The Gang of Five
The forum will have some maintenance done in the next couple of months. We have also made a decision concerning AI art in the art section.


Please see this post for more details.

What do you DISLIKE the most about TLBT?

jedi472

  • Jedi Knight
  • Member+
  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 1328
    • View Profile
Quote from: Littlefoot1616,Aug 18 2008 on  07:32 PM
Let's face it, LBT's never gonna match up with modern animation hits like Shrek or Toy Story etc. but the least they could have done was not to follow the trend and try and salvage the decreasingly profitability of the sequels by invoking "celebrity talents". Names like Kiefer Sutherland, Kris Kristofferson, Donny Osmond, Olivia Newton-John, Sandra Oh, Cuba Gooding Jr. Is slapping a famous actor's name on the blurb on the back of the DVD case REALLY gonna boost sales that much?!
I agree with you on most of the actorbased nags, but I think it was cool having a well-known and experienced actor play a part in the movie(only liked Kiefer Sutherland, though. Everybody else didn't seem to make much of a mark, but because of him Bron seemed that much better than some of the other one-time characters).


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
I agree on the suspense and the lack of any sense in employing expensive actors for LBT (speaking as one however who knows so little about actors that I might not even notice if I passed an actor on the road whom some people would kill to behold just once in real live).
I don't totally agree on everything that has been said about the songs. True, most of them don't advance the plot and I also agree that the apparent requirement to fulfill a quota of songs rather than using them only where they are necessary is to be held responsible for some of the really silly songs that didn't lead anywhere. However, I would stop short at saying the the songs don't make any sense at all. Very often they are used to bring across emotions which would sound awkward, or corny, or both in prose. Here is the prose alternative for the very first song "Peaceful Valley" (which is not even the best example and not one of my favorite songs either) to show what I mean:

Littlefoot: "The Great Valley is just great!"
Cera: "It certainly is!"
Ducky: "Yep, yep, yep!"
Petrie: "We never be hungry again!"
Spike: "[Insert fitting Spike sound here]"
Littlefoot: "I'm so happy we are here at last!"
Cera: "I am too!"
Ducky: "Yep, yep, yep!"
...

See? Even if more effort was put into it it is likely to sound kind of blah and it would be very difficult to get the intensity of emotion accross which the song provided. Other examples for such emotional songs which are not necessary for the understanding of the story but very helpful to understand the emotions include for example Always There, Family, Chancon de'Ennui and Bestest Friends.
Other songs are used to clarify some of the "morals" of a movie which would likely sound corny in dialogue, examples for this are "Kids like us", "It takes all sorts", and "No one has to be alone".
Some of the songs introduce characters or concepts of thinking which again would require twisted dialogue that would hardly bring the idea across as well as the song. The best examples for that type of song would be the LBT 7 songs Beyond the Mysterious Beyond and Very important creature.
To sum it up, the songs are never indispensable for the telling of the stories and in some cases they are even unnecessary; but in many (I'd go so far as to say most) cases they make it a lot easier to understand some idea or emotion that is to be brought across.



The Friendly Sharptooth

  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 1019
    • View Profile
While there are a few things I would classify as uneccessary or needs improvement, there is one thing I can boldly say that I do not like whatsoever. Littlefoot's build up of trust that grows over ten movies then is completely uprooted in the next movie. From I-X Littlefoot had become known for his pure character. Not saying he was perfect, but you had every reason to believe what he said. Provided he would keep things from the grownups, but he wouldn't say something unless there was truth in it. Now all kids have trouble with relating things exactly and some do lie to others, but Littlefoot never really lied. Things like "I'm okay" when he really wasn't doesn't count; everyone says that sometimes; that kind of statement is irrelavent. So ten movies fly by and Littlefoot's on a role. Then XI came out and the theme was for Littlefoot to lie to the whole valley to get out of trouble to learn a lesson. This's just like Search for the Sky Color Stones! A main character is taken completely out of character to add to the story. Littlefoot can and has learned from his friends mistakes on several occasions. If they wanted a deceiver, pick someone experienced like Petrie (VII) or Cera (a lot). Any huge Ducky fans who watched the episode I mentioned knows how I feel. The creators misused characters to make it easier to write their story. But by changing characters, they really only made the plots more complicated. Stop altering
the gang's mindsets that have already been clearly established and I'll be happy.


Kor

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 30087
    • View Profile
They don't really keep to firm continuity in lbt, look at the addition to Bron and the problems that'll cause, not to mention not keeping to character continuity.  They could have added one of the others as you mentioned, or even a previous movie char like one of the bullies.  But they never think of stuff like that.    Part of why when certain movies or episodes come up I'll have to decide if I want to watch them, or maybe only certain scenes, or do an edit of the movie or episode.


landbeforetimelover

  • Member+
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 8495
  • Littlefoot
    • View Profile
    • http://www.thelandbeforetime.org
Quote
While there are a few things I would classify as uneccessary or needs improvement, there is one thing I can boldly say that I do not like whatsoever. Littlefoot's build up of trust that grows over ten movies then is completely uprooted in the next movie. From I-X Littlefoot had become known for his pure character. Not saying he was perfect, but you had every reason to believe what he said. Provided he would keep things from the grownups, but he wouldn't say something unless there was truth in it. Now all kids have trouble with relating things exactly and some do lie to others, but Littlefoot never really lied. Things like "I'm okay" when he really wasn't doesn't count; everyone says that sometimes; that kind of statement is irrelavent. So ten movies fly by and Littlefoot's on a role. Then XI came out and the theme was for Littlefoot to lie to the whole valley to get out of trouble to learn a lesson. This's just like Search for the Sky Color Stones! A main character is taken completely out of character to add to the story. Littlefoot can and has learned from his friends mistakes on several occasions. If they wanted a deceiver, pick someone experienced like Petrie (VII) or Cera (a lot). Any huge Ducky fans who watched the episode I mentioned knows how I feel. The creators misused characters to make it easier to write their story. But by changing characters, they really only made the plots more complicated. Stop altering
the gang's mindsets that have already been clearly established and I'll be happy

I don't typically quote someone's whole post, but well said.  I agree with everything you mentioned. :yes


Vilstrup

  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fanfiction.net/~vilstrup
I agree on most of the things you guys have to say, though I do like some of the songs written for the movies.
However, what I really dislike through the movies, from the first to the 14th, is the drawing style. They've gone from being a bit more realistic (don't count the actions into this) to being far more childish and sweet.

An example is the sharpteeth. The first movie was great, giving a damn evil sharptooth, and an scary appearance too. The second and third was okay, since the sharpteeths still had a nasty appearance. Take thise examples and compare them with the sharpteeth from the 10th or 11th movie. Thise sharpteeth are just..... nothing really. They don't have the same appearance anymore. And that goes for all the characters.

And putting computer animations into the movies, doesn't make it at all any better.
Wish they would have sticked to the old style, instead of so "bright" as the new ones thise days.


Kor

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 30087
    • View Profile
It looks like when they changed directors to the one who took over for the 5th and up was more of a friendly toon sort of thing rather then animated, with the focus changing over the course of the progression of the movies.


brekclub85

  • Member+
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 13097
    • View Profile
Except for 2 and 5, how the sharpteeth were always portrayed as mindless killers


The Friendly Sharptooth

  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 1019
    • View Profile
Yeah, the "mindless" thing about the sharpteeth other than Chomper's family is getting really old for me too. I mean, Redclaw is suposed to be one of the best sharpteeth right now, right? The next time they get away from him by running between his legs, scare him with an echo, hide from him when they were in his direct sight but then he just walks past their hiding place without noticing, or something of that nature, well, my annoyance meter is going into red. I mean it.

I don't think that this is what the previous post was referring to though; that was just my own random thought I had that I put at the beginning of this post. I believe brekclub85 is referring to how it seems most sharpteeth are portrayed as having no feelings, are highly unintelligent, and go around killing just to kill even when they don't need the food. Of course, I just work here part time as a general aid. Brekclub85 is full time in the sharpteeth department, so any further explanation from me on this subject would be wasted, since he knows the subject fully and can explain it much better than I could. I even doubt I explained my summary explaination on this matter as accurately as possible. Oh well. I tried my best.


brekclub85

  • Member+
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 13097
    • View Profile
The things than annoyed me was that whenever they talk about the "Circle of Life", they never once  mention that meat eaters have an essential part in it.  I mean, I understand that the leafeaters don't want to get killed or anything, but they have to realize is: sharpteeth need to survive too.

One story arc in my Sharptooth Valley fanfic was when the leafeater version of Redclaw (named Redfoot in the story) attempted to kill all the sharpteeth in the Great Valley by poisoning the valley's water supply.  The plan nearly works, except 6 of the main characters managed to avoid ingesting the water and set on a quest to get the antidote from the leaf eater valley.

Eventually, the kid leaf eaters start to realize something: If there was no sharpteeth left in the world, since the flatteeth population would stop decreasing, there would be more dinos but much less food. Eventually, the food supply would run out, and all the leafeaters would die from starvation. (Which is what would happen if something like this would ever happen.)

It seems to me, is that the Circle of Life, as described in the LBT movies, is just used by the characters to justify their own actions and condem the sharpteeth's.  Bron calling sharpteeth "cowards" in X annoyed me.

I mean, if you fed a leafeater meat and a sharpteeth leaves, the reaction would be the same: they would hate it.  Meat eaters have to eat meat and leaf eaters have to eat leaves. You can't change that, you have to accept it.

Besides, the leafeaters commit herbicide on a daily basis. And unlike themselves, plants can't fight, that, to me, would make the flatteeth even more cruel than the sharpteeth!


My understanding of sharpteeth's importance in the LBT/dinosaur world started from my natural distaste towards extreme vegetarians, who annoy the crap out of me.

Eating meat and eating vegetables is the same. Both involve taking life away, there is no difference


The Friendly Sharptooth

  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 1019
    • View Profile
Looks like I was right. There is no way I could've thought of that myself, and no way for me to express it so well if I had. Thank you for explaining your field so well to those who don't specialize in that area (like me). Sharpteeth and flateeth both simply do what they must to survive. Neither is wrong in doing so, even though sharpteeth are considered the bad guys. Now that's annoying. Wanting sharpteeth to stop eating other dinosaurs is just as preposterous as wanting flateeth to stop eating plants! I couldn't possibly agree with that logic more. You really open up a new world (literally) with your ideas. (Sigh) If I had tried a little harder in school I probably would have gotten better than a C+ in Sharpteeth Social Skills and a D in Psychology and Meat Eaters (which I dropped by the way.) Looks like I found a good tutor though. But I wasn't THAT bad. I still got an A in both The World of Dinosaur Grammar and Leaf Eater Singing 101. Easy classes or not, I STILL got A's in them.


Malte279

  • The Circle
  • The Gang of Five
  • *
    • Posts: 15608
    • View Profile
    • http://www.ineinemlandvorunsererzeit.de.vu
Quote
The things than annoyed me was that whenever they talk about the "Circle of Life", they never once mention that meat eaters have an essential part in it. I mean, I understand that the leafeaters don't want to get killed or anything, but they have to realize is: sharpteeth need to survive too.
One might interpret Rooter's Circle of Life speech ("It is nobody's fault") in a way that would include Sharpteeth. The main argument against this would be that when it comes to "fault" Littlefoot did not mention Sharptooth at all, but only his mother and his straying from her and his herd. Sharptooth must be a natural enemy in the original movie but his persistence in pursuing Littlefoot and the others makes less of an impression of a case of hunting and killing for the "fun" of it than is the case with some sequel sharpteeth who will just "shrug and smile" the moment they don't see Littlefoot and the others anymore.
Quote
Besides, the leafeaters commit herbicide on a daily basis. And unlike themselves, plants can't fight, that, to me, would make the flatteeth even more cruel than the sharpteeth!

My understanding of sharpteeth's importance in the LBT/dinosaur world started from my natural distaste towards extreme vegetarians, who annoy the crap out of me.

Eating meat and eating vegetables is the same. Both involve taking life away, there is no difference
I do not agree. I see where you are coming from and I know the kind of vegetarians / vegans you are referring to (everyone else is a murderer! etc.), but you miss that there are also those vegetarians / vegans who will not try to impose their way upon others. I also think that there is a difference between the killing of an animal and the plucking of a flower. In spite of the amazing tricks of some plants, there is no hint of a real consciousness (most animals for example are able to recognize different humans) in them or in nerves etc. which would allow for them to feel pain. I am no vegetarian myself, but in our society (to which I am referring to not because it had any reference to the LBT discussion but because you brought the vegetarians in) it can hardly be denied that the meat production is a rather ugly business, not just because of the act of killing.


The Friendly Sharptooth

  • Ducky
  • *
    • Posts: 1019
    • View Profile
Quote
I also think that there is a difference between the killing of an animal and the plucking of a flower.

That is very true in reality. I have met a lot people who hate animals getting sick, injured, dying, eating meat, etcetera. Yet I haven't met a single person who has ever been bothered in the slightest when I pick a plant up. Like you said, that has to do with the fact that animals suffer, while plants do not. That is quite logical and I feel the exact same way on that matter. However, I still believe that brekclub85's speech would make quite a few flateeth think things a lot differently when they eat or see a sharptooth.


Vilstrup

  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fanfiction.net/~vilstrup
Taking a leaf from a tree is not "hurting", because it'll drop them anyway later. Now, if you take a rope around the trunk of a tree, and don't put something protective between, you'll kill the tree since you'll cut of any flow of minerals, water and sugger between the leafs, and the roots.

A flower is different. Most flowers won't feel much, since they do, as a tree, drop it's stilk (think it's the same as in danish) and the main flower, where as the root is the heart, and as long as you don't do anything to it, a flower can actually live quite a long time, for a plant of cause.

Animals are different from plant in many ways. Where animals can show emotions, mate and be protective, plants can't. They can show illness, and suffering to some degree, but that's it. I think humans don't think so much about plants, because we ofcause see a bigger similarity between ourselfs and other animals.
As with the dinosaurs, they don't see eating plants is wrong, since they can't imagine how it is to be a plant, or a tree.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with eating meat or plants. Either we do it, or the rest of the ecosystem does it.



DarkHououmon

  • Member+
  • Littlefoot
  • *
    • Posts: 7203
    • View Profile
    • http://bluedramon.deviantart.com
Quote
Besides, the leafeaters commit herbicide on a daily basis. And unlike themselves, plants can't fight, that, to me, would make the flatteeth even more cruel than the sharpteeth!
Quote
Eating meat and eating vegetables is the same. Both involve taking life away, there is no difference

I have to disagree with you. Yes, both do involve killing a living organism, but as pointed out already, plants do not feel pain or have a sense of consciousness. Plants do not show feelings. They don't show pain, love, fear, or anything. They don't even have a face. So how can killing a plant be as cruel as killing an animal, something with a face that can show fear and pain, can feel eveything you do to it? I am not a vegetarian/vegan myself, but I cannot agree with your claim that the flatteeth are more cruel than the sharpteeth.


Jasper

  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 681
    • View Profile
    • http://thekingofdistruction.deviantart.com
They have very little information on some characters and the movies do need to be a little longer like some of you guys suggested. Most of the songs I think were okay, but I had doubts on some songs from the sequels and T.V. series.


Vilstrup

  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fanfiction.net/~vilstrup
The songs from the TV serie, is just remakes of the same songs. Horrible I say...


Jasper

  • Petrie
  • *
    • Posts: 681
    • View Profile
    • http://thekingofdistruction.deviantart.com
Quote from: Kor,Aug 17 2008 on  08:45 PM
Some are how the villains are not competent, others are the number of 1 shot characters, many of which live in the Great Valley and should be seen, at least in back ground shots if nothing else. The way it seems the gang are the only kids in the valley. Farwalker herds having at most 1 kid.

I see what you mean. Go to LBT wikia article and browse around and you are going to see other kids.


crazedwriter

  • Chomper
  • *
    • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
    • http://crazedwriter.lbbhost.com/index.html
Quote from: Littlefoot1616,Aug 18 2008 on  07:32 PM
As with all things, there are good sides and bad sides. I dont tend to look at the negative side of something unless that is truly what it is intended to achieve. Still, with LBT there are a few things that do get my goat.

1. Already been said but I'll reiterate. NEEDLESS SING-A-LONGS!!! In all fairness, despite some of them being rather melodious and moving, there's no ultimate reason for them. They don't advance the plot neither are they particularly spectacular to behold. What makes it doubly irritating is that Universal seemed to see a need to invoke a given quote of songs per sequel (i.e. a minimum of 3). Maybe one at the most but three?!

2. Superstar Celebrity Voices. Let's face it, LBT's never gonna match up with modern animation hits like Shrek or Toy Story etc. but the least they could have done was not to follow the trend and try and salvage the decreasingly profitability of the sequels by invoking "celebrity talents". Names like Kiefer Sutherland, Kris Kristofferson, Donny Osmond, Olivia Newton-John, Sandra Oh, Cuba Gooding Jr. Is slapping a famous actor's name on the blurb on the back of the DVD case REALLY gonna boost sales that much?! The kids watching the bloody thing are gonna know the difference!

3. Again, already been mentioned, but the distinct lack of strong villianous roles has always been a pothole for the LBT saga. Even down to the series where they tried to portray a semi "long-term" villian with Red Claw, Screech and Thud. Even with these constant meetings within the series, the gang didn't sought out any means of actually dispatching Red Claw (if he was supposed to be shown as the gang's nemesis and main line antagonist). Or even finding a way to deal with Red Claw (not necessarily kill him. Somehow I don't think that would fly very far given the target audience).

One thing I would've had liked to have seen within the series was possibly a cliffhanger episode over maybe 3 or 4 parts where the gang are left (after the 30min programme slot) facing a dangerous situation. Kind of a "tune in next week to find out what happens" or "to be continued" sorta ploy I reckon could have made the TV series a little more exciting. It's nothing ground-breaking coz most animated shows put this kinda plan into action once their series has run a few episodes. So given that fact, surely an extended episode split over a few parts couldn't have done the series too much harm right?

Gotta stress that despite all these niggling like tid-bits get on my nerves, I tend to be able to supress that nattering little voice that tries to point them out. I'll still sit down and watch the movies and Tv series coz I can see past the down points. I'll never be able to complete disregard my adoration for this animated series, despite what the outsiders say  ;)

I agree on all points but will add one glaring item sorely missing from the LBT franchise: A smart sense of humor. Think about it, the movie and DTV's are aimed at kids, but guess who's watching along with the youngsters. The parents and/or other adult caretakers. It won't be long before I'll introduce my niece to the joys of LBT, and I doubt, despite well developed plots and characters -- and cute songs -- TPTB at Universal will ever take the Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks route and give us adults some smart humor. I mean little in-jokes, pop culture asides, something so out of the LBT ordinary. Not that I want to see total goofiness or an "LBT meets SNL" but some laughs for the grown-ups would be nice.  :)