CharlieBarkin said:
Lets be honest, only Pixar and maybe Sony have produced CG films that are original and stunning, with Dreamworks having long ago fallen into the quick buck barrel.
Sorry, I don't really agree with that.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_new_wink.png)
And just to be honest I don't find all of Pixar's movies to be dazzlingly entertaining either....or even as "aesthetically appealing" as everyone says they are. Not that I
don't like their movies, but they don't all strike a chord with me the way they seem to do with many other fans.
BTW, while neither were "perfect" films,
Meet the Robinsons and
Happy Feet were both unique and interesting too. (I prefer
MTR but
Happy Feet did have some cool stuff too.)
It's also not as nice to look at compared to 2D animation, though Pixar are an exception to this rule. Compare the visually stunning Beauty and the Beast to Shrek, and you tell me which is the more visually appealing.
CGI and traditional animation are both their own art form. While I do have a soft spot for traditional, I like CGI as well: Pixar, DW, Sony, Disney, etc.....everyone has there own style. Shrek was made in a certain style which fitted the story--I don't think it would have had the same impact if Shrek and Donkey had been all cute, squishy 'n googly eyed like in some Pixar film.
And I agree, we do need more traditionally animated movies. But why should Pixar be an "exception"? CGI is CGI, whether someone deems it "good" or "bad." Why should Pixar not ever be expected to make
any 2d films but other studios are? I still don't understand this.
Audiences are getting bored with rehashed CG flicks offering no originality in storyline
Very true, and I'm sick and tired of every single film nowadays being about some cute toy/bug/fish/rat learning to fit in/be there own person/make friends yadda yadda.
But....just my opinion.
![Happy :)](./images/smilies/icon_new_smile.png)
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!