meanwhile, stuff that's pushing 15 like Monsters Inc. doesn't look too bad
though I'd imagine DreamWorks's more recent fare isn't going to age terribly
hopefully it doesn't
also it could be that Pixar's stuff has aged better because they for many years stayed away from human characters as a focus point because CGI had not yet become sophisticated enough to make them look convincing
so of course they focused on plastic toys, and ants, and monsters, and fish (though I did read that even as early as Nemo, they had to tone down the water because it looked too realistic and clashed with their CGI cartoon look)
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
though I wonder if this has to do with DWA's budgeting
The original Shrek still looks great now, as does its sequel, and in fact the primitivity of the CGI may have helped them both (as the CGI got more realistic later it looked so creepy)
Really honestly nothing about Bee Movie looks outright bad to me
it looks exceedingly strange, goofy, and earnest, but there's nothing wrong with those things and I rather resent the idea that there is.
There's nothing wrong with those things, but I think what really gets people about this movie is that its humor is weak and it's combined with DreamWorks's overbearing, celebrity-driven Hollywood sheen.
Really honestly nothing about Bee Movie looks outright bad to me
it looks exceedingly strange, goofy, and earnest, but there's nothing wrong with those things and I rather resent the idea that there is.
There's nothing wrong with those things, but I think what really gets people about this movie is that its humor is weak and it's combined with DreamWorks's overbearing, celebrity-driven Hollywood sheen.
Yeah, this.
There's no way this movie would exist in its current form if Seinfeld wasn't a huge popular show.
Comments
Why?
Why couldn't they at least think up some stupid pun name or something?
This is outright bad.
There's no way this movie would exist in its current form if Seinfeld wasn't a huge popular show.