Would it have been different?

[rosie]

If there was little sharpteeth in the movie or that large sharptooth was father in the movie instead of a lone hunter? Would it have made a difference?

[Malte279]

The presence of a sharptooth kid would in itself have been an important difference and yes, I think that it would have triggered many other differences of the story about which we can only guess and speculate.
However, it is rather certain that this was never considered by the movie makers at that time. Don Bluth (according to what he wrote in his toon talk magazine) had a hard time seeing Sharptooth as a villain (for merely following the call of nature) as it was. There is some reason to suppose that the scene of the wounded eye of the sharptooth was included just in order to give the sharptooth a vicious trait not based on his nature (revengefulness). Including a young sharptooth would have clashed with the efforts to make that Sharptooth a villain. Nobody was at that time thinking of a sequel to be released 5-6 years later or of Chomper.
The introduction of Chomper in LBT 2 meant a significant breaking with the way LBT was presented in the original movie.

[Petrie.]

Giving the sharptooth a child to raise would've changed the complextion of a hungry hunter on the prowl and take away some of the menacing virture the sharptooth has.  If a predator is after prey, and you're the prey, darn right its scary!  Bluth did his job well and made the viewer appear as if they were the prey.

[arrogantrex]

That does bring up an interesting point...possibly another addition to the messages about the difference between species, etc. Though yes, the predatory nature of the sharptooth would have been mostly under-minded by the fact that he/she? would have had a youngling to look after. Depending on how the story went, the children could have maybe even befriended the sharptooth in the end by saving/helping the sharptooth's brood, like in V, hehe.

I think it would have been interesting, and probably less dramatic in the end. Then the whole struggle with the sharptooth would have been more overcoming of differences rather than a blatant fight of survival. But, like I said, it would have all depended on how the whole situation was presented. As interesting as it sounds on paper, I think the actual practice would have made the movie even more moral-intensive and possibly driven even more towards a child audience and most likely would've made the movie less tense and scary- BUT- Don Bluth has tendencies to take his movies in dark directions despite the fact that the whole animation aspect turned them towards children and such. The Secret of NIMH proved that to me, as, when I really think about it after reading the novel and watching the movie, that Bluth can take young-adult themes and make them understandable to those who aren't necessarily young-adults with just the animation and the situations of the animation.

Then again, I'm on pain medication right now so I'm probably just rambling.

Silly wisdom teeth.

[Zenoah]

Ehhh...
I like just the one lone hunter. Thou if the harptooth DID have young, it would have had a stronger reason to hunt.
I just find it funny that a huge T-Rex would want young dinosaurs to eat...they'd just be snacks!

[WeirdRaptor]

Giving the Sharptooth sympathetic motive would have ruined the movie. The film was supposed to be about five VERY different individuals working together as a team to overcome common obstacles to reach their mutual goal. The difference between Little and the others and the Shartooth would not be reconcilable. Under so circumstances could Littlefoot and the others act on any sympathy they had for the Sharptooth's plight, because that would mean turning in their own to be his food. And that's entering Sweeney Todd territory.