# Talk:The Good Dinosaur

"The Good Dinosaur grossed $123.1 million in the United States and Canada and $209.1 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $332.2 million[6] against a production budget of $175–200 million,[4][5] which with added marketing costs of $350 million,[53] caused Walt Disney Studios to lose $85 million unadjusted for inflation, and the film to be considered Pixar's first box-office bomb.[54][55][56]"
It's not 350 million in marketing costs, as this reads.  It's a total production and marketing budget of (approx) 350 million, as the links state.  Thus with a 50% theater take losing Disney/Pixar around 200 million, not 85 million.  It needs fixed and no, I'm not doing it. 

Why is Bob Peterson still listed as the director of the film when it was confirmed months ago he was removed and is developing another project? Pixar's own website does not list his name for The Good Dinosaur, and confirms that Peter Sohn is still co-director. Christianster94 (talk) 1:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well at this point its unknown if hes gonna receive a co-director credit since he directed part of it, but we can probably add Peter Sohn in. Koala15 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In the plot summary the pterosaurs in the film are referred to as "pterodactyls". There's no objective problem with that, but the more technically correct term is "pterosaur". The greater concern I have is that they are directly labelled as Pterodactylus in the credits when they are clearly Nyctosaurus. 
Because "pterodactyl" redirects to Pterodactylus, I have amended all hyperlinks to Nyctosaurus, and I have also amended all mentions of the pterosaurs in the text to "pterodactyl". 
I would like some consensus on what terms are going to be used to describe the pterosaurs: pterosaurs, pterodactyls, or Nyctosaurus? You are welcome to override my edits in favour of any of the other three listed above. Pterodactylus, however, will not suffice because it is clearly the wrong genus of pterosaur.
Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a question: Did Peter Sohn, or ANYONE in the production team for this movie, actually confirm in writing or verbally that Thunderclap is a Nyctosaurus, or is that just someone's wishful thinking?
Because I gotta tell ya, I'm getting really tired of people adding their "species headcanons" to legitimate wiki pages. People did it on the Dinosaurs (1993 sitcom) page by assigning species, which hadn't even been discovered at the time it was made, to characters (Ethyl was listed as an Indosaurus, which hadn't even been discovered yet, and I'm even more skeptical of whoever changed that to "Edmontonia"/Robbie is listed as a "hypsolophodon," when the show's concept artist clearly state that the Sinclair kids are meant to by hybrids of their parents), with zero confirmation from the show's writers or directors.
This is annoying, and worse yet, it's dishonest. Wikipedia is not a platform to theorize, people use it to gather information. If the showrunners or team behind the movie didn't explicitly say, in press coverage, interviews, or anything that was published, that "Thunderclap is a Nyctosaurus," it's not our job to do it for them.
The merch for these characters lists them all as "PTERODACTYLS," and I know, it's like nails on chalkboard for me too, but chances are pretty bleak that anyone on Pixar's writing staff would know the difference between a rhamphorynchus and an Azhdarchid, and unless whoever started the Nyctosaurus thing can provide tangible proof if it, I think we should just accept "Pterodactyls" and thank our lucky stars they didn't give 'em bat wings. Please either confirm this or change it, because the Disney wiki page for The Good Dinosaur is following your lead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.126.109 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC) 

unless whoever started the Nyctosaurus thing can provide tangible proof if it, I think we should just accept "Pterodactyls" and thank our lucky stars they didn't give 'em bat wings.  If it is who I think it is, the person who first started claiming that Thunderclap is a Nyctosaurus in this article is the same career troll who insists that Pegleg Pete "is a wolf" because he whined so.  That, and as the IP user eloquently stated, fan-identification of species in a work is WP:Original Research and is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia under any circumstance.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean if we're gonna do that, why not arbitrarily assign various maniraptorians to the velociraptor pack? Maybe one of them is a deinonychus, maybe the one who "lost his favorite toof" is a utahraptor. Maybe one is a Dakotaraptor. Who cares if the last one wasn't described during production? Hell, Poppa Henry might be a mamenchisaurus. Butch is an oversized dilong, he just had a shave and plastic surgery. Spot is a hairless raccoon.
I mean since they didn't go by the official word for the Pterosaur species, who says any of us need to?
See how stupid this is?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.159.240 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 

You are preaching to the choir, here.  But it is my personal experience that those editors who insist on making fan(cruft) identification of various characters lack the ability to either understand or give a damn about how ridiculous and ridiculously pernicious it is to second-guess the official identifications of various characters, in addition to having little, if any, ability to defend their claims beyond edit warring and whining.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure both Henry and Ida were apatosauruses? Ida certainly was, but Henry seemed to have more brachiosaurus features, especially his forelimbs being taller than his hindlimbs and the head shape. Arlo could very well be a hybrid apatosaurus-brachiosaurus as would his brother and sister. Ace(T•CON) 02:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Does the movie or the official materials officially and or explicitly state that Henry was a Brachiosaurus or that Arlo is an Apatosaurus-Brachiosaurus hybrid?  Otherwise, Wikipedia editors are explicitly forbidden to make WP:Original Research identification.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a link to Yoshi's Island in the See Also section? I see no other reference to the game at any other point in the article, so why is it there? What relevance does it have to this movie? ModernTenshi04 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why it was there, (most likely vandalism) but it's gone now. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I nominate that this article should get semi-protection (or higher), there have been way too many edits lately from newer (and unregistered) users who are making unsourced edits with POV speak and editorial comments. Please respond. Thanks. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Request made.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The semi-protection of this article is scheduled to expire on January 12. I strongly feel that this article should be semi-protected indefinitely (or at least be extended). Before this article received protection, several new/unregistered (and inexperienced) users kept making presumptuous edits regarding the film's box office performance. They made unsourced claims with POV speak and editorial comments. These kinds of edits are highly disruptive and relentless. The fact of the matter is, the film's theatrical run is not over yet. According to the sources in the article, The Good Dinosaur has yet to be released in some markets such South Korea or Brazil (January 7), or Japan (March 12). I fear that when the protection expires, unregistered users will once again continue to make relentless unsourced claims with POV speak and editorial comments. So I humbly ask that this article please receive semi-protection indefinitely, or at the very least, please be extended. Please respond. Thank you. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should ask @Kelapstick:?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It's only been protected once before, I am hesitant to immediately jump to indefinitely semiprotection. --kelapstick(bainuu)  23:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. For now, if it were just extended longer (not indefinite), that would be okay with me. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Kelapstick:. So what's the verdict? Can this article's semi-protection be extended for a few weeks more? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

you can put in a request at RFPP. I'm not in a position to assess at the moment. --kelapstick(bainuu)  09:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you let me know how to go about doing that? Unfortunately I'm not familiar with that process. Thanks Wikicontributor12 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I searched around, and I think I've got it. Thanks. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Young Buck linked in article has no relation to the movie ProfessorF (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Young Buck in the Cast/Characters section is currently a link to the rapper. Obvious vandalism. Please fix 128.12.254.132 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
128.12.254.132 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Already done Thanks for pointing it out. /wiae /tlk 00:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone who may come across this talk page that the film's theatrical run is not over yet. The film is still playing in some US theaters, and still has some major markets to open in, such as Norway, South Africa, Hong Kong, and Japan. Therefore, the film's box office revenue is still in-coming. It would be wrong and premature to assume anything final about the film's box office performance. So as a reminder to some of the newer editors to this page, please exercise some restraint and control yourselves. Thank you. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just another reminder that The Good Dinosaur still has some major markets to open in. To date, the film has yet to open in Hong Kong (February 4), Iraq (February 11), and Japan (March 12). The film's box office revenue is still in-coming, so please do not make presumptuous edits, do not editorialize, and only use reliable sources when editing. Thank you. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got a question. Could the following box-office website be used to track the revenue for the film? http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Good-Dinosaur-The#tab=summary
It appears to have more up-to-date information compared to box office mojo. Any thoughts? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Phin68 removed the note in the lead-in stating "The film fared better in terms of home video sales." I disagree with this. If this sentence (with sources) is notable enough to be in the box-office section, then why shouldn't it be in the lead-in as well? It is relevant information and provides info on the home media performance. (Similar to the home media performance being noted on other film article's lead-ins.) On a related note, in his edit summary he also stated that it is only notable for the lead-in that a Pixar film "bombed". The lead-in says nothing about the film being a "bomb", that is point of view interpretation. The only thing stated in the lead-in is that it is "Pixar's lowest-grossing film" (which is a proper, factual statement without point of view interpretation.) That is the only reason why the box-office performance is noted in the lead-in, not because it is a "bomb" but because the box-office performance is noted in pretty much every film article's lead-in. Are there are thoughts on this? (preferably multiple thoughts)? Thanks Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could defend the notability of the film's homevideo recoup with two or three citations?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Being Pixar's lowest-grossing film is a verifiable factual statement. However, I'm not clear how "it fared better in video sales" actually relates to the box office. Does this mean it grossed more on video than it did in theaters? Does it mean it doesn't have the lowest video sales for Pixar? What exactly does "better" mean in this capacity? It seems like a very vague statement to me. I agree with Phin68 that it should not be in the article unless you can define precisely what is meant by "better". If there is something interesting to say about its video performance i.e. its Pixar's best seller, or it's the year's top video release then it's—ahem—better to just say that.  Betty Logan (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the home video statement can just be reworded? According to the title of one of the note's sources cited in the box-office section (Variety); "Pixar’s ‘Good Dinosaur’ Tops Home Video Sales Charts". Certainly something like that is notable enough to be in the lead-in? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
How about something like this for the lead-in? "It was released on home media February 23, 2016, and became the number one selling Blu-ray Disc during its first week of release." (There are sources in the article that can be used to support this) Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, the issue here is nobility. Betty Logan already clarified my reasoning for my removal of the statement, so all I will add is this: Are The Good Dinosaur's home media sales drastically different from other Pixar features? Phin68 talk to Phin68 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there any thoughts on the example that I previously gave? As Betty Logan said, there should be something interesting to say, and the example I provided seems like has potential for notability. And I'm still not clear on why the statement is fit to be in the box-office section, but not the lead-in. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Saying that the film lead Blu-Ray sales in its first week alone isn't significant enough to be a lead-on statement. Pixar's own Inside Out accomplished the same feat, and that fact is not included in the opener. Phin68 talk to Phin68 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Phin68. Taking the #1 spot in the first week of video sales may be noteworthy enough for the box-office section (since the section discusses the first week in theaters) but a single week of sale is not really signiificant enough for the lead, unless of course it has set a notable record. Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Has a Chinese realse date be announced yet?
Is there a reason?
May be put in box office section as a reason for it folping?
82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if it'd be alright to add that the film is based on an original concept and development by Bob Peterson.--TVBuff90 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed a sentence with a somewhat misleading phrase in the Plot section. This is the sentence:

65 million years later, Apatosaurus farmers Henry and Ida have children Libby, Buck, and the runt Arlo, who has trouble adjusting to farm life.
The misleading phrase is:

Apatosaurus farmers
I assumed that the phrase meant beings who farm Apatosauruses, just as chicken farmers would be beings who farm chickens. However, when I checked the Cast section, it seemed that the Apatosaurus farmers are Apatosauruses who are farmers.
Can the phrase be reworded to make this less confusing? I would reword it myself, but I can’t figure out how to do it properly.
Thanks!
Noah Kastin (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have terms like "Mexican farmer" or "Chinese farmer," and there's no assumption that they're farmers who cultivate those two ethnic groups.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
"Farmers" are , by definition, people who farm. ("Chicken farmers" are people who raise non-human animals. Were this article about cartoon chickens growing crops, we would have the same problem with "chicken farmers". In the unlikely event we had a film about a farmer raising Mexicans, we would have a problem with "Mexican farmers" there.)
"Apatosauruses who farm" or "Apatosauruses who are farmers" seem to work. (By comparison, "Mexicans who farm" makes sense, but is a bit verbose.) The only question I would have would be the plural of "Apatosaurus". Isn't it "Apatosaurs"? - SummerPhDv2.0 16:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably so.  Or "Apatosauri"--Mr Fink (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, SummerPhDv2.0, for the reword suggestions ((plural of Apatosaurus) who farm and (plural of Apatosaurus) who are farmers)! I prefer (plural of Apatosaurus) who farm. Note that more than just the problematic phrase would have to be reworded, perhaps to something like:
65 million years later, Henry and Ida, (plural of Apatosaurus) who farm, have children (etc. — fill in rest of sentence)
I also wanted to mention: In response to SummerPhDv2.0 and Mr Fink, according to Wiktionary, the plural of Apatosaurus is Apatosauruses. Also, also according to Wiktionary, the plural of apatosaur is apatosaurs. However, the standard in this article seems to be invoking the name of the species, and not members of the species (an eccentric Styracosaurus, a pair of Tyrannosaurus) rather than members of the species (an eccentric Styracosaur, a pair of Tyrannosaurs). This brings up the question: Should it be "Henry and Ida, a pair of Apatosaurus who farm", conforming to the article's standard, or should the standard be changed — either to members of the species, as I mentioned above, or plural of members of the species as a whole, when applicable (an eccentric Styracosaurus, but a pair of Tyrannosauruses)? (This problem is the cause of my usage of (plural of Apatosaurus) in every case where Apatosaurus or Apatosaurs needed to be.)
Thanks again, everyone!
Noah Kastin (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, "Apatosaurus" is a genus, so, you wouldn't want to adulterate the word too much, hence "Apatosauruses," while "apatosaur," i.e., any member of the genera Apatosaurus or Brontosaurus, would just be "apatosaurs."--Mr Fink (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This portion of the discussion plays to my weaknesses (every year, I have to look up the whole alumni/alumnus/alumna business). This is where I bail out. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What's a dead link? Just curious since it's something I've never heard before SonicDinosaur57 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Recently, this became an issue; [1]. The claim is made that the official website no longer exists. However, the url still works for me and the specific website for the film still exists. Does it work for anyone else? @SummerPhDv2.0 @User:Apokryltaros. Here it is; https://movies.disney.com/the-good-dinosaur. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The link still works for me, though I needed to scroll down past the commercial for the DVDs to get to videos and information.  Perhaps that was the issue?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. Perhaps RubySheridan could shed some light on the situation. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What country are you in? I'm UK based and upon visiting the URL for The Good Dinosaur, the page redirects to the homepage of Disney. It could be possible that it's a country specific thing? UK visitors get redirected to the homepage but maybe US visitors get the page intended? RubySheridan (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the US. I did suspect that it might be a country specific issue but I just wanted to ask others to be sure. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This article has improved, so please add good article to this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingu the penguin and friends (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC) 

See Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and follow process described. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)