ITT: Wasted potential

ITT: Wasted potential

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VS5W4RxGv4s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>We're Back
>potential
Oh honey, no. Just no.

I've heard about this movie for years but never heard of it and always just assumed it was something to do with land before time

The villains death scene is fucked up.

How does it not have potential? Go back to Cred Forums.

You.

Me.

All of us.

I watched the review Nostalgia Critic did about it a long time ago and honestly I hadn't noticed how many close-ups of the eyes this damn movie has until he pointed that out.

What's up with that?

shut the fuck up.

How does it have any potential at all?

You made the claim first. Burden of proof falls on you.

The eyes were important to show to make it clear villain had a weird eye.

>What's up with that?
youtube.com/watch?v=VS5W4RxGv4s

The directors of Aladdin and Hercules wanted to make a movie based off of it before the rights were lost.

Imagine an extended universe where Neweyes and Screweyes are playing a cosmic game of chess against each other, each empowering or enslaving different kinds of time-displaced monsters and aliens to get at each other. Now imagine it through the perspective of Dr. Bleeb, a normal person from the present day (the early 90s I guess) who runs damage control and tries to rehome the innocent creatures they've cast aside.

I remember loving the shit out of this movie if only because dinosaurs were in it. But I can barely remember anything other than the T-rex telling the baby bird the whole story, them jumping into the parade, and the crazy screw eye guy and his circus. Also the kissing scene with the two kids.

Throughout ALL OF HISTORY there was no greater concentration of a single wish than kids in the 90's wanting to see dinosaurs.

Potential? unless you are talking about Cecilia you're wrong...

Any more information about that?

It's believable.

It had a cool villain, a cute girl and dinosaurs. What's so wrong about it that can make it bad in spite of these?

God, I fucking hate this board. You pedophile fucking shits can't evaluate anything.

I haven't seen the movie or thought about it since I was a kid, just curious what's so horrible about it that Cred Forums of all places can't overlook it for the aforementioned traits.

Not really, just an old interview. They read the book, thought itd be a good movie, pitched Disney on it, Disney found out the rights had already been bought, they were bummed because they thought they could've done a better job.

They didn't like the final movie.

They also find the Disney Princess franchise hilarious. Like making a JLA of cartoon characters.

The story is a mess for the first two arcs, the characters are barely developed, and the movie is too short for anything to actually happen.

>They didn't like the final movie.
Neither did John Malkovich, he was approached to be in it, but didn't agree with the execution and has talked about it a few times over the years.
>They also find the Disney Princess franchise hilarious.
They who?

Ron Clements and Jon Musker, directors of Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Treasure Planet, Hercules, Princess and the Frog, and Moana.

>find Disney Princess franchise hilarious
>make 3 Disney Princess movies

Its just a gig to them. They know Princesses are part of the game. There's no malice to it, they just find it kinda silly.

Holy shit is this the movie where the dinosaur forgot what cereal was?

No, but this is the movie you're talking about.

The animation and art style is absolutely beautiful but the writing and plot was just extremely mediocre and all the characters felt flat except for Mexican Gaston.

God damn I saw this once when I was like 3 or 4 and I remember an alien that was selling cereal to a t-rex and the dinosaur out of nowhere was like "cereal? What's cereal? Ohh cereal!"

No.

Yup.

I liked the creep cover