Just had a thought about Land Before Time 3

[WeirdRaptor]

On whim, I've been marathoning the series as background noise while I work on balancing the budget for the bistro (News Years, upcoming tax season, and all that), and I had a sudden realization about "Land Before Time 3". Now, the film has always been one of the weaker entries in my opinion, but I never really thought about why much. Well, I have always found the Guest Characters of Week (Hyp, Mutt, and Nod) neither memorable or interesting. They're pretty typical bully characters, the kind you see in EVERYTHING (especially if you read a lot of Stephen King like I do). Sure, they graft on a "kids emulate their parents, and if you're a big meany-pants, your kid probably will be, too" at the last minute, but...
Don't Daddy Tops and Cera already have that covered? Yet it rarely ever gets the attention I think it warrants (outside of the original 1988 film, anyway). LBT3 could actually have been an opportunity to explore in-depth the many underlying issues of Cera's father being the resident backwards thinking racist and the effect that has on her.

Ultimately, I feel that Hyp and his posse are redundant and only serve to eat up running time. Between the crisis of the Great Valley drying up and everything with Cera and her father essentially mirroring what we learn about Hyp, anyway... yeah. I always, always thought the bits concerning the Triceratops family were by the most interesting part of the film, and on this recent rewatch, I think the series should have foregone on its quest character gimmick and just focused on the reoccurring crowd this time.

Any thoughts?

[Coyote_A]

I agree with you 100%. LBT3 has always been one of my least favourite entries in the series mostly because of two reasons: firstly I find it kinda lacking on any real adventures. Could be just my memory failing on me, but doesn't the gang stay inside the Valley the whole time? And secondly I didn't like the trio of bullies invented for this sequel at all. If one of the main characters and their family issues were the center of attention I think the film would've benefitted greatly from it.

[ADFan185]

Yeah I also agree the third movie was horrible and not enjoyable at all. The bullies where the worst part of the movie. They added no point to the story. And the plot was boring and very slow paced. And yes they only stayed in the great valley mostly. The only cool thing in the movie where those raptors at the end where they where in the Mysterious Beyond. Other than that there was nothing salvageable about the movie.

[Sovereign]

Agreed. I just hate Hyp. He his gang were one of the main reason the third film is one of my least favorites. Aside from being annoying, the lesson his character was trying to bring forth was, as you said, addressed in the first film. The film's plot was quite underwhelming throughout but the bullies ruined it. It's probably my least favorite film after 11 and 13.

[Dalekdino]

Yeah, I do think now I'm older that LBT 3 is the weakest out of the Roy Alan Smith era sequel's.. In my old age I have grown to dislike the songs when your big and standing tough, . Not to mention the fact this is the film that started by hate for Topsy...  For any new members reading this , while I am one of those who actually likes Cera and thinks she misunderstood and not all that bad.......  I hate her dad with a passion....

[ADFan185]

Cera comes off as a bully as well one reason she's my least favorite characters in the series. She acts all though but in the end she just comes off sounding like a bully most of the time. The songs in movie three where mediocre at best. When your big is the worst and Standing Tough was actually not that bad of a song In my opinion. The plot was awful it was finding away to move a rock so water can come back to the valley that's it.

[Coyote_A]

I think that since the original Land Before Time movie Cera was supposed to be the hot-headed girl locked in constant battle against her own pride and prejudice, but as the new titles were made, the writers for the most part gave up on developing the main characters. Which is understandable, given the target audience, I guess, but it's also one of the main reasons why the series grew stale and became more and more childish with each new film. If they went a different route Universal probably wouldn't be able to spawn so many sequels, but the more serious tone might've also resulted in a whole other kind of experience for the viewers.

[WeirdRaptor]

I don't think they would have had to forgo on making so many sequels if the filmmakers were more serious about developing the main characters and taking it new places. Each entry in the series is the length of three animated tv show episodes done with roughly the same quality of animation. They could probably have punched out a sequel a year with more intelligent writing. After all, having a weekly schedule to keep up with never stopped Greg Weisman and company while they were making Gargoyles.

[Ducky123]

LBT 3 is one of the stronger sequels in my book, actually.

I found the lesson of the movie to be very well executed and Hyp's gang were funny. Not a real threat for the Gang but scary and threatening enough to count as villains of sorts. There is nothing oh so godawful about the movie if you ask me (though I would be more than surprised to read something positive about any sequel from ADFan... oh well     )

Well, I have always found the Guest Characters of Week (Hyp, Mutt, and Nod) neither memorable or interesting. They're pretty typical bully characters, the kind you see in EVERYTHING (especially if you read a lot of Stephen King like I do). Sure, they graft on a "kids emulate their parents, and if you're a big meany-pants, your kid probably will be, too" at the last minute, but...Don't Daddy Tops and Cera already have that covered? Yet it rarely ever gets the attention I think it warrants (outside of the original 1988 film, anyway). LBT3 could actually have been an opportunity to explore in-depth the many underlying issues of Cera's father being the resident backwards thinking racist and the effect that has on her.

I believe Cera's father learned how not to act in front of his daughter through the negative example of Hyp and his father. Yes, they are pretty generic bully characters but why are they so bad in your opinion? Or, how should they have been like to be "interesting" in your book?

but doesn't the gang stay inside the Valley the whole time?

Don't want to spoil you there, but they "only" go into the Mysterious Beyond to fight some Fastbiters with rocks and break a hole into the dam holding back the water supply of the Valley and therefore save the Valley from the fire

Agreed. I just hate Hyp. He his gang were one of the main reason the third film is one of my least favorites. Aside from being annoying, the lesson his character was trying to bring forth was, as you said, addressed in the first film. The film's plot was quite underwhelming throughout but the bullies ruined it. It's probably my least favorite film after 11 and 13.

Wait, LBT 3 is about "sharing" as far as I'm concerned, with the sub-lessons of working together (well, that one was part of the original's lesson) and not yelling at your children (shoutout to all parents watching the show, maybe?   ). The only real part in the original about sharing was removed  

[ADFan185]

Still to me the third may have problems but I did like the fact it's about sharing at the end. It wasn't always about that in the beginning at all. It was a forced in lesson at the end of the movie. So it doesn't really count in my opinion to be honest.

[Coyote_A]

Don't want to spoil you there, but they "only" go into the Mysterious Beyond to fight some Fastbiters with rocks and break a hole into the dam holding back the water supply of the Valley and therefore save the Valley from the fire

Right. Well, like I said, I barely ever rewatch LBT3, so... Still. I remember it being kind of a snoozefest.

[ADFan185]

True I remember always remember turning it off if I saw it on tv. So I'm with you there coyote

[WeirdRaptor]

LBT 3 is one of the stronger sequels in my book, actually.

I found the lesson of the movie to be very well executed and Hyp's gang were funny. Not a real threat for the Gang but scary and threatening enough to count as villains of sorts. There is nothing oh so godawful about the movie if you ask me (though I would be more than surprised to read something positive about any sequel from ADFan... oh well    )

Can't agree with you here.

I agree that the lesson was well executed... through Cera and her father. I disagree that it was well executed from Hyp and his pals. I didn't say the film is godawful. I just said that I feel it's one of the weaker ones. The godawful sequels don't start rolling in until ol' Charlie took over for Roy Allen Smith.

I believe Cera's father learned how not to act in front of his daughter through the negative example of Hyp and his father. Yes, they are pretty generic bully characters but why are they so bad in your opinion? Or, how should they have been like to be "interesting" in your book?

I think Cera's father already got his slice of humble pie when he nearly got himself and her killed. And he's the one to actually deliver the lesson to Hyp's dad, showing that he already learned it shortly prior to that point.
I didn't say Hyp and his pals were absolutely terrible characters, but you see so many of this type of character and they fail to stand out among other fictional bullies. At least Cera and her father are established characters we know and the movie could... should have spent more time with.

Wait, LBT 3 is about "sharing" as far as I'm concerned, with the sub-lessons of working together (well, that one was part of the original's lesson) and not yelling at your children (shoutout to all parents watching the show, maybe?  ). The only real part in the original about sharing was removed 

Good lessons, but I still feel the execution and delivery were flawed.

[Littlefoot fan 1990]

I've re-watched this movie more times than Land Before Time II: The Great Valley Adventure. The songs in this movie were quite enjoyable for me; particularly Standing Tough.

[ADFan185]

Not me between two and three two I've seen more since I enjoyed it more. It was more entertaining than the third movie by a long shot. The characters where way better and to me the songs where better also.

[WeirdRaptor]

Question to anyone who wants to answer?

Does anyone agree with Daddy Tops being so hard-lined in regulating the remaining, but dwindling water supply? To me, I always found it odd that the film painted him as the bad guy in this regard, because he is ultimately right. Until the river begins flowing again, the remaining water needs to be carefully and tightly regulated. He may have been rough about it, but everything he did in this regard was for the survival of his community.

[rhombus]

Question to anyone who wants to answer?

Does anyone agree with Daddy Tops being so hard-lined in regulating the remaining, but dwindling water supply? To me, I always found it odd that the film painted him as the bad guy in this regard, because he is ultimately right. Until the river begins flowing again, the remaining water needs to be carefully and tightly regulated. He may have been rough about it, but everything he did in this regard was for the survival of his community.

I generally agree with his reasoning on water rationing in this film.  As I generally use the prism of utilitarianism to judge the morality of an act, the strict rationing of water until the crisis is resolved was a more reasonable stance than a more lax policy.  Though, of course, the film puts him in the least flattering light possible.

Though this does bring up something that I see quite often in American films and television series (especially from the 1980s and 1990s): the idea that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" reasoning is inherently wrong or that characters who use this reasoning are in some way evil or have ulterior motives.  It is indeed possible that such reasoning can be used to justify questionable acts if the "needs of the many" is used as a thought-stopping cliche and that the greatest number is not empirically confirmed to actually be at stake.  However, such utilitarian reasoning is absolutely necessary in times of crisis to prevent a situation where short-sided altruism for a few can lead to mass suffering for the many - such as in epidemics, resource shortages, and war. - where rationing, quarantines, and other emergency actions may be required.  I wonder how much of this revulsion to utilitarian reasoning is due to the somewhat utopian thinking by the writers in Hollywood. In this context, though I find it unfortunate that it did so, I do not see the film painting him as the bad guy as being all that unexpected.

[Coyote_A]

Does anyone agree with Daddy Tops being so hard-lined in regulating the remaining, but dwindling water supply?

For me it seems like the classic case of just instantly seizing an opportunity to seize power and boss people... Well, dinos around. Following alongside the river bank and figuring out where'd the water go was the right solution and it took someone unbiased - i.e. in the kids - to do that. All Tops did was create another conflict that kept everyone busy and prevented them from thinking clearly about their situation. His short temper and near-sightedness were a hindrance and nothing more. "No water? Well, too bad - this is how we live now! BTW, I'm in charge cause I say so!" And then if someone would try bringing up a different way of going about the whole thing he'd probably take it as a challenge to his authority. <_<

[DarkHououmon]

Does anyone agree with Daddy Tops being so hard-lined in regulating the remaining, but dwindling water supply?

For me it seems like the classic case of just instantly seizing an opportunity to seize power and boss people... Well, dinos around. Following alongside the river bank and figuring out where'd the water go was the right solution and it took someone unbiased - i.e. in the kids - to do that. All Tops did was create another conflict that kept everyone busy and prevented them from thinking clearly about their situation. His short temper and near-sightedness were a hindrance and nothing more. "No water? Well, too bad - this is how we live now! BTW, I'm in charge cause I say so!" And then if someone would try bringing up a different way of going about the whole thing he'd probably take it as a challenge to his authority. <_<

I think Topsy was in the right. Regulating the water was the best solution at the time. And yes, sometimes you do need to be tough and rough if it means the survival of everyone. Topsy was probably the most reasonable adult during this crisis, as he was the one taking action to ensure that everyone got something to drink. Yes he was a bit aggressive about it, but considering none of them knew when the water got back, it was a necessary trait.

Sure they could have gone to where the water's origin is and see what was wrong. But that doesn't devalue Topsy's solution. None of the adults even thought about going into the Mysterious Beyond. IT is possible that absolutely none of them thought that the river was plugged up, and their fear of the Mysterious Beyond likely kept them from even trying. I doubt Topsy kept them from trying. It's not like he could stop everyone.

So in the end, I feel Topsy was absolutely right in his way of doing things. It might seem unfair, but when you have a dwindling supply and not knowing when more would come, Topsy's way (tight regulation) is the most logical route to take.

[Coyote_A]

Again, I can't agree with that. There are two kinds of leaders: those who actually care for what's best for everyone and try to find real solution to every problem and those who instinctively step in to satisfy their own egos without giving it a second thought and Mr. Threehorn is definitely in the latter category. What the inhabitants of the Valley had to do was gather round, think about their situation, realise they didn't have enough information to solve this puzzle and then send one of the mature flyers to find out the reason of the shortage. None of this could happen though because Topsy's erratic behavior actively discouraged such a course of events from taking place. And this is what the LBT series was always ultimately about: thinking outside the box, seeing the big picture and stepping over one's prejudice and wild nature. So yeah, I'm pretty sure Cera's dad can and should be viewed as a "bad guy" in this situation.