Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

Yeah I want to express it mainly for people who still have there fandom to express ahead like any fandom, regardless of how many people who has unusual hatred over them.

If you mean the CGI as in "Smooth" wise in animation for the Nut-Job, etc, I kind of agree (I wouldn't call it "bad" but more lower), though, all they have to do is smooth up the animation and fix the lands around the characters (Did you notice that the wolves and other anthropomorphic creatures looked like the only models being cared about but the lands (being very "low polygoned" and possibly some of them "glitchy"), not?) What I found sad was that there was a polygon glitch on one of the rocks too... D:

"still have a looong way to go." Like I said above for what they "have" to do. xD But I think they were doing fine on the first movie, but I think it's just that there were budget issues on why the sequels does not have the perfect animation and full detail as the first. If "budget" wasn't the reason then I don't know what happened with the qualities, details, and movement.
Still I would say there still not bad movies to enjoy if you still want to enjoy the stories or something. Animation isn't as good but it's probably enough as being limited from a small company.
Note: I still don't think it's fair to compare budget movies from small companies to Pixar or others like it.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.