Pixar

Pixar Is Taking a Break from Sequels After ‘Incredibles 2’

pixar sequels incredibles 2

Turns out that tip I reported was correct after all.

Allanah Faherty confirmed the rumor yesterday on Movie Pilot:

Pixar President, Jim Morris has revealed that after the release of the last sequel on the current slate, The Incredibles 2 in June 2019, the studio will release four original films.

“Everything after Toy Story and The Incredibles is an original right now,” he said. At the moment there are two untitled original films scheduled to be released in March and June 2020, and a further two are in early development, and look “highly likely” to join the studio’s schedule soon.

This is interesting news for a few big reasons. The most obvious one is that this addresses the “sequel-fatigue” many of us have been experiencing with the studio since Cars 2, as well as the doubts people have been having about Pixar’s quality in comparison to Walt Disney Animation Studios’ recent wave of huge success.

But the other big reason we should consider is how this will reflect on Pixar’s massive hit, Finding Dory, which is of course a sequel. The film has been a box office juggernaut in the U.S. (it will soon dethrone Captain America: Civil War as the biggest domestic hit of 2016), and the movie has also enjoyed steadily positive praise from critics.

In other words, this news implies what a lot of us have always suspected about Pixar as a business. Their decisions on which movies to release are not solely driven by short-term numbers and cash grabs. It seems they’re more interested in telling the stories they want to tell.

Note: the top image is a reference to Pixar’s next original film, Coco, which will release next year.

Is ‘Finding Dory’ Part of Hollywood’s Sequel Problem?

finding dory sequel problem

Mark Harris via Vulture: The Sequels of 2016 Aren’t About Storytelling; They’re Just Brand Extensions

I don’t consider “sequel” a slur. But it’s notable how much the impetus behind them has changed, and with it, their very nature.

This summer’s sequels are not, for the most part, story continuations but brand extensions. Some are good and some not; some have succeeded and some have flopped, but almost all of them are different beasts than the first generation of blockbuster genre sequels.

To my taste, the best reason to make a sequel is because the story demands it.

Overall, this is a great write-up by Harris that articulates a lot of the frustration I and many critics and fans have been having with sequels this year. He even champions Marvel’s Civil War as a good example of how sequels with grander narrative purpose make better impressions on audiences who’ve grown savvy to Hollywood’s sequel formula.

But I would disagree on one example he brings up briefly.

As for Finding Dory, it’s a solid brand refresher that will make a mint — an effective way for Disney to remonetize a dormant franchise. But nothing will convince me that Pixar’s move from being arguably the finest producer of original content in Hollywood to a sequel manufactory (next up: The Incredibles 2, Cars 3, Toy Story 4) is anything but dispiriting news.

I don’t disagree with Harris on this point at all, but I think Finding Dory is a wildly inappropriate example of his main point. Finding Dory is no Civil War in the sense that it exists in a larger universe of movies with a single narrative (or is it?), but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad sequel off of the definition Harris attributes above to movies like TMNT: Out of the Shadows and The Huntsman: Winter’s War.

Go on…Is ‘Finding Dory’ Part of Hollywood’s Sequel Problem?

Find Yourself, Not Dory

finding dory podcast review

This week on the podcast, I’m joined by a full cast to review Finding Dory, the latest Pixar movie and sequel to 2003’s Finding Nemo. We also discuss the latest news coming out of E3, the new Moana trailer, and a lot more.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: For those of you who’ve already seen the movie, which of the new characters in Finding Dory did you like best?

Go on…Find Yourself, Not Dory

The Pixar Theory: How ‘Finding Dory’ Fits In The Pixar Universe

finding dory pixar theory

Don’t cry mommy…don’t cry.

Here’s the deal. A few years ago, I proposed a theory that makes the case for how and why every Pixar movie from Toy Story to WALL-E exists in a shared universe with a single, overarching narrative. The case I make is fueled by easter eggs, cameos, story themes, and other clues that make up what I call The Pixar Theory (link above).

Since I wrote the original theory and turned it into a book, I’ve also added “chapters” that talk about Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur, just last year. And now we’ve come to the 2016 release, Finding Dory.

I’ll give you the normal rundown below, but first a tease. Would you believe me if I told you that the Toy Story movies have an incredibly strong connection with this movie? Well, we’ll get to that.

THE SET UP

finding dory pixar theory

It took Pixar 13 years, but they finally made a sequel to one of their most beloved films, Finding Nemo. In that movie, a clown fish named Marlin crosses the ocean in search of his son, and he’s aided by the quirky and forgetful blue tang, Dory.

The sequel kicks off a year later, when Dory suddenly remembers a clue related to her family, whom she lost as a very young child—er—fish. So Marlin and Nemo help Dory cross the ocean once again to find them, only this time, they have to brave the horrors outside of the ocean, in a marine institute that rehabilitates fish and has its own aquarium exhibits.

First, let’s talk briefly about how Finding Nemo fits into the theory, because for obvious reasons, that will inform a lot of what we can uncover with the sequel.

FINDING FINDING NEMO

This was actually one of the shortest chapters of the book, mostly because the connections in Finding Nemo are very speculative and work to enhance other animal-centric films like Ratatouille. Interestingly, I do speak in length about Dory in that chapter, because she is a character who represents the mysterious intelligence animals in Pixar movies seem to possess, leading all the way to movies like Monsters Inc., which imagines a world where animals run the world as monsters.

Dory has very unique abilities that other fish like her simply don’t possess. She can read, for one thing, and “speak whale.” We’ll get to why that really is, later, because Finding Dory sheds plenty of light on where this all comes from.

finding dory pixar theory

I also speak on how Finding Nemo goes out of its way to create animosity between the fish of the ocean and the humans, paving the way for an increasingly connected community of animals who will do whatever it takes to get away from wherever the humans are. Humans steal Nemo and threaten his life, keep the Tank Gang imprisoned in the dentist’s office, and then capture Dory in a fishing net. It’s proven in the movie that humans are actually the biggest threat to creatures of the ocean.

But in the end, the fish rally against humans once and for all, thanks in no small part to Nemo’s leadership when he convinces a horde of them to break the human’s fishing net so they can escape.

WHAT ABOUT FINDING DORY?

Warning: spoilers for Finding Dory from here on out. Be sure to watch the movie before going any further unless you want to be spoiled.

Humans are still terrible in the story of Finding Dory, but not always directly. True, they capture Dory almost as soon as she reaches the kelp forest next to the marine institute. But Dory herself doesn’t seem to fear or hate them. She, just like most other characters, is pretty indifferent to the humans.

finding dory pixar theory

Hank the octopus, on the other hand, is very antagonistic toward the marine institute workers, always escaping and finding ways to avoid them at all costs. This is made even clearer when his worst nightmare is realized at the “touch pool,” where children descend their fingers upon the fish to the tune of a horror movie.

Imagine the scene from Toy Story 3 when the toys first encounter the caterpillar room. All of the savvy toys are hiding because they know children are coming to make their lives a living riptide. Well, that’s basically what happens here, and this fear of humans isn’t just comic relief. It’s kind of terrifying, and it’s even a little entertaining considering a Toy Story connection coming later…

It’s no wonder that by the end of the movie, all of the fish from the institute hark to the words of Sigourney Weaver and “release” themselves into the ocean. To them, freeing themselves of humans is their version of a happy ending.

THE DEAL WITH DORY…AGAIN

So what makes Dory so “special,” and just what in the ocean does that have to do with the Pixar Theory? Well, don’t forget that the growing intelligence of animals in movies like Ratatouille, Up, A Bug’s Life, and even The Good Dinosaur all lead up to the inevitable reality where oversized animals who look like monsters solely inhabit the future world devoid of humans (only for them to go back in time to harvest the energy-filled screams of children in order to sustain their world further because, and you guessed it, humans are batteries).

finding dory pixar theory

Like in Inside Out, Pixar hits us over the head with the idea that humans give off an energy that sparks life into everyday objects like toys, cars, and even our own emotions. So how did Dory become the way she is?

It’s revealed in Finding Dory that she was born in captivity. So she grew up constantly surrounded by humans and signs from the exhibits that she’s able to remember throughout the film, explaining how she was able to learn to read. Peach the starfish from Finding Nemo is another fish who has the rare ability to read, and even she explains that she was brought to the tank from eBay.

The idea is that when animals become entrenched in human fixtures and attention, they are able to expand their personalities and capabilities. Though Dory suffers from a very serious disability with short-term memory loss, she’s able to cope by forming connections in a very human way. This explains why fish are so quick to help her with whatever problem she’s facing, no questions asked.

We see the same sort of thing with Remy from Ratatouille, who becomes the greatest chef in France only after his experiences in the human world. Simply put, humans and animals have a lot to gain and learn from each other.

IS THAT IT?

finding dory pixar theory

Nope. There’s also a subtle but unforgettable moment in the movie that hints a connection with Toy Story. Here it goes.

About halfway through the movie, Marlin and Nemo find themselves in a fish tank outside of a gift shop, and there’s a single, plastic fish toy moving around them. It prods Marlin over and over again, and then eventually when they’re trying to figure a way out, they notice that the fish is tapping the glass all of a sudden pointing directly at the exact path they need to take in order to escape (a stream of geysers that will carry them over to the tide pool).

The idea is that the toy fish is, you guessed it, alive, and it’s trying to help Nemo and Marlin without revealing itself because it has to play dead with so many people around watching them. This is a great connection to the relationship we see in Toy Story 2 between Woody and Buster, who form a bond and friendship together. Here, the toy just seems anxious to show Marlin and Nemo exactly what they need to do so they can find their friend.

In other words, Pixar is amazing.

ANYTHING ELSE?

finding dory pixar theory

As always, there are ample easter eggs and references to other movies to find throughout, including the A113 callout that shows up toward the end of the movie on a license plate (again, just like Toy Story).

Also, Sigourney Weaver’s voice is heard throughout the marine park announcing the exhibits. This will be familiar to fans of Andrew Stanton’s other Pixar movie, WALL-E, which also features Weaver’s voice as the sound of a computer on the Axiom. Makes sense that in the Pixar universe, Sigourney Weaver’s voice is the most trusted when it comes to soothing, computer-controlled announcements.

Remember Darla from Finding Nemo? You can see the same photo of her holding the dead fish in the marine institute that her uncle has all the way in Australia. This means the marine institute has a clear connection to the P. Sherman, who also loves to work by the sea. It could even mean that in the one year since losing all of his fish in the tank, he decided to devote his life to studying aquatic life in California, a dream somewhat preluded in the fact that he scuba dived far into the ocean just to take photos, eventually leading to him taking Nemo.

finding dory pixar theory

And here’s a spookier reference that hints the rise of BnL, the corporation that will eventually burn all the trash into toxic air. In the picture below (bottom right), you can spot a WALL-E calendar, referencing the robots that will one day (try) to clean the Earth.

It’s telling that in a movie where there is a ton of garbage piling up in the water just outside the marine institute, robots as advanced as WALL-E are already being prototyped.

finding dory pixar theory

The Luxo Ball and Pizza Planet truck make their scheduled appearances, as well. You can see the Luxo Ball in the clutter of toys in the Kid Zone, and the Pizza Planet truck is one of the underwater vehicles found during the squid scene.

Be sure to add what you find in your own viewings via the comments.

Another quick thing, though, is that for whatever reason, Pixar seems to really hate birds unless they’re in a short like with Piper, or they’re named Nigel. Like the seagulls from Finding Nemo and the instinctual predator bird from A Bug’s Life, there are half-brained birds all over the place in Finding Dory, including one named Becky who will still find a way to capture your heart, I guess.

WHAT’S NEXT?

pixar theory

Sadly, it will be a year before we get any new Pixar movies, with Cars 3 set to release June 16, 2017. Though a lot of people may not be very excited about yet another Cars sequel, they can still take solace in knowing that the studio is releasing Coco, an original non-sequel coming out that same year in November, based on the Mexican holiday Día de Muertos.

The film has already begun animation as of April, and the premise follows a 12-year-old boy named Miguel who tries to uncover a “generations-old” mystery. The current synopsis is:

“Coco is the celebration of a lifetime, where the discovery of a generations-old mystery leads to a most extraordinary and surprising family reunion.”

Also, we have Toy Story 4 and Incredibles 2 to look forward to in the next few years, including a rumored slate of about four non-sequels Pixar is working on that are due to come out over the next decade.

All of these movies are months and years away, so until they release, I’ll be here conspiring.

Want even more?

  • First, be sure to check out the book, The Pixar Theory, available on paperback and ebook via Kindle, Barnes and Noble, iBooks, or just a PDF. This will cover the entire theory and every movie in the Pixar universe, updated from the 2013 blog post.
  • Parts 2 and 3 of the The Pixar Theory cover the latest movies that have come out since the book was published. So you can check out Part 2, Inside Out, as well as Part 3, The Good Dinosaur via the links.
  • Want to talk about all of this stuff with tons of other Pixar Detectives? You can start all of the conversations you want in the comments for this post, or join the ongoing discussions in the original blog post, here.
  • Last but hopefully not least, you can read my free Pixar Theory serial novel, The Pixar Detective, which was completed last spring. It tells a new story that shows off the grand narrative of all the Pixar movies with original characters, familiar faces, and a mystery that ties them all together.

Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my mailing list.

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

 

Snarcasm: The Villain of ‘Incredibles 2’ Is Going to Be Dash, I Guess

incredibles 2 villain

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read.

“Hey Jon,” said the Internet.

“Yes?”

“Check out this Incredibles 2 fan theory.”

“Uh, OK. Is it a copy-paste job of some random Reddit posting that is now on Buzzfeed?”

“No.”

“Cool. So, what’s the—”

“It’s on MTV.com.”

makes dial-up noises

Professional Reddit user and MTV writer Stacey “don’t tell me you don’t want her job” Grant recently put out this gem:

This Incredibles 2 Fan Theory Suggests a Beloved Character Could Actually Be a Villain.

incredibles 2 villain

Now, I don’t have any problem with speculating future movie plots and suggesting potential villains for sequels. Just as long as you give good reasons for why you think the story will turn out the way you play it out in your head. I’ve done this in the past for saying that a revived Tadashi-turned-Sunfire would make for an excellent villain in Big Hero 7, but in that case, I backed it up with reasonable evidence for why it would make sense for the story that is begun in Big Hero 6.

What you’re about to read isn’t really a case for why Dash is going to be the villain in Incredibles 2. It’s barely more than a wild guess.

The Incredibles 2 won’t be in theaters for another three years, but the fan theories are already starting to emerge with Dashiell speed.

Dashiell who? Do you mean Parr? Do you mean “Dash’s speed?”

The most recent one comes from Reddit user Professor_Wonder.

Until next week’s fan theory by w33d_sm0k3r91.

Inspired after rewatching The Incredibles, this fan theory says who the villain will be for the animated sequel. (It definitely won’t be Syndrome, thanks to that whole cape/jet turbine fiasco.)

Oh, Stacey, you slay me.

According to Professor_Wonder, the villain isn’t going to be some brand new character, but instead be someone from the first film, someone we know and love: Dashiell “Dash” Parr.

This is a weird interpretation of the Redditor’s original post. He wasn’t saying it as if he’s some insider trying to crack the code while trying to pay attention during his meeting with the Illuminati.

incredibles 2 villain

He was just exercising a neat idea he had, certainly not to get attention or have people take his speculation seriously beyond “Oh, that’s cool, maybe.”

FOR STARTERS, DASH IS SUPER POWERFUL, WHICH IS ALSO HIS DOWNFALL.

Says who? Pretty sure having a cape is the only downfall we see much of in these movies so far.

Professor_Wonder points out how the Parr family’s oldest son “is always going to be told to [rein] in his superpower.”

Right…

Remember at the end of The Incredibles when Bob and Helen Parr had to keep reminding their son to slow down and get his super speed under control?

Yeah, it was right before the part where he listened to them without making a big deal out of it because he knows he could win the race easily.

incredibles 2 villain

Kids are impulsive,

Where’s the emojii that makes a “shocked” face?!

and teenagers are definitely no better on that front.

incredibles 2 villain

Tell us more about teenagers, MTV.

Growing up, how many times did you do the complete opposite of what your parents wanted you to do?

Which means Dash could be a compelling character, but a villain? You’re going to need more than a Green Acres diatribe about growing up to reverse the typical coming of age trope we know Brad Bird is a fan of.

MOREOVER, HE RECEIVED POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT WHEN HE ACTED OUT IN SCHOOL.

But you just said that the problem would be that he does the opposite of what his parents want him to do. If you’re concerned about his parents being enablers, then that’s a totally different issue.

After using his powers to put a tack on the teacher’s chair without being noticed (well, almost), his normally melancholy dad perked up and actually smiled and laughed.

What a terrible…father? If anything, this is a positive sign that he gets different types of support from his parents.

True, his mom wasn’t having it, but Dash paid more attention to his dad’s reaction than to his mom’s.

OK, that’s fine and all, but these are just normal behaviors of young kids, not future villains of superhero movies (not that you can’t craft a good origin story out of something mundane, it’s just that you need more to go off of than “look at this imperfect character with imperfect surroundings”).

Professor_Wonder stated, “Dash is able to garner some positive attention by doing something negative.”

Is there anything inherently “negative” or dastardly about a harmless school prank? His father is reinforcing a positive thing, which is Dash feeling free to use his powers from time to time and embracing who he really is. This is seen in the end of the film as you referenced earlier when they allow him to go out for sports.

incredibles 2 villain

It’s not like Mr. Incredible got excited about Dash robbing a grocery store or doing anything else illegal. He was glad that his son was just being a kid and having fun with his abilities.

BASICALLY, MIXING DASH’S TEENAGE IMPULSES WITH HIS DESIRE TO BE NOTICED IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER.

Dash isn’t Kylo Ren. Plenty of superheroes are impulsive teenagers who want to be noticed. But they’re still ingrained with decency that makes them heroes. Dash is already that type of character, so assuming his hormones are going to turn him to some dark side is random, not something to be expected.

It’s the same with normal teenagers. How many tough acting kids do you know who would never harm a fly? If anything, Dash’s arc would make more sense if it positioned him as a hothead superhero who does good things for the wrong reasons, causing unintended consequences. Think Speedball from Marvel’s Civil War comics.

Why did Buddy Pine become supervillain Syndrome? The main reason was because he desperately wanted to be Mr. Incredible’s sidekick, and the superhero promptly shut him down.

OK…but this is a totally different—

Buddy was a teen who impulsively felt like he needed to defeat bad guys like Bomb Voyage, but he didn’t give himself a chance to stop and think about the best way to handle the situation.

OK, but it was also about his feeling inferior to the real superheroes because he lacked powers. That’s kind of irrelevant to—

Instead, he dove in and took action, which ultimately backfired.

Sigh, yes, fine.

His plan of impressing Mr. Incredible and getting his attention failed.

Sure, but that’s probably because it was based on an inherently unhealthy relationship.

incredibles 2 villain

Buddy tried to force himself into Mr. Incredible’s life as his ward, but you can’t just transfer that dynamic onto Dash, who’s his real son.

TBH, it’s not totally out there to think the same kind of thing could easily happen to Dash as well.

OMG, well, yeah, it kind of is for two big reasons. 1) Buddy and Dash are completely different characters with completely different motivations, abilities, and connections to the main plot. 2) Brad Bird is pretty good at making movies, so it would be very odd for him to replicate the Syndrome origin story for someone like Dash, who is already a character with an established personality.

Like they say, history tends to repeat itself.

And like they also say, familiarity breeds contempt.

I don’t want to harp on the Redditor at all, as I said earlier. His full post (which Stacey omits over half of) has interesting ideas in it that are worth a read if you’re interested. It involves a way to present Dash as a character who carries on the subplot from the first film involving Edna’s super suits, and even though it’s probably just wild speculation, it’s ten times more interesting than boiling it all down to those darn teenage kids pulling an Anakin.

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

Snarcasm: Everything Wrong With Everything Wrong With ‘The Good Dinosaur’

everything wrong good dinosaur

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?

Also,

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?”)

Um…upriver, dip-s*it.

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)

Heimlich?

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?”

Laugh track

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)

Also…that’s horrific.

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

The Ultimate Pixar Movie

ultimate pixar movie

This week on the podcast, we each pitch what we think would be the ultimate Pixar movie. Creativity somewhat included.

We also review Gods of Egypt, Eddie the Eagle, and Fuller House (sort of). I’m joined by illustrator Kayla Savage, film writer Adonis Gonzalez, YouTube personality Maria Garcia, and a surprise guest…

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Do you think the Oscars matter? Also, what should we name our Pixar movie?

Go on…The Ultimate Pixar Movie