Whether it’s set in the present or not, dinosaurs couldn’t get very far technologically and in related ways unless they evolved anatomical tools with which to manipulate their environment with precision. With humans in real life, we have our hands of course, which evolved before our brains.

There apparently isn’t a lot of dinosaur technology in the movie, so that aspect is fine, but I wonder about the notion of dinosaurs continuing to dominate even in a world in which humans evolved. Supposedly (to be taken with a grain of salt) dinosaurs going extinct was what “allowed” mammals to flourish, but if we ignore that (not necessarily true anyway) I wonder why humans, who managed to evolve anyway in this story, would not have developed even more quickly in order to adapt to a world that is “dominated” by dinosaurs–any such pressure would naturally have a tendency to do that. I mean things like weaponry and other inventions or methods to gain the upper hand. That’s what humans inherently always do–try to control as much of our environment as possible. Why? Because with our brains and hands, we can. Or maybe there is more to the premise than has been revealed so far.

Now, before anyone accuses me of overthinking things ;), this is simply an analysis of something that intuitively just doesn’t seem right to me, at least at this stage. Looks like I’ll have to work to suspend my disbelief again, like I do with some other Pixar movies such as WALL-E and the Toy Story series. It doesn’t mean the movie won’t be good or that I won’t like it, as WALL-E is one of my favorites, but The Good Dinosaur seems to have this same problem. By the way, some have suggested that the cartooniness of the characters in stark contrast to the live-action-like photorealism of the environment signifies that we’re looking at an alternate reality, but be that as it may, it still doesn’t help either the first issue or the clash in style itself, in my opinion.

So why is there a problem with this and not even more outlandish, unrealistic ideas we often find in movies and especially animation? For me it’s because those others take place in their own worlds/universes where there is magic and/or non-humans can talk and walk upright and such nonsense, while this one seems to be intended as taking place in the real world in a straight “What if?” scenario–that’s the difference. These are just my preliminary thoughts, anyway. We’ll see soon enough whether they’re unfounded or the movie works regardless.

Good point.

Oh, now I get it. I wasn’t looking at it from a business standpoint at all. Pixar do have a way of doing this and making it work when few others would try, although I still don’t think the movie itself, taken out of this particular context (and put into others, because context is important), is very bold in what it says.

> what is so bold about Inside Out?

Inside Out is bold because it is a long ways away from a conventional Hollywood family film. Exploring the idea that sadness is ok, and important isn’t something any studio could make or get greenlit. Not to mention turn into a blockbuster. It is a simple, but powerful film.