning the (fairly obvious) fact that lemurs did not coexist with dinosaurs. It then launches itself into a bizarre tract against evolution, even stating that Aladar's face coincidentally resembling that of a horse showed that the filmmakers were stating mammals evolved from dinosaurs (Anybody with elementary knowledge of evolutionary theory knows this is not true). It was sourced, but said citation was from a source that is biased and unreliable. I think this section should be removed 65.96.242.22 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this. After removing the non-neutral elements, all that was left was uncited. Uncited material may be challenged and removed at any time. --McDoobAU93 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And i already did exactly that. 65.96.242.22 (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the sources I added were only part of a preliminary editing session for this article. The sections in question will be heavily edited with other sources in the near future when I (or you, considering you care so deeply about the state of this article) get around to it. Secondly, yes the particular source I used has a certain agenda, but I made sure that the information I included remained as neutral as possible. Reading back, I can see how perhaps a few bits here and there may have been viewed as biased, but that is easily solved by saying "x argues that". It would be awesome if you guys could add some new sources to the article to bulk up these sections. I think that deleting a whole collection of nonbiased and relevant information is frankly rather silly, and so expect these sections to be brought back and worked on as opposed to being taken to the grave due to some fairly minor issues.--Coin945 (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncited and potentially controversial information is not "rather silly". It is the burden of the editor adding the information to cite their sources when they make the edit; editors should not assume someone else will do it for them or that they can get back to it some other time. If this site is the only citation being used (no matter how neutral it's made), this, to me, would fail WP:FILMSCI as not being "ample coverage", since only one article is discussing it. If others can be found, so be it. Might I suggest working on the section here or on a user subpage where other editors can discuss it instead of getting into an edit/revert war in the article itself. --McDoobAU93 03:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Creationists as sources?

We really don't have any sources more credible than a creationist page to use as citation? --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd film to feature computer generated 3D animation

In the second paragraph of the article, it states: "It is the second film produced by Disney Animation Studios to feature computer-generated three-dimensional animation."

There is no source for that, and no mention of what the first film might be. I have several guesses, but I'm not sure what was originally intended by the original WP editor's line above. IIRC, Aladdin (1992) had some CG parts where the carpet was flying in the cave (I could be mistaken.) Also, Beauty and the Beast (1991) had CG backgrounds during the waltz sequence, and I believe Tarzan (1999) had some CG bits (swinging through the trees?) I don't know of any other CG sequences between Aladdin and Dinosaur, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

There are other mentions on the web of CG used in earlier Disney films - The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, etc.98.162.209.39 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess the intent was that it's the second after Toy Story to be completely computer animated, but I don't think that's true either (weren't the backgrounds live action?). Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Toy Story wouldn't count in this case because it is from Pixar, not Disney Animation Studios. I took a look at Fantasia 2000 (the film that preceded Dinosaur) and it has two CGI sequences - The Pines of Rome, and The Steadfast Tin Soldier. The Fantasia 2000 article says those two segments were completed before Toy Story was released. Maybe Fantasia 2000 is what the original editor meant, as the segments are full CGI instead of just background/special effect animation.98.162.209.39 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinosaur (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203140624/http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html to http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Run-On

It is the 39th Disney animated feature film and Disney's The Secret Lab computer animated feature,[2] though it is not officially labeled, along with Winnie the Pooh (2011), as one of the animated classics in Europe, where The Wild (2006) is included in the canon instead.[3]

This sentence is messy. I see there's some debate as to the accuracy of it, but more importantly I can't even tell what it's trying to say. Can somebody who thinks they understand it try and parse it out into something a little neater and more direct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.185.224 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews"

Metacritic's summary is "mixed or average reviews". Why can we not say the film has mixed reviews? The consensus is that Metacritic's summary is automated. It is not subject to editorial oversight and is therefore not a reliable source (that piece). So, in the context of the critical response section, we can directly quote Metacritic, with in-line attribution. That is what Metacritic said.

Putting "mixed" in the lede, however, is a problem. First, Wikipedia does not take Metacritic as the be-all and end-all authority. They are one aggregator. Taking material from them alone is not a summary of the section, it is their result alone. Next, as stated, it is automated. Finally, "mixed or average" is not the same as "mixed"; if it were, there would be no reason for the extra words. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

After some consideration, it's a bit difficult to gauge the overall consensus of critical response without citing a creditable news source. A 64 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes is slightly on the positive end yet Metacritic indicates a summary of "mixed or average reviews". That said, films like Spider-Man 3 have similar scores to that of Dinosaur and the "mixed reviews" is written in the lede. So, the "mixed reviews" can be left off. Prince Archelaus (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at Metacritic directly, out of 32 reviews, there are 15 positive, 12 mixed, and 5 negative. Metacritic is giving more weight to the non-positive reviews, which affects the overall score. In some cases, I've basically spelled out this distribution. Not sure if that would help here. In addition, we can go looking for contemporary recaps of what critics thought of the film back then, like BBC here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A new article here writes, "Critics, though, were largely unimpressed — dazzled by the visuals but left cold by the story... The wordless prologue was largely cited as the movie's highpoint... while the rest of the story... felt limp and familiar." I think we should use this. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent article, Erik. Some of the sources like Jeff Kurtti's book would be useful for the article. However, I think a contemporary source published around the time of the film's release would be more reliable. Prince Archelaus (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)