Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read.
My love for The Good Dinosaur is probably as polarizing as some people’s love for Cinemasins. So it only makes sense that for the first time in Snarcasm history, we’re taking a close look at a video, as opposed to a written article.
And it’s a Cinemasins video, which I know is probably an easy target because even they themselves lampshade their “sins” as self-deprecating jokes made by jerks. But I still think it will be interesting to delve into their criticism of The Good Dinosaur, which is a wonderful movie that I admittedly don’t think is for everyone.
Just take a look at the description of the video, “Everything Wrong With The Good Dinosaur In 12 Minutes Or Less:”
Sigh. We really didn’t like this movie. It’s probably harmless fun for most, but borrows so heavily from so many other Disney films we got annoyed.
“It’s probably harmless fun for most” is sure to make future Blu-Ray covers.
45 seconds of Disney & Pixar logos…as usual. Even though you all have them memorized at this point.
As usual, you’re criticizing something outside of the movie, instead of the movie itself, and counting that as a “sin.” Logos as a marketing tool are just common sense, and if you’re going to whine about them for every single video you do, at least sin the brands, not the content of the movie people are expecting you to criticize.
Also, don’t, because these logos are awesome and set the movie up in ways that are familiar and build hype. Getting rid of them or blazing past would be akin to removing the Star Wars opening crawl. You just don’t do it.
I understand the movie is rewriting prehistory here for the sake of the story, but I think it’s worth mentioning: The dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago, and humans started to do human things around 10 million-ish years ago, so the movie wants me to believe that nothing ELSE could have happened to the dinosaurs within the 50 million years between this moment and this moment that would have either killed the dinosaurs or, through evolution, altered their appearance so drastically we wouldn’t be able to tell what is what?…I guess so.
The movie is working off of an assumption that a meteor killed the dinosaurs, so you’re including some sort of expectation of a second extinction event, even though we have no reason to assume that happened based on our own history.
We don’t know from the movie exactly what happens, but you’re sinning the film for not shoehorning some sort of bizarre, unfounded aesthetic change to the Earth, which would derail the point of the movie. Because if they did do something more drastic than include lots of new species (which are in this movie), dinosaurs being more intelligent than other creatures (which is in this movie), and the clear and apparent inclusion of a more primitive human species (you guessed it), then you’d just “sin” the movie for being too out there and doing the opposite of what you’re sinning it for now.
Man, these dinosaurs learned how to grow crops in some STRAIGHT ASS lines!!
…wait, that’s it? That’s what you paused and sinned the movie for? What’s your next sin, besides the movie having clouds that look like blobs?
Seriously, people don’t watch these videos so that you can point out the obvious. Yes, the dinosaur farmers who are able to build houses and provide food for themselves akin to humans are able to create straight lines. You know, like countless other animals who use instinct to do things that look cool.
Pixar expects me to believe that the Apatosauruses evolved to presumably have retractable axes in their tails.
No, just that the apatosauruses are incredibly strong. Have you seen the size of them, even in this movie?
And super strength.
Yes, let’s complain that the huge dinosaurs are strong.
Well, with this kind of evolution, it’s a wonder the Earth ever thought humans were necessary at all.
Your shower thoughts have nothing to do with what you’re watching. Can you focus, please?
If they can build a device for seeding, they can certainly build a plow.
How? They clearly don’t have access to iron or glass. And you’re even about to complain about their intelligence anyway, so isn’t this reverse sinning?
They also evolved hyper intelligence, which raises the question: How are they able to build tools like this without hands? There’s no way they could tail-whack that thing together.
The entire film addresses this, showing Arlo using his tail in unique ways to climb and get things done. They don’t “whack” things, they use their tails as a third appendage. They can use their teeth to wind string and their tails to carve multiple pieces of wood. It’s a little silly, but not that far-fetched because the movie shows us the practicality of Arlo’s tail countless times.
(screen shows three eggs) Okay, we eat the big one, we raise the little ones as slaves, agreed?!
I’m starting to think they’re just sinning themselves for the bad jokes. Because this isn’t even…clever? What, you’re joking that the herbivores would eat their young? Haha?
Other than surprising the viewers and the dino-parents…is there any reason for his egg to have been so big when he’s so small? Cause, I don’t think that would actually happen.
That’s probably because you’re too busy writing jokes instead of thinking through your actual “sins.” When an egg is hatched, the size has nothing to do with the development of the baby. Thematically, it’s foreshadowing to how Arlo starts off well behind his family in an environment that doesn’t feel made for him. It gets the point across immediately (with visuals instead of ham-fisted dialogue) that’s he’s not just timid, he’s timid for a reason.
Also, if I was Arlo’s mom, I’d be kind of pissed right now. “I pushed out this giant ass egg for this!?”
Wow, she must love her own children more than some temporary pain she just went through. Why did they have to write these characters as humans, anyway?
Arlo’s siblings come out of their eggs running and practically flying, yet Arlo struggles to take his first steps.
You’re sinning the movie for having characters who don’t develop exactly the same way? Have you had siblings, before?
And I guess I should mention, again, that you’d complain anyway if Arlo did act the same as his siblings because the characters are interchangeable.
Clawtooth Mountain looks very similar to the Expedition Everest ride at Animal Kingdom. Not exactly the same, but enough to confuse some children.
Do you not understand how children work? Do you think they get “confused” when they’re delighted to see recognizable references to their favorite movies in Disneyland? No, because they’re children, not paranoid cartographers.
Also, you even admit that it doesn’t even look exactly the same, so how many people would have even noticed this?
Are we getting to any real criticisms yet?
Also, these dinosaurs couldn’t decide if it looked like a claw or a tooth so they said, “F*ck it, let’s just call it Clawtooth.”
Or, you know, they called it that because it looks like three teeth assembled like a claw. But let’s not actually think about things when watching movies.
They’ve been alive for like two minutes and already have chores.
First of all, we don’t see the children doing any work until after the time skip. Clearly, the parents are ingraining their future responsibilities into the children because it’s the most relevant thing to talk to them about if they want to survive.
And second, of course the parents are giving them chores. The movie reveals later on that the family’s survival depends entirely on the children learning how to run the farm themselves one day.
(shows one of the chickens) We never see them eat a chicken or an egg from a chicken, and based on what Arlo eats during another scene in this movie, and science, I can safely assume he is an herbivore, so why are these things even here? Is Henry only keeping them here to teach Arlo a lesson about fear?
They say later in the movie that their responsibilities include protecting and feeding other, less intelligent animals. And we see this concept echoed throughout the movie with the other characters, including the carnivores who ranch the cattle they don’t eat themselves.
The reason is because these chickens provide a lot of resources. They can be used as fertilizer, their feathers can keep the family warm, and they can even be traded with other farms in the area. I’ll admit that the movie sort of leaves this bit to our imaginations, but it’s not a heavy sin.
Convenient dead, broken log is convenient.
Yeah, because the dad brought it there himself before running into Arlo. Why is this being mentioned?
“Convenient grass is convenient.” +1 and a funny joke no one cares about!
Mud is not paint. Mud washes away in the rain, yet this and every other mark made remains on the corn silo for the duration of the film.
Seriously, now you don’t understand how dirt works? Mud is a mix of water, earth, and clay. So if it doesn’t rain for a few hours while it’s sitting on the stone silo exposed to sunlight, it’s going to dry and stay there for a while.
(after Henry says “you earned it” to Buck) Making your mark apparently just means “doing your job.”
If that were the case, Buck would have “earned it” a long time ago when we saw him…doing his job.
The idea is, and read this slow so you don’t lose track, that Buck has earned his mark by figuring out how he best contributes to the farm in a consistent, mature way.
Earlier, Henry earns his mark for not just building a food silo (which is doing his job), but for making it 100% critter proof. It’s about how well the job has been done, which only takes maybe three seconds of thinking carefully about this movie.
You might be expecting me to sin this dino-society placing such a high value on muddy footprints…
No, we’re still just waiting for you to sin the movie for an actual reason.
…instead I’m going to sin this MASSIVELY heavy STONE-based structure for standing upright all this time on four tiny skinny wooden legs. WTF?
We’ve got a decent sin, people!
Though it’s not that egregious considering its’ also held up with string connecting multiple pieces of wood, and the stone structure is hollow. It’s still a little too convenient, though.
(after Arlo says “All right you cluckers!) Pixar basically snuck “All right you f*ckers” into this movie.
Still more humorous than any of the jokes you make in this video.
How are these chickens not dead yet if Arlo can’t successfully feed them?
Gee, maybe his parents are doing it for him. There, that wasn’t so hard.
See, earning your mark clearly references coming of age and reaching independence. His parents obviously fed the chickens themselves while the kids grew up, but one day, they knew Arlo would have to own the responsibility himself. That’s why his parents are disappointed, not because they don’t have an extra hour to do the job themselves.
(after Henry says “I’ve got an idea”) Genuinely surprised a light bulb didn’t appear above his head just before he said this.
You’re sinning the movie for NOT doing something stupid and completely out of place? What is even happening right now?
(after Henry wakes up Arlo in the middle of the night) And no one else in the room within the same earshot as Arlo hears that.
Ugh, we’re not even 3 minutes into this video, guys. This is my nightmare.
Yes, they’re in the same room, but Henry isn’t as close to them. He’s speaking directly at Arlo with his body wrapped around him. Why do I even have to point this out for you?
Besides, we don’t even know that the kids didn’t hear him as well but did what any other teenager would do and just fall back asleep because it’s the middle of the night and he’s not talking to them.
Stomping around these lightning bugs doesn’t make them move, but lightly waving a tail over them makes them light up and fly away. Is Henry’s tail magic?
In the same scene, THE SAME SCENE, we see Henry blowing air into the firefly on Arlo’s nose, showing how AIR is what makes them light up. So of course his tail spreading over the grass is going to blow enough air to ignite all of the bugs it passes over.
But no, let’s sin the movie (again) because we weren’t paying attention. I’m really starting to wonder if they even watched it at all, despite the video evidence.
I’ve seen the Lion King. This will not end well.
You’re just recognizing a trope that hasn’t even happened yet. Again, you should change “Movie Sin Counter” to “Pointless Movie Interruption Counter.”
With this single jump, yeah, he sets off a pretty-looking firefly event, but…he also killed hundreds of other unsuspecting fireflies who did NOT expect him to jump and land on them…right? RIGHT?!
Wrong. They’re bugs, which means they’re fast and see danger coming much faster than other creatures, as we see earlier in the scene when one lands on Arlo. It’s reasonable to assume they flew away as soon as Henry came anywhere near them.
Also, he’s big but not that big. There’s no way “hundreds of fireflies” were all crammed in the spaces where his feet touched the ground.
(after Henry says they don’t have enough food for winter) But…all you keep here is corn. Is corn the ONLY food you planned to eat all winter?! Do you not have other storehouses with OTHER foods that collectively might mostly cover the shortfall of this one corn storehouse?! How can you have farms and storehouses like this but NOT have any g***mn farming sense?! Are you destined to go extinct regardless of the circumstances?!
Seriously, guys, I don’t even know what to say to this. It’s so blatantly stupid, I’m worried that a little of the nonsense is creeping into my fingers as I type.
Jeremy (I’m just going to call you Jeremy for a second), we’ve spent the entire movie thus far watching how the family runs…a corn farm. So yes, Jeremy, they eat a lot of corn. Which means that they go through that storehouse routinely and have to fill it up routinely. So when a critter keeps stealing some here and there, it makes a big difference in their ability to feed themselves and their livestock.
Why don’t they have other storehouses? Well, what would they put in them, Jeremy? It’s obviously taking their full efforts to harvest this farm, and sure, we know that the family eats other foods they may grow like berries (since Arlo knows to eat them out in the wild), but it’s not like they have time to reap entire forests outside their land.
Movie expects me to believe adorable dinosaurs are capable of this kind of trap-building—and critical thinking!!—despite being, you know, dinosaurs.
A second ago, you complained they didn’t have enough farming sense. Now they’re too smart? Which was already something you complained about?
And yes, the movie expects you to believe this because they’re SHOWING you how the dinosaurs are making the traps, and the movie up until this point has done nothing but illustrate the normal life and capabilities of these dinosaurs and how they cultivate their living. So you completely missed the point, despite being, you know, a video devoted to critiquing the point.
Henry knows that Arlo struggles to feed the chickens, yet he thinks Arlo is capable of killing.
Yes, because that is the character arc for Henry. He continually pushes Arlo in new ways so that he’ll overcome his fears. So by having him confront a critter who is threatening their livelihood, Henry is expecting Arlo to rise to the occasion. This is a perfectly normal teaching technique: when you can’t overcome an obstacle, do something else that may even be a little bit harder in order to power through your perceived limitations.
Shouldn’t he be hiding? Arlo was instructed to catch and kill the critter, not keep it from showing up. That’s why they built that trap! See? I told you he couldn’t be trusted with this.
Of course, because Arlo has already proven that he’s not very good at much of anything right now. So yeah, he’s doing a bad job. Is this surprising enough to be a knock against the movie when it actually fits the character? He is, after all, probably more focused on scaring creatures away so he doesn’t have to kill them.
Jump scare? What are you doing here?
Yeah, movies have jump scares. Complaining about such a standard movie trope is like getting bent out of shape because a movie has establishing shots or narration.
Arlo cuts the tree-rope, but then the kid climbs out one of the holes in the net that he TOTALLY should have been able to climb out of earlier.
I’ll admit that if you only watch the scene once, this might seem like a goof. But the net is clearly being held taut by both the rocks and the rope connected to the tree. By cutting the tree, the net is no longer tight around the kid’s body, so he can just slip out of it. This is emphasized even further by how the kid can’t breathe because of how tight the ropes are.
In other words, you’re bad at this, Jeremy.
(after Henry tells Arlo that if he gets lost, he has to follow the river)
Well, that sounds like some conveniently-prescient bulls*t that will come in handy later.
Oh, you mean the driving narrative that is established early on because that’s how Arlo travels for the rest of the film? How dare they actually write this movie so it makes sense!
But no, setting things up so they pay off later is apparently a “sin,” now.
Arlo literally trips over the ONLY rock in the pathway. F*ckin’ Arlo.
Yeah, because if there were more rocks, he’d be paying attention to where he walks, but the path is clear and he’s in a hurry, so he doesn’t notice what he’s not looking for.
(three notes come on that sound like “Go the Distance” from Disney’s Hercules)
Yes, I saw Disney’s Hercules too!
You’re literally just cherrypicking a short arrangement from a larger score that doesn’t sound at all like “Go the Distance.” I’d agree with the eye-rolling nature of this if the scene itself had anything to do with Hercules, but it doesn’t in the slightest.
Yes, it’s a hurricane, but…this river behaves as though the freaking Hoover Dam exploded up river. Why? Cause we need to Mufasa Arlo’s dad, of course.
Earlier, you complained that this time period is “too similar” to a world where the meteor had hit. Now you’re annoyed that there’s a powerful storm strong enough to cause floods…you know, which happens in real life, anyway.
Essentially, you’re annoyed that the writers wrote a plot point about Arlo’s dad dying, and you were prepared to call it a contrivance no matter how they wrote the scene. In other words, the standards you set for movies don’t make any sense, similar to the videos you make.
Well, hello Lion King. I enjoyed you before, but did NOT expect to see you in dinosaur form—and from the same freaking studio!!
Pixar Animation Studios didn’t make The Lion King you walnut.
Also, the only similarity between these two movies for this scene is that Arlo’s dad falls off a cliff. There’s no stampede, no brotherly betrayal, or child being manipulated into his father’s death. It’s taking place in a river, accidentally, as a force of nature.
(Arlo looks at the “marks” on the silo)
“I wish I had that” cliché.
Characters yearning for something isn’t a cliché, it’s a form of good character development. The writers have to establish what Arlo wants so that we can get a clear understanding of his motivations. It’s not some vain desire Arlo has because it’s pleasing to his eye. He wants to make a mark in order to prove himself to his family.
But no, let’s laugh at a character for having a moment after his father dies.
What was this kid doing with his eaten corn cobs BEFORE Arlo opened this hole up 30 seconds ago, eh?! How fortunate for the plot that he sees a new hole, and instead of being scared like a feral human child, he decides it’s an upgrade to where he’s been tossing his food waste!
This sequence of events makes perfect sense, for reasons you even point out. Arlo removes the rock and throws a cob in, getting the kid’s attention. Once he sees the hole (which he doesn’t know leads to someone because there aren’t usually holes when he’s in the silo), he throws his food out so he can clear space to eat more food.
8 minutes to go…I don’t think I can keep this up without getting extra salty, so prepare yourself.
(after Arlo tells the kid that his dad would still be alive if it wasn’t for him)
That’s true, but it’s also a clear case of transference.
“Look, he has a personality and character traits! SIN.”
(Arlo and the kid fall in the river)
Arlo ends up in the raging river waters mostly because he’s stupid and has no spatial awareness, though the movie will try to blame it on the feral man-child.
The movie isn’t blaming anyone for anything, because it’s a movie. Arlo certainly blames the kid for what has happened, mostly because the kid is the reason ANY OF THIS IS HAPPENING.
Well, clearly he’s gonna get knocked out by a rock any second…now.
Yeah. Because he’s in a river full of rocks. When will the plot holes..er…rocks end? See, I can make dumb jokes, too!
Also, he doesn’t drown after this. Instead, he’s floated to the surface to find air and other life-giving bulls*it rather easily and conveniently.
True, but it would be a pretty boring movie if Arlo just died right then and there. This might be reaching, a little, but it’s also interesting how Arlo survives at this point because he simply lets the river take him, rather than just fighting it. But over the course of the movie, he learns to fight through nature in order to return home.
It was very considerate of the river to place Arlo in this shallow pool with his head kept above the water on a rock.
He’d obviously stop drifting once being floated into a shallow pool…full of rocks.
I see that he has…bruises? Maybe it’s just dirt. Who knows? But no cuts or gashes or open wounds? It’s one thing for him to survive, but another thing to survive mostly unscathed.
He’s literally covered in dark bruises. How is that “unscathed?” And of course they didn’t place open gashes on his body. If he had brushed up against something sharp and been carried like that, he’d be dead from bleeding out. Your expectations for a kid’s movie are pretty deadly, even for an edgy one like this.
(after Arlo calls after his mom)
Ha ha ha ha, protagonist is really stupid.
Really? You’re calling a child who’s been separated from his last living parent stupid for still trying to see if she can hear him and help him? What’s the matter with you?
(after Arlo falls off a rock)
That’s what you get for not having hands!
No, seriously, what’s the matter with you?
(Arlo on top of a rock, looking at the mountains)
Jeep…it’s what’s for dinner.
Why…why are you doing this to us? You have to know that people watch your videos expecting something interesting and maybe a little intelligent, even if they like the movie. Why…why would you make pointless, horrendous jokes and add it to a fake “sin” counter under the guise that you’re some sort of critical thinker?
What ALSO? You literally didn’t say anything in the last sin. You just made a stupid joke that had nothing to do with the movie.
Also, he’s going to have to go DOWN at an incline at least as steep as the one he climbed up, right? He’s like on top of the world here, he’s go nowhere to go but down!
First of all, nice typo. Second of all, you’ve apparently never hiked before if you don’t understand that climbing up things, even if they’re steep, means that you can reasonably climb down, as nothing we saw from his climb suggests he can’t just hop down the rocks as long as he’s being careful. But hey, let’s reference Jeep commercials!
(Arlo asks himself while staring out, “Where’s home?”)
Yes, he knows that you insufferable neckbeard. The point is that even though he’s looking past the river, he can’t even see Clawtooth mountain, so he’s completely lost and has no idea how far home is since he can’t see it from the top of the mountain.
Go ahead, keep making jokes like you’re watching this movie while spitting into a dip cup with some Bud Ice in your lap.
Yep, he somehow climbed from there to here. I know…right?!
Yeah, we saw him. Climb. A lot. Is the sin a sin because it happened, or because you just want to pause and talk to us because you’re lonely?
(quick shot of a caterpillar)
It’s a sin now for Pixar to show animals that have appeared in other movies? How is that a complaint, rather than a painfully annoying observation someone makes while watching this movie? And this caterpillar doesn’t even look like Heimlich anyway. Like at all.
(Arlo eats some berries)
DON’T EVER DO THIS! Many random forest berries are poisonous! This movie is a terrible role model!!!
Yes, and part of surviving in the wild is eating the right berries, which Arlo does. It’s an animated movie, not a Boy Scouts tutorial.
Seriously, every bone in Arlo’s body is broken at this point. Right?
Arlo gets hurt a lot in this movie, but he’s not a mammal. He’s a sturdier, and quite large, reptile. And a lot of his injuries are sustained over the course of the film, like when his leg gets hurt. So the movie actually does a great job of making his injuries feel real without crippling him to the point where he’s always just limping around.
Besides, the shot you’re referencing only shows Arlo falling back a few feet. It’s not even one of the more punishing moments of the film.
(Arlo’s leg is stuck under a rock)
It looks like we have a 127 Hours situation on our hands…well, more like our leg.
“Hey, this one thing from this movie looks a little similar from this other movie! Look how smart we are for pointing this out! JOKES!”
(shot of the moon)
Bruce Almighty moon in the house, ya’ll!
What…what is the matter with you, Jeremy? You used to be so talented. Biting. Subtle. Respectable. Now, you’re pointing out references to the moon between two movies because…hey, it’s uh, the moon! Remember that from that movie?! DING!
Have I mentioned how good the animation is in the film? Because the story is terrible.
Well, so far in this film, you haven’t said much about the story at all. You’ve sinned the movie for every other thing imaginable, like a chord arrangement, the moon being in the sky, and Arlo climbing up and down things sometimes. But hey, maybe you’ll get to actual criticisms later in the…well, never mind.
What makes this lizard food and not another creature they can talk to? I’m not sure who I should feel bad for here.
The movie has been establishing since the first scene with the chickens that not all creatures in this world are as intelligent and evolved as the dinosaurs. It’s kind of the plot of the movie, which you just called out for being “terrible,” despite the fact that you’re clearly not even following it.
Spot isn’t great at killing animals before bringing them to Arlo for consumption. My modern house cat at least has the common courtesy to kill a mouse before bringing it to me.
Well, guess what, and don’t sit down because you’re just going to stand up when I tell you this…Spot…is not your stupid cat!
In fact, Spot is different from a cat entirely because his instinct is to bring a live animal to Arlo so they can kill and eat the animal together. A lot of animals, like birds do this, but they’re not Jeremy’s stupid cat, so DING!
Movie’s Timon & Pumba stand-in predictably offers the far-from-home lost protagonist bugs as food.
Spot is a stand-in for wildlife foster parents? Because he’s actually Arlo’s pet human, as well as a companion who provides food for him on a dangerous adventure. The circumstances, when you actually analyze them, are completely different from The Lion King. But I know how important you feel in these videos when you make it clear you’ve watched another movie before.
I’m glad Neander-kid figured out Arlo is an herbivore, but still…isn’t there, like, a 60% chance these berries are poisonous? Or was I just over-warned as a child?!
You already sinned the movie for the berries thing, so why are you bothering to bring it up again? Yes, Jeremy, you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to surviving in the woods, apparently. We already got that.
If Spot got the berries from this spot before, how was he able to get there without the Arlo bridge?
The way Spot got to the berries was by following their scent, and he had to climb up trees in a different way so that Arlo could follow him. It was more about getting Arlo across than him repeating his steps.
Spot is a distant relative of Darla Sherman.
So Darla Sherman, for all of you non-Finding Nemo fans, is the braces-wearing niece of the dentist at P. Sherman 42 Wallaby Way Sydney. She also looks nothing like Spot, aside from also being a computer animated character.
And if this is the case, why bring it up now, half an hour after we’ve been introduced to Spot? Oh, because clearly we need to break things up with a pointless reference.
Arlo survives this fall, which is categorically—oh, who f*cking cares?!?!
Weird, that’s my same experience with this entire video.
Also, Arlo survives the fall (that you cut out the end part of) because the tree branches break his fall, and he’s a big enough creature for that not to kill him.
If you took your young child to this movie, I bet you regret it.
Not unless you have pretty awesome kids, like a lot of the ones who don’t care how scary Jurassic World is because look! Dinosaurs!
So are humans in this version of history dogs? One could argue that the panting is just heavy breathing because of the wrestling match with the snake, but he’s also sitting like a dog, and his name is f*cking Spot!
It’s almost like Pixar made him this way on purpose.
(after the Pet Collector explains that Dreamcrusher protects him from unrealistic goals)
So does that mean they’re married?
Insert laugh track here
Both Arlo and Spot must have Lance Armstrong steroid-level lung capacity to make these gopher creatures pop out of the ground.
WHAT?! HOW DARE THEY?!
(when the gophers approach Arlo)
The Good Dinosaur: The Trouble With Tribbles.
Jeremy. I’ve never had to do this before like this but…please stop talking.
(after Spot shows Arlo how to swim)
Aw, he taught him how to human-paddle.
“Look, characters interacting and teaching things to each other! DING! REFERENCE YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT! UNRELATED JOKE!”
These two obviously eat some shady sh*t, but fortunately for them, the side effects are hilarious hallucinations.
Wait, let me beat you to it: “What is this, Requiem for a Dream? Huh? Huh?”
Maybe his parents were wolves. That’s the only logical explanation for his continued non-ape like behavior.
Or, and don’t read this too fast, his family studied and mirrored wolf-like behavior in order to survive because that’s what humans have done for countless years. After all, wolves hunt in packs, follow scents to get food, and howl together to signify their bonds. And years of observing these creatures would probably convince some humans to follow their lead.
But based on his ability to quickly and quietly move, maybe his parents were cats…or hobbits.
First of all, no one cares about your cat, Jeremy. Second, this kid is way faster (and quieter) than a hobbit. That reference makes no sense on multiple levels.
Also, you sped up the video to make it seem like Spot moved farther away really quickly, but if you watch the movie, it’s a pretty reasonable amount of time after Arlo turns his head away based on how quick we’ve seen Spot move so far.
Because it’s a movie, a storm can literally roll into the area in, like, three seconds.
Wow, now you don’t even seem to understand how storms work. I bet Florida would blow your mind.
So, are the Pterodactyls cult members, or are they just religious? Who is Pixar trying to warn me to avoid?
Neither. They’re simply pointing out that unhinged zeal is a bad thing, and in a way that can ring true for a lot of cults and some religions. They’re not picking sides, because this isn’t that kind of movie, but they are showing kids the dangers of justifying bad actions with deity worship.
In other words, this is an awesome movie.
(after a pterodactyl eats a small creature)
Damn, Disney HATES Ice Age.
Pixar made this movie, not Disney. They just signed the checks.
Also, what? Pretty sure when you’re the top animation studio around, you’re not making creative decisions based on what the competition is or isn’t doing. Especially not the makers of Ice Age.
(after the same pterodactyl gulps the creature down)
True. And for some people, it’s disturbing, too. And hilarious.
Annnd how did it take me this long to see the Lion King hyena connection to these three pterodactyls?!
Right, because in The Lion King, Simba has to protect a human from three creatures less powerful than him who worship storms and seem kind of OK when you first meet them. Totally the same.
Maybe it took you a while to see the “connection” because you stopped trying to look for one that isn’t there.
Just like Jurassic Park, sudden T-Rex saves the day!
Only in this movie, a T-Rex saves the day for reasons that makes sense! Not that I have anything against Jurassic Park.
And of course the biggest difference is that Arlo sees the T-Rexes from afar and seeks their help because he thinks they’re his species at a distance, when in Jurassic Park, the T-Rex somehow just shows up inside a building.
The carnivorous T. Rexes are nice to the smaller, defenseless, and potentially delicious creatures because, I guess, John Lasseter was tired of Stephen Spielberg’s vilification of the T. Rex.
So now it’s a sin to NOT be like Jurassic Park? Jeremy, make up your ridiculous, cat-obsessed mind.
And yes, the T-Rexes care after creatures as carnivores in the same way we’ve seen the large Apatosaurus take care of other creatures. It’s a persistent theme of the movie, and it makes sense because these animals are smart enough after years of evolution to realize that there’s more to life than eating. They have plenty to keep their stomachs full, so they can be responsible for an entire herd and be friendly with other creatures because they don’t need to eat them.
And John Lasseter didn’t direct this movie. Peter Sohn did.
OK, so we’re well into this Snarcasm, and I think we can all agree that enough is enough (kudos for making it this far, of course).
The rest of this video is about as nonsensical and unfunny as what we’ve covered thus far, with a lot of attention paid to thin similarities The Good Dinosaur has with other movies, which Jeremy just can’t seem to wrap his head around. As if this is the first time he’s ever seen a movie that references other movies, even though movies do that all the time and get away with it when the circumstances are fairly different so they’re still unique.
But hey, anything for a cheap joke.
Here’s one last “sin” from the end of the video:
Arlo got lost and manages to make it back home, all while not really accomplishing anything, so he gets to finally make his mark…whatever that means.
I had to skip over this part of the video, but the point is that Arlo survived the river twice, when his father was lost after one accident and couldn’t make it back. Not only did Arlo return home (which his family desperately needed to happen because it’s established they need all the help they can get to survive), but he also did so by overcoming his biggest problem. Fear.
No one needed to tell him that he earned his mark. Arlo knew it once he arrived home, because nature itself couldn’t stop him from helping his family and fulfilling his duty. He became a man, and that’s his mark.
To be clear, I don’t really care that the Cinemasins crew has little love for The Good Dinosaur. Obviously, the film just didn’t work for them, and having a good time at the movies is the point, right?
My only issue is that this “sin” video does nothing to highlight what’s actually good or bad in this movie, so millions of people who trust Cinemasins are walking away from this 12 minute jokefest thinking it’s a terrible movie, when many of them may have probably loved it. It’s irresponsible to paint a movie in an over-the-top, negative light simply because that’s the name of your channel, and you really only have 10 sins that are strong enough to make a video for.
In other words, Cinemasins is clickbait. And they have been for a while, it seems.
Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!
I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni
32 thoughts on “Snarcasm: Everything Wrong With Everything Wrong With ‘The Good Dinosaur’”
Just remember, the people making this are probably the polite version of the people you would throw out of the theater for talking like this during the showing of the actual movie. (And they’re being polite by holding back until they can put it up on YouTube.
And Cinemasins should probably get the Cinemasins treatment all by itself, on YouTube, not just here.
They already beat you to it. They’re very self-aware.
I love both this Snarcasm and CinemaSin’s video. And I love Good Dino. It’s just nice to see more talk of the movie, whether its directly aimed at the movie or not, I feel like it’s looked over a ton for a whole lotta reasons. Basically, I just expected a lot more talk about TGD, seems like there was more talk about it when it wasn’t even out lol.
Anyways, was an entertaining read Jon!
“Have I mentioned how good the animation is in the film? Because the story is terrible.”
I actually mostly agree with this sin. I didn’t really care for the story and the whole film seemed slow and tedious. I also didn’t like the amount of falling Arlo did. I guess I just don’t really like Arlo as a character over all. He was just really annoyed me.
The animation was absolutely fantastic though. There were some places that I would probably have to look twice to see if the shots were real or computer generated. The animation is really the only reason I wanted to watch the movie to begin with. I probably won’t be seeing it again though (except for the weird fruit trip).
From what I read here though, CinemaSins did a bad job with The Good Dinosaur.
I know some of you all like the movie, but it’s just not my cup of tea.
Thoroughly enjoyed this article. You are a great writer and your reactions to CinemaSins were very funny.
I am by no means a big fan of the Good Dinosaur but the way CinemaSins were racking points against it was unfair just as an excuse to nitpick whatever ideas and jokes come to mind regardless of how it relates to the movie. I used to enjoy their videos but got put off them a long time ago because it doesn’t actually analyze a movie and would agree its all just clickbait
Cinemasins is a nitpicking YouTube Channel as well as a comedy. It shouldn’t be taken seriously as a review.
Which is why I normally don’t address Cinemasins videos (they infuriate me more often than not). But at this point, they aren’t even nitpicking anymore, and like I mention at the bottom of this overlong article, it’s distracting to people actually coming to them for real analysis. And maybe a little rightful nitpicking, too.
Although I agree with most of your post, I think you were a bit unfair and harsh with some of their points. Also, don’t berate people for typos, when I’m sure you make them all the time.
Agreed. I got extra salty with this post, which isn’t normally the Snarcasm way. I’ll keep it real next time.
Frankly, even analyzed as a comedy or nitpicking Channel (if the latter is actually a genre) it seems like more of a really angsty/cringe style video more on the low brow side of comedy, kind of like the type of person who thinks being cynical about everything is inherently funny and clever when it typically gets pretty dull on it’s own. The fact that the channel’s creators seem to find it necessary to explain over and over that they are being satirical and seem to constantly illustrate how much they love making “fanboys” or in reality even casual viewers angry kinda sounds like it’s more of a cop-out to say “guys it’s satire calm down” (paraphrasing of course) when from my experience I’ve only felt disappointed in the laziness of they’re attempt at being satirical rather than just being some kind of pathological troll I guess. It seems a lot easier just to say really dumb shit that you know will annoy people rather than something that actually qualifies as a clever form of satire, because, well that’s what makes a satirical channel great, its the quality and the clever writing that goes into it. It just kind of makes me wish they used such a promising style of comedy video with some actual effort in writing comedic satire, but then again, maybe the guy(s) ARE actually trying. If they are, then I hope they keep practicing so they might actually write some clever satire. It’s a bizarre situation I guess.
I’ve been with CinemaSins from the very beginning and I’ve always recognized that their deliberately over-nitpicking of films is meant to be satirical, to teach us that movies ought to be critiqued based on a balance of the whole product as well as its individual parts. People lie on either side of that spectrum, barely judging a film and going by their gut reaction walking out of the theater, or endlessly nitpicking a film to death. Either one is un-ideal for a proper discussion of the cinematic art form. This is especially true because, on the CinemaSins Jeremy channel, he constantly emphasizes the point of the channel as to not take these things too seriously. They’re demonstrating the ultimate end of nitpicking too much. As film buffs, Jeremy and co. actually value the advancement of the medium (particularly in the mainstream segment) quite highly.
I will say, however, that while the sins videos for the crappy films are somewhat boring (because their reputations have long been made known in pop culture) and the sins videos for great films (or, at the very least, “culturally great” films) are actually the fun videos, the sins videos for films that have been mistreated, either critically or commercially, are the least fun.
My opinion of The Good Dinosaur has greatly decreased since my second viewing of the film. At one point, I actually had it in my top 10 for 2015 and above Inside Out to boot. Now, it’s barely in my top 25. I feel that the film, despite the gorgeous animation, ultimately comes off as inconsequential, narrative-wise, because it’s more bare cartilage as opposed to bare bones.
Btw, I tweeted the sins video to you. I apologize if I caused the creation of this article in some way. 🙂
Do you really think they consciously thought that over-nitpicking was making a sarcastic statement that was helpful to movie watching?
I loved seeing all the nits picked, but they have to be legitimate nits. It was also a way to notice something that I hadn’t notice (because apparently I’m not THAT critical).
Yes, because Jeremy on his CinemaSins Jeremy channel has stated such. The main CinemaSins channel is meant to be joke. I get their point and they don’t take it too seriously, and they stress that people shouldn’t take their sins videos too seriously as legitimate problems with a film. I’m pretty sure if CinemaSins did a video on Casablanca, The Godfather, or even Citizen Kane, they’d find plenty for a video.
I’d like to add that, aside from commenting on the tendencies of film critics, CinemaSins also is meant to demonstrate the lessons to filmmakers and storytellers that no film is perfect or “without sin”, as they put it. But if they want to improve, it’s wise to note the more common “sins” and avoid or subvert them in the future.
I don’t take the videos seriously, but I do enjoy them and some of their points are legitimate nitpicks, with regards to the film as a whole product. At the very least, they point out things that I’ll notice on a second viewing.
Snarcastic, indeed. I have to assume, because I haven’t seen the piece, that there’s a “sin” for nearly everyone of the quotes.
Is this neckbeard literal or figurative?
I hope people don’t watch these videos before watching the movie. If they just never planned to watch the movie, that’s fine, but this would ruin the movie based on some person’s opinion whose job it is to make jokes and mark sins but whose job it isn’t to be fair and maybe to award zero sins. I sometimes watch a video like this afterwards, either for movies I really like, or movies that just seemed so bad that I want someone else to agree. I didn’t even think of doing that for Good Dinosaur, even though I remember thinking there was a reason this movie was delayed and that reason was that it wasn’t up to par with other Pixar movies.
Yes, each quote is a sin. And neckbeards are and forever will be figurative.
Oh….good, I think, because I sport one at times… literal, hopefully not figurative. Thanks for informing me. 🙂
Alright, I had to chime in here. There were plenty of could-reply/nah moments, but the river drowning daddy scene is the same as Lion King. The stampede was a stand-in for a river in the dry savanna. Simba survives by standing on the rock. Think of the rapids and all those rocks that you could stand on. Also, a stampede is an act of nature. It’s kinda similar to how a riot might count, but since these are animals I’d say it’s clearer. (But you may have meant fully accidental….)
I don’t think every element needs copied to count as it being lifted from the Lion King. Even if we exclude the Lion King influence, Disney/Pixar films nearly always needs a single parent household, therefore it is irksome to have that element forced on us again. Might have been better for them to have lost each other so that the son could go on his adventure. I don’t see why it was necessary for the dad to die.
Now, an agreement one, sorta. Cats don’t always bring their prey dead. So this part of the movie wasn’t wrong.
Good points. I still think it’s a totally different moment thematically, but your right that it’s similar aesthetically. And that does count as a legitimate nitpick, so point made.
Hah, thanks. Yes, thematically different, what with it missing sabotage and the rest.
Thank you. I usually love cinemas ins even when they contradict movies I love but they seemed to drop the ball on this one. I kept saying, no, that’s not what happened and you showed it perfect.
Sorry Jon. I love you and your articles, so no disrespect, but I think you were wrong with this one. I think that The Good Dino was just “ehhh” (sorry) but CinemaSins isn’t click bait. It’s comedy. Satire, even. The creators take little jabs at movies. Kinda like Mystery Science Theater, but less improv.
Still, keep up the good work, Jon! Can’t wait to see you review Civil War!
No worries on not liking TGD, but I have to disagree on CinemaSins. Yes, they claim to be comedy and satire in the fine print, but that’s not how they present themselves, and worse, that’s not what their own videos give the impression of. So from what I can tell, it’s clickbait because viewers are being misled by these long videos that point out anything but sins (even when there are plenty to choose from), thus giving people the wrong idea and information about a movie.
For you and their core fanbase, it’s not a problem because you already understand their brand from years of following them. But when they point out blatantly inaccurate flaws in movies without making it clear which is a real criticism and which is purposefully wrong, that’s where it crosses into problematic territory.
Sorry for the rant, it’s totally not directed at you because this isn’t your fault for enjoying what even I find are sometimes funny videos. I just wanted to make it clear where I stand on their channel after years of being a subscriber.
Thanks for replying, Jon!
I can 100% see where you’re coming from. Only some of the times do CinemaSins actually point out legitimate flaws in their subject. I just think that it doesn’t bother me as much as it does you. What you’re making is a reasonable argument.
While we’re at it: I would love an opinion on my blog. I’m trying to become a critic, so I could use some feedback.
Here’s the link: https://finnegangooding.wordpress.com/
Despite being a long time fan of Cinemasins, I agree with most of what you say in this article. However, there are some things I disagree with you on that I believe you should have rethought or taken the time to look at. From the start, yes the logos sin is trivial. However, Cinemasins has done that for so long and it is merely just a trope they developed to complain about time spent being shown stuff they already know that doesn’t contribute to the film. This part really shouldn’t have been addressed by you since this is one of the parts where it is sincerely trivial and satirical. Also, I’d definitely contest your comparison of the brand logos before movies to say the Star Wars crawl. The brands shown before a movie does not contribute to a plot of the movie and, for the sake of the film itself, is not needed. The Star Wars Crawl actually does give exposition to the plot albeit in a slow, exposition dump manner.
Next, I know that this is more an editorial than an actual review of another article/work, but please, chill with the ad hominem. I know you are trying to point out the flaws in Cinemasins’ argument, but the ad hominem you threw in there at times was a bit jarring and unappealing, much of it seemingly from your own perceptions such as the neckbeard and Bud Lite comments.
Lastly, I know this article would have dragged on a while if you covered the whole video, but stopping near the middle doesn’t do the video justice, or at least the justice you think it should get. In the second half of the video, there are some actual good sins that should be addressed. For example, and granted I haven’t watched the Good Dinosaur so I may be wrong but consider the context given through the rest of the movie shown in the video, I feel this is right. Anyway, for example, when Spot attempts to go with the humans before Arlo gets home but Arlo stops Spot, Jeremy is right in sinning that. Arlo seems to know where he is going and how to get home by following the river, so having Spot around doesn’t make much sense and seems to only serve as a plot contrivance to give a reason for the climactic encounter between the pterodactyls, Spot and Arlo. And even afterward, once Arlo gets home, he lets Spot go with the humans anyway, so making him stay with him looked like, to me, that it only served to give a reason for the final climactic encounter rather than giving it a dynamic reason.
Thanks for this good comment, and I’ll try my best to address what you’ve rightfully brought up here.
Interesting that you bring up the Star Wars crawl, because I was also thinking of something I missed from Force Awakens, which is the 20th Century Fox fanfare appearing in front of Lucasfilm, and I missed it dearly. Perhaps I could have better explained how the familiarity of logos is perfectly valid, so to me they seem especially necessary for kids’ films (familiarity breeds contempt for adults, though).
Anyway, I admit I went overboard with the ad hominem much more than I do in any other editorial (it’s the Snarcasm way, not that this is an excuse). I tried to connect each ad hominem to the actual “sin” as a way to reflect my frustration with certain jokes made by the video (the dipsh*t line is why I made the Bud Ice comparison, for example). But yeah, you’re right to point out that ad hominem in general gets pretty boring and mean-spirited. I’ll be sure to watch myself next time, unless it has to do with Jeremy’s stupid cat.
I agree completely that doing the whole video would have been ideal, because I actually have a lot to contest with sinning Arlo for keeping Spot away from those humans. Within the context of the story, it’s even more heartbreaking because Arlo doesn’t really need Spot anymore. He can’t let go of his friend, a direct allegory to a boy having to leave his childhood (or even pet) behind. When he does this, it shows that he’s not quite there yet with his maturity (he will be later), and he’s showing a selfish side of his personality that’s pretty consistent with the rest of the movie.
And also, he loves Spot. Wouldn’t you have a hard time letting go of someone who’s become your best friend? I don’t find that worthy of a “sin,” only an interesting discussion up for debate. If anything, it would have been out of nowhere and much more of a contrivance for the humans to show up all of a sudden at the very end (and the sin would be humans-ex-machina, I bet).
Thank you for replying. Also, I suppose I see what you’re saying about the thing with Arlo and Spot, but I feel it would mean more if Arlo let Spot go then rather than later. It would have shown his growth and ability to do what he needs to do on his own and, in a way, give a sort of parallel of being able to do things without the help of his father or Spot. Of course, that wouldn’t leave the story with much of a climactic encounter which, in my opinion, is why I feel making Spot stay with Arlo is a plot contrivance rather than a point to showcase Arlo’s selfishness considering it goes from not wanting Spot to go, to putting Spot in danger, to saving Spot, and then letting him go finally, all within the last 10-15 minutes of the film, I believe.
I’d like to point out that Cinermasins is a lot like Snarcasm for movies. Before you say anything, I’d also like to point out that they’re not exactly alike. Jeremy can be a bit of an airhead sometimes, and Jon actually thinks things through. But they both use snarky comments, and I happen to enjoy both of their work.
I’d also like to note that Cinermasins is more of a joke than a review or something. He has does videos on a lot of my favorite movies, and should really not be taken this seriously.
The whole berry thing being an issue at all is ridiculous. Does Jeremy know ANYTHING about animals? Like the fact that herbivores survive by eating plants and don’t get poisoned all the time? There’s a reason for that! Animals that eat berries usually know by instinct what berries are safe to eat, and have colour vision in order for them to be able to tell. And in this movie there is even more reason for Arlo to know what berries are safe to eat because his parents would have taught him ABOUT SURVIVAL.
The only CinemaSins video I actually enjoyed was “Everything Wrong With The Amazing Spider-man 2”, which was actually done by Screen Junkies.
Cinema Sins did a better job than you.
Just Kidding XD
CinemaSins logic: Cars 2 gets a sin for accurate co-ordinates. A few weeks later, Despicable Me 2 gets a sin for inaccurate co-ordinates.