Land Before Time Canon and Sequel Haters

ARAJediMaster · **on:** March 24, 2015, 03:18:01 PM

There is a user on DeviantART who is apparently vehement that the sequels should neither exist, nor be considered canon. She is ShinyWhiteWaters. I think that her hatred for Cera is partially understood, but unnecessary. Still, even though I have never seen all of the sequels or remember them clearly: I have seen I, V, VII, VIII, X, and IX, but I remember I, VII, and VIII the best. What you think if the songs were absent from the sequels, or replaced with something relevant and meaningful to the plot, like “Strange Things” and “I Will Go Sailing No More” from “Toy Story.” The characters don’t break into song, but the songs convey their emotions and the emotions of the movie. What if the sequels were more in line with the first film? What about that?

Before Disney’s buyout of Lucasfilm and “Star Wars,” Star Wars had a canon tier:
G-canon were the first six films, T-canon were television shows released, C-canon was “continuity canon” consisting of the novels, comic books, and video games, S-canon was “semi-canon” were older stories or stories that had inconsistencies with G or C canon, and N-canon was non-canon, meaning that they had no impact on the overall story.

Overall, what do you think of this user’s rants? Should there be a canon system? If so, what and how should that system be arranged as?

DarkHououmon · **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2015, 03:24:20 PM

I don't think it was necessary to link to her DA account or mention her name. To me, it feels a bit like pointing fingers. This topic could have been created without singling out anyone, since hatred of the sequels isn't just a trait of one person. A large number of people feel this way, based on what I recall.

As for the sequels themselves, yeah they might have been better if there were no singing points in them, and instead those moments used to establish more character and emotion. But then, the movies are geared towards young children, and the directors might have thought that kids wouldn't watch a movie unless there was singing in it. That's my guess.

Malte279 · **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2015, 03:31:00 PM

I agree that naming people for expressing their opinions in such a context is not really called for. Everybody is entitled to their opinions and other people have as much right to despise the land before time as we have to love the land before time. Live and let live.
I have watched very negative reviews of land before time movies and while I disagree with the frequent "it is all rubbish" kind of sentiment expressed in them there are some valid points against some movies or parts of their plots which doesn't have to lead to the conclusion that they were all bad.
Admittedly, I would be ready to sign a declaration stating that there are sequels in strong conflict with the original. Continuity between the sequels is also often neglected. There are many cases where I don't really mind and some where it really annoyed me too, while I know others are very fond of the very LBT sequel which I am thinking very negative about (hint, I am talking about LBT 10)

We are all entitled to our opinions and so long nobody feels the need to ram them down the throat of others beyond reason there is no need to get worked up about it.

ARAJediMaster · **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2015, 03:34:42 PM

Eh, yeah, sorry about that link. I just wanted to show people where she is and all. Personally, I think ten would have been the best place to stop.

If it isn’t too much to ask, what continuity issues with the first film and the sequels themselves would you wish to have corrected or explained properly?

ARAJediMaster · **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2015, 04:18:36 PM

Excuse me, Malte, but what do you think should be explained more clearly in the sequels, or removed from them?

Ludichris1 · **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:18:50 PM

If the LBT sequels had traditionally-made songs sung by people that weren't even characters in the respective movies, I'd be in disbelief of credibility

I think anyone that hates the sequels is looking for something that is not there.

As for things like disliking plot(s) of the sequels, I can understand because they usually can be simplistic. Although, there is more to a movie than simply story-progression... or feeling entitled to be moved or give a care for the characters lol

Ducky123 · **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2015, 09:43:02 AM

That user tends to rant a lot so what do you expect? I know her on DA too and sometimes she really overdoes it

Anyway, I, too, think everybody may like or dislike the sequels. It's up to them and as long as they don't shove it into your face just let them... I personally like all movies and a good amount of the tv-episodes. I don't know how you somebody can consider oneself a fan if they hate most of the franchise... There are very valid reasons to criticise the sequels, I won't deny that. But I won't let that spoil the fun of watching these movies and episodes. The more LBT the better (though I'd like to see good quality sequels and tv-episodes rather than something like LBT 13

)

Dashaque · **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2015, 04:48:25 AM

tbh I didn't really like a lot of the sequels.. .I didn't like two and three but thought four was good. I've also seen 8 and 10 and both were better than what I expected. I mean 10 has like the most epic eclipse in cinema history.

One of the things that bothered me in the sequels was lack of continuity. Cera's sisters and the other's siblings for that matter seemed to have disappeared. (though they reappeared later on) And what happened to the racism? Were Littlefoot's mom and Cera's dad the only racist ones? I felt like the second movie would have been better if they had kind of addressed this but later movies also imply that there is like... no racism anywhere.

It just would have been nice if these things had been talked about at least...

but yeah it's not like the movies are HORRIBLE or anything and they do have their moments. I'll always love the original the best but if people get enjoyment out of the sequels and we all love the same characters, I don't really see why people need to hate like that.

pokeplayer984 · **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2015, 08:14:21 AM

When it comes to what is cannon of a series and what isn't, I feel there should be logical reasoning within the given universe for it. Is there a logical reason of said universe why it shouldn't be cannon, or is your claim of something not being cannon out of pure hatred and I should just move on?

With The Land Before Time Sequels, it is extremely difficult to prove that they aren't cannon based on the logic of the world created. However, I feel there is one that is up for debate, but I don't want to go into it right now because I've got work in a little bit.

I'll give you all my thoughts after I'm back.

See ya later!

pokeplayer984 · **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2015, 10:12:02 PM

I checked out the person the topic creator mentioned and she's not the worst LBT Sequel hater I've run into. (I consider the one who made a certain hate fiction to be worse.) There are plenty of things I disagree with her on, but the bottom line is, she's not the worst of the Sequel haters I've run into.

Now, let's get to the discussion of what I wanted to say. Yes, there is one movie I feel is not cannon within The Land Before Time universe. I'll give you guys a hint. It's the sequel that even the fans hate. Also no, my reason for saying it's not cannon does not come from hatred of it. There is actually a logical reason as to why I say it's not cannon.

Can you guess what movie it is and why I feel it's not cannon?

LittlefootAndAliTogether · **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2015, 10:38:03 PM

7, 10, or 13.

13 seems to be just on hate. There actually is practically no-canon contradiction in that one. The only issue I see with that one is, at least in the movie version I saw, it, unlike all the previous ones (save the original), had no roman numerals but just "The Land Before Time: The Wisdom of Friends".

10, because film 1 actually said that Littlefoot, his mother, and his grandparents were the last of his herd, yet Bron is shown to be alive in film 10. Also, the reason for his disappearance is pretty poor (why be gone for five years????) as is the lack of emotional response from Bron and his in-laws when they meet at the crater (I could see Littlefoot not recognizing Bron, as he never met him, but no "Oh, you're alive!" or "Where have you been? Did you know our daughter got killed by a Sharptooth?" or anything like that.

Also, might be film 7, which is awesome, but has aliens in it, and Petrie mysteriously gets an uncle whom, despite appearing to hero worship him, he's never brought up before in any of the previous films and is never mentioned since, save the TV Series.

Ducky123 · **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2015, 09:43:45 AM

Malte would say 10 I think

I wouldn't say I hate LBT 13 but it's the one I enjoy least.

SpikeTheStegosaur · **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2015, 10:11:00 PM

I'm not a huge fan of the sequels and definitely don't see them as canon. A friendly, talking sharptooth? Please! They're bloodthirsty killers and that's how they should stay. Also, the first movie explicitly said that the only remaining members of Littlefoot's herd were his mother and grandparents. The sequels retcon a father into the story. If Littlefoot had had a living father, I'm sure the original movie would have mentioned that. It was meant to convey that all the other members of his herd had died.

The other thing I dislike is how the dinosaurs in the sequels no longer act like dinosaurs, but instead like humans in dinosaur bodies.

In the first movie, the dinosaurs were just that: dinosaurs. They were wild animals trying their best to survive in an unforgiving world. In the sequels, it's as though now that they're in the Great Valley, they've formed some kind of saurian utopia and become civilized. Mates are referred to as "husband" and "wife" and the young dinosaurs as "children." What's going to be next, Littlefoot and the gang attending school under "Mister Clubtail?" Are mating dinosaurs going to have weddings? Will there be funerals for the dead?

Pinky997 · **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2015, 02:40:18 AM

The sequels cause many people love The Land Before Time, I think. Sure, you can love a movie, but you don't get as attached to the characters in just one film. The sequels made LBT more of a franchise than just one movie. I love the sequels. Most of the sequels I actually enjoy more than the original. I definitely think they should be considered canon. They were made by universal, after all.

Ducky123 · **Reply #14 on:** May 17, 2015, 08:02:17 AM

Good point. I also think that, while I won't and can't deny that the first will always be the best, the franchise wouldn't be the same without the sequels and probably LBT wouldn't attract my attention as much. The more LBT we get the better

As long as the quality of the sequels is alright of course

Akiko · **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2015, 09:23:14 PM

As others have said everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you can love the sequels or hate them but I don't think we should bash anyone for their opinions.

Personally I will always love the original the best, it's a classic in my eyes and nothing can even come close to comparison. Had the sequels followed in the style of the first movie I would be a very happy camper! While the original movie felt like something the entire family could enjoy the sequels were obviously targeting a much younger audience and I doubt that audience was too concerned with continuity. That being said I don't hate the sequels, in fact some of them I quite enjoy. Same goes with the TV series, it is what it is and you can like it or not. I choose to be open-minded and give everything a chance. If I don't like I just won't watch it again and probably won't count it as canon in my head.

Now just for the sake of rambling I would personally love to see just one sequel that overlooks all the other sequels and simply continues the story where the first movie left off. A sequel with the style, quality and feel of the original. Hey I can dream, right?

DarkHououmon · **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2015, 09:58:37 PM

Quote from: SpikeTheStegosaur,May 13 2015 on 10:11 PM

I'm not a huge fan of the sequels and definitely don't see them as canon. A friendly, talking sharptooth? Please! They're bloodthirsty killers and that's how they should stay. Also, the first movie explicitly said that the only remaining members of Littlefoot's herd were his mother and grandparents. The sequels retcon a father into the story. If Littlefoot had had a living father, I'm sure the original movie would have mentioned that. It was meant to convey that all the other members of his herd had died.

The other thing I dislike is how the dinosaurs in the sequels no longer act like dinosaurs, but instead like humans in dinosaur bodies.

In the first movie, the dinosaurs were just that: dinosaurs. They were wild animals trying their best to survive in an unforgiving world. In the sequels, it's as though now that they're in the Great Valley, they've formed some kind of saurian utopia and become civilized. Mates are referred to as "husband" and "wife" and the young dinosaurs as "children." What's going to be next, Littlefoot and the gang attending school under "Mister Clubtail?" Are mating dinosaurs going to have weddings? Will there be funerals for the dead?

I'm not sure I can fully agree with you on this.

The addition of Chomper added in an interesting storytelling dynamic. The relationship between Chomper and the others leads to many possibilities, especially when he gets older. How are they going to handle it? What will become of him?

Also, his addition adds in a new dimension to sharpteeth. It would be boring if they were all just "bloodthirsty killers". Having Chomper come in, as well as the interactions of his parents, helps show the kinder, softer side to sharpteeth that makes them much more well rounded and believable.

The narrator never said that the other missing members of Littlefoot's herd had died; just that his mom and grandparents were the only ones still there. This does not mean that everyone else in Littlefoot's original herd was dead. They could have been separated or left behind. And no, the movie may not have detailed this, as it wasn't really important in the storytelling to be specific on which members were alive and which weren't.

And is it really so bad that the youngsters are called 'children'? I don't really see how that breaks the believability of them being dinosaurs.