Talk:Dinosaur (2000 film)

message: 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)
thread_title: Meganeura?

message: 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)
thread_title: Egg thief

message: 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)
thread_title:  Success? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dinosaurmovieposter.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disney animated features 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Dinosaurs is not part of the animated feature canon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protagonist/antagonist 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, incorrect. Google images is your friend. SpikeJones (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countdown to Extinction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Still another question about Dinosaur being part of the canon 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ankylosaurus?

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lemurs 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Historical Innacuracy" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creationists as sources? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2nd film to feature computer generated 3D animation 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Run-On 

message: 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. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "Mixed reviews"