In movie number three, there was a problem in the Great Valley- a lack of water. The adults handled this by arguing for an extended period of time, which accomplished nothing. The kids also had a problem- their peers, or, the bullies, were heading into danger. Littlefoot did not hesitate, left the valley, then saved the mean teenagers. So, in retrospection, the adults couldn’t handle their problem while the kids jumped right into theirs and solved it. Isn’t that teaching kids that careful planning is a waste of time and rushing into danger is the solution? Furthermore, it might make kids not worry about being reckless, as their parents will just fix everything. I mean, I once made a thread in this section comparing The Lion King to The Land Before Time. Well, here’s a difference, making The Lion King’s example of this more appropriate for developing minds.
In The Lion King, Simba recklessly charges into the unknown, and because of that, he was nearly killed. The gang of five was also nearly killed for wandering off. So what was the difference, you ask? Simba got a royal scolding from his father. Mufasa gave a huge lecture that taught kids what can happen if you head into danger. The adults in The Land Before Time? Hm. “This is no time to go exploring.” Really? Is that all? Just like the adults failed to respond to a problem, they failed to chide their children and reveal just how wrong it was for them to leave like that. Hyp got reprimanded the worst, but the only complaint his father made about him leaving was that his departure was a distraction to solving the water problem. “Duh, dad?” “Yeah?” “I’m going to enter a near death situation.” “Nah, don’t do that! It might distract me!” The full concept of the danger was never passed down from parent to child. The parents simply took care of the sharpteeth, and all was fine. So, kids were glorified as being the ideal characters and the authority and wisdom of adults was thrashed in this film by making it seem like not planning is the way to get things done, and doing dangerous things will simply cause your parents to bail you out. Did the head writer have parent issues…?
Okay. What the heck is your problem with LBT 3? You go and talk about something completely unrelated just to bash it. Just, what the heck???
Hm, not much to really say about this one. The kids accepted the tinysauruses while the adults feared them and wanted to drive them away. The kids were like John Smith from Disney’s Pocahontas, the tinysauruses were the Indians, and the adults were the other white men. Both groups could not accept the other on equal terms and wanted to be as far away from each other as possible. The white men (the LBT grownups) wanted to drive away the Indians (the tinysauruses) while John Smith (the kids) found peace with both sides at once. Whoa, hold the phone. This isn’t LIKE the Pocahontas movie. It IS the Pocahontas movie. The savages song from Pocahontas is just like the creepy crawlies song from the LBT movie. I can just see the director, trying to think of a plot for movie eleven, then his little daughter tugs on his pants and asks him to watch a movie with her. He refuses for days, then finally accepts, having found no ideas. As he watches Pocahontas, his eyes lights up, and he calls the writer team up. Sadly, the father never finishes the movie with his daughter. I mean, seriously, the plot theme was just like that Disney movie,
What the…??? Okay, where the heck did this idea even come from?
In movie number twelve, there is a system erected to be followed by young flyers. When they start acting out of line, Petrie’s mother says that the day of the flyers will never be the same. How awful!
Was that…sarcasm? Usually when people go “how awful!” they don’t actually mean it.
