blogs_blog_1497

You've got to admit, the animation of the environment looks fantastic, though.

You've got to admit, the animation of the environment looks fantastic, though.

 

Yes, it does. Unfortunately, all the care put into the environment just makes the lack of effort on the part of the dinosaurs stand out even more.

Well, I don't think it's so much lack of effort rather than that they wanted to create a contrast between cartoony characters and super-detailed and realistic environments. I'm not sure why, but it's certainly interesting and you can't really blame them for that. Though I do understand your disappointment, of course.

You can absolutely blame them. The same animation studio did Finding Nemo, which put unreal detail into making something cartoony and realistic and entertaining.

 

It's 2015. We shouldn't be pointing to Disney's Dinosaur and going "yup this is objectively the best we can do for our kids".

Arlo is intentionally simplistic both to make him stick out from a complex environment and to make him immediately physically relatable. (source)

 

Honestly, I hated it at first, but it's growing on me.

I found it odd at first, given what Pixar has put it out in the past, but it doesn't really bother me now. Animation is a medium that is inherently suited to characters with odd designs, proportions, and movements. Not everything has to or should be realistic in animation. In fact I want to see more stylization. Otherwise what's the point of it being animated?

 

As for why they wanted this contrast between character and environment, we shall have to see when the movie comes out. I can't wait.

Stylization isn't the issue. Marlin and Dory were stylized. But they also still looked like the fish they were.

 

Arlo is a design so bland, boring, and unlike the actual creature you wouldn't even find it in the Flintstones.

As for why they wanted this contrast between character and environment, we shall have to see when the movie comes out. I can't wait.

I think I can answer that. Scott McCloud mentions this in his art of comic book making book. He explains that this is done in order to allow the audience to insert themselves. Essentially there is abstraction and realism. The closer towards realism something is, the harder it is to insert ourselves into a character. In abstraction, a lot of details are left out (a smile face and real face) so our brain will fill in the details. The more abstract a character is, the more details our brain has to fill in so the brain inserts some of us into the character.

 

Admittedly I've probably just butchered his entire explanation, but that's the best I can describe it. Maybe I can go back and look at my copy to get a better explanation but I think that should do the trick. Or I'm talking out of my butt and you shouldn't listen to this at all. Your choice.

My problem is that I feel as if I've seen the story before. "Heartwarming story about a boy and his dog" is about as cliche as you can get. The only significant difference is that the boy is a dinosaur and the dog is a boy.