was Bluth right?

rosie · **on:** August 07, 2008, 12:27:16 AM

He thought the characters were sterotypes and cliches not real feeling beings. Do you agree with him?

Ptyra · **Reply #1 on:** August 07, 2008, 12:48:00 AM

Well, if you gave us deeper detail about your question, I'd understand better.

(You remind me of myself a little bit; You're obsessed with Chomper, and I'm obsessed with AdderXSinuous in The Animals of Farthing Wood)

Petrie. · **Reply #2 on:** August 07, 2008, 06:07:14 AM

I don't understand the question. Where did Bluth ever point out that he felt the characters were flat? I know he wasn't happy with Speilberg's decisons regarding some things in the original, but that doesn't have anything to do with pure character development.

kjeldo · **Reply #3 on:** August 07, 2008, 08:42:58 AM

owkay... this is comfusing

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2008, 08:00:50 PM

No, I do not agree. When did he say this, by the way?

Cancerian Tiger · **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2008, 11:48:19 PM

If I'm on the same page as Rosie, I believe Bluth to be wrong in his statement. To me, it seems he is taking his feelings out on the characters based on the fact that he did not get the LBT reviews he was expecting <_<. Face it, Bluth. There will always be a critic or two, and nothing makes this case any different -_-. As far as the statement is concerned, how could the Gang be simply emotionless stereotypes? I do not see any stereotypes in the film. As for the behavior of the dinos, such as eating habits and means of defense, such ideas could only be conjoured up by evidence and anatomy that supports such behavior. On another note, the film is VERY emotional and heartbreaking

. For him to even think of the Gang as emotionless is unreal to me :huh:. So...no, I do not agree with him whatsoever -_-.

Drake · **Reply #6 on:** August 12, 2008, 12:34:11 AM

I'm with Cancerian Tiger. The characters certainly seem real and feeling to me.

Kor · **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2008, 01:26:24 AM

The characters seem to have their own personalities and feelings in the first movie, not cardboard characters at all.

Chiletrek · **Reply #8 on:** August 13, 2008, 12:06:05 AM

Hello:
And not to forget how their personalities and way they think change as the movie make it's progress, specially Cera. Maybe Don Bluth may have think of some kinds of people to make his characters, but that's what we all do, because it is what we can find out there, and even on ourselves.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2008, 01:18:36 AM

Well most of the characters are what could be considered as "static characters" but that doesn't mean that they have no personalities. Give it a rest. It's a child's film so they can't have anything too complicated.

:

Serris · **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2008, 12:06:51 PM

And there is no shame in using static characters. Even Shakespeare did it.

Kor · **Reply #11 on:** August 14, 2008, 12:13:46 AM

If you write a story well, even static characters can be interesting. Most characters in most fiction are likely static if one looks at them, though not all.

Malte279 · **Reply #12 on:** August 14, 2008, 04:34:14 PM

What are your sources on such a statement of Bluth? From what he wrote in his Toon Talk magazine he did think that he gave every character an own personality. I'm quoting from the respective article:

Quote

Although the five little dinosaurs would each have his/her own look, the more daunting challenge was finding an identity for each. Cera, with her irascible personality and vitriolic tongue, was an easy character to profile. Every family has one of these, the brat that against all reason and wise advice, tosses her curls and walks directly into harms way. Littlefoot, on the other hand, is the voice of reason, the pragmatist that tries to find all the answers to problems in his head. Since emotion plays such a big part in coming to terms with life, Littlefoot is bound for frustration. Although he is easy to like, he is not the best leader. Then there is Petrie. He can’t fly, he’s out of step with his own kind, a self-proclaimed weirdo, and he bellyaches his way through the movie. Next, there’s Ducky, the small voice of hope. With her, anything is possible. “Yep. Yep. Yep.” She chirps as she tags along, always the follower. At the end of the day, my favorite dinosaur is Spike. A pure soul, simple, accommodating, and eager to please: He is a character who never utters a single word, yet for me, speaks louder than all of the others. He is a standout like Dopey, who just wants to be loved.

This excerpt does not explicitly say that Bluth did not think of the characters as stereotypes, but it may weaken any such claim.
Where did you read about him thinking that way?

Vaan360 · **Reply #13 on:** September 04, 2008, 11:49:15 AM

I don¥t agree to,well, I think if it had static characters, it would be a little boring,rather than have caracthers with emotions, and personality.

Quote

Serris Posted on Aug 13 2008, 11:06 AM
And there is no shame in using static characters. Even Shakespeare did it.

I know there¥s no shame on it, but I think the caracthers are ok just the way they are -_- [/color][/b]