Wait wait wait! Isn't this admitting to being ignorant? Not liking the movie simply because how it was made or its visuals and not giving it any kind of chance.
Even if this read "I'm not a fan of the style" or "I didn't like the character designs" or something like that it would be one thing. But to out right not give the film a chance just because it is a plastecine stop-motion? That's just ignorant.
Way to ruin the 98%. -_- And not liking the movie just because it contains talented claymation? Isn't that racist to its kind of animation? And why didn't he mind The Curse of the Were-Rabbit? 0_o
What kind of professional video critic judges with so much weight on style? What happened to the story, character development, plot, all that stuff? Did that matter? Obviously not, I read the entire thing and this film is rated rotten on the sole fact of clay-mation.
Do you honestly know how hard it is to create claymation? No, I don't think so. Frankly, it is quite stupid of you to not like a movie just because of how it's made. I guess that trumps plot, characters, setting, score, and everything else, eh?
So you only dislike the movie's medium? Especially since it is by Peter Lord, Nick Park and their claymation animators known for Wallace and Gromit. Quite a dumb thing to write about, taking the filmography of Lord and Park to begin with and their relationship to clay.
"Unfortunately what ruined this cartoon for me was that I'm not a big fan of
clay-mation. I never have been, which is what prevented this from getting a solid ten and dropped it to a nine."
Wig gins
Wait wait wait! Isn't this admitting to being ignorant? Not liking the movie simply because how it was made or its visuals and not giving it any kind of chance.
Even if this read "I'm not a fan of the style" or "I didn't like the character designs" or something like that it would be one thing. But to out right not give the film a chance just because it is a plastecine stop-motion? That's just ignorant.
Feb 23 - 09:44 PM