I did explain. Arlo’s dad died in the exact same scenario, so Arlo had high chances of dying too. It’s not brave to do something that will most likely result in your death, it’s just stupid. It’s like he didn’t learn anything from his father’s death after all.

Akward? Please explain. Maybe you missed them, but there actually were plenty of other moments (before he saved spot) where Arlo began to overcome his fears and become “The Good Dinosaur”.

I agree with you!

You make solid points and I appreciate you pointing out some good qualities. Some people act like this is on par with Strange Magic and Norm of the North. That I don’t get.

I also thought it was a beautiful, emotional movie with a great use of nature, but the script made no sense to me. It’s like they took pieces of different movies they wanted to make and pieced them together. Also, I thought it was awkward [Spoiler] to make Arlo jump in the river to save Spot. His dad died in that exact same scenario, by all logic he should expect to die too, it was hardly the time to start ignoring his fears.

Well, it’s a justified criticism if those temporary characters are actually more interesting and likeable than the main cast. Arlo’s to whiny to be likeable, the story became too incoherent at times, and like I said, there’s nothing innovative in terms of storytelling. Pixar is America’s Studio Ghibli. They create art and wonder. Granted, this movie is visual eye candy but it wasn’t emotionally satisfying for me. Truth be told, I like Spot and I thought that was the movie’s saving grace… until I came to realise that he’s a human in a movie that focuses on Dinosaur’s. That was a red flag for me. And before you say that there’s emotional moments, I really felt that they were shoe-horned in. It seems as though The Good Dinosaur was really over-exploiting their “emotional moments” as a means to retain audience attention. This was a weak delivery from Pixar, and you know what? that’s okay. Hopefully, they’ll learn that if a project needs too many reworks: it will not finalise very well.

TGD is at it’s core a road / adventure movie for Arlo and Spot. I’m sure you’ve seen this type of movie before. But they ALWAYS have characters that come in, serve a purpose for the main character’s physical or emotional journey and then go, sometimes with little screen time. Examples…the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz, Bruce the Shark and his two pals in Finding Nemo, Gigolo Joe in AI. It happens in ALL of these movies, so to criticize TGD for that is plainly unfair.
I shouldn’t really need to, but to directly address your questions about the TGD characters…. but the ones you specifically call out in TGD DO serve a key purpose… the red snake is there to show that Spot is willing to risk himself to protect his new friend, Arlo. This adds a loyal and noble quality to Spot that wasn’t known to us before the snake appeared. Forrest Woodbush is there to show how the dangers of that wild environment can affect timid creatures over a long time and illustrates just one way that an animal has learned to cope with those constant threats. In Forrest’s, case, he choses to surround himself with totem ‘protectors’ and hide in the woods. Maybe not the smartest choice, but one that works for that character and provides a bit of comic relief for us too. The Raptors are there to enlighten Arlo that not all creatures he meets can be trusted at their word and to be cautious. These lessons are all part of Arlo’s journey, not only to get back home, but to become the ‘good dinosaur’ that he wants to be for his family.

Cars 2 was clearly aimed at a younger demographic. It had so many elements against it to be a good movie. Unlike The Good Dinosaur, it actually had a coherent plot and the character’s weren’t (ironically) oddly designed. The Good Dinosaur on the other hand had the potential to be great, but unfortunately, provided an under-whelming delivery…

Re-read what I said, “like” The Land Before Time, not, “Be The Land Before Time”.

There’s a difference between being visually inspired by a movie and then re-creating it as a plot device. For instance, in Zootopia, there’s a Godfather reference. Thing is though, there’s no elements from the Godfather series that’s part of the movie. It’s nothing more than aesthetics. The Good Dinosaur on the other hand has Arlo’s father being killed in a Lion King kind of way. They even take establishing shots like The Lion King. I’m sorry, but this is Pixar, their motto is about re-defining storytelling in cinema.

And no, The Good Dinosaur is not simply told. There’s three incoherent plots jumbled to one. Arlo returning home, Arlo working with the T-Rex ranchers and facing against the Pterodactyls. I said earlier about shoehorned characters? What was the point of the red snake, Forest Woodbush and Raptors if they had little screentime?

So, it wasn’t good because it rehashed previous movies, including previous dinosaur movies, but then it could have been better if it rehashed a previous dinosaur movie (Land Before Time)? Sorry, but this makes no sense. This illustrates just one of the the problems with the nonsensical and group-think criticisms of what really is a simply told, but very solid film.