Just like EVERY movie. Every movie still uses a lot of ideas that came before. But if a movie like Zootopia is original, then so is Alpha and Omega because you combine existing ideas and do something new with it, which happened.
Zootopia:
-Anthropomorphic Characters
-Some relationship
-They must do something in the end, can't remember but I don't think it was new
-They live in a city and it's about it, getting some vibes about some other movies.
-Foxes, anthropomorphic fox
-Non-toilet humor, I think.
And so on. It's the same logic, especially.
It's funny how you're saying "getting back home" is bad even though the adventure can be unique.
The models were fine, I don't see any problem with it. They had a lot of detail, and the characters were smooth and likable like any character. Let's see you model a character, honestly. And now you're just insulting the creator's effort because you really don't know how it's like to animate.
That's still an opinion (the MLP and Zootopia) thing. Hell, when I saw some plot of it, it sounded kinda generic in a way (but I still need to research that), and again, a movie doesn't need to be unknown to culture in order for it to be good. Ever heard of spiritual successors when something is MEANT to be similar but with a new adventure, or another new thing?
That's what I see with these movies, but a little more "original".
Two wolves, loving each other, with an adventure.
Here's the new thing: "New characters fall in love, in a new world, with a new adventure, with even a "no bad guy" surprise". THAT NEVER HAPPENED as a whole.
You even said something that no bad guy was more "original" but here you are being less honest and saying it's "completely unoriginal" even though that statement is already wrong regardless.
Just like EVERY movie. Every movie still uses a lot of ideas that came before. But if a movie like Zootopia is original, then so is Alpha and Omega because you combine existing ideas and do something new with it, which happened.
Zootopia:
-Anthropomorphic Characters
-Some relationship
-They must do something in the end, can't remember but I don't think it was new
-They live in a city and it's about it, getting some vibes about some other movies.
-Foxes, anthropomorphic fox
-Non-toilet humor, I think.
And so on. It's the same logic, especially.
It's funny how you're saying "getting back home" is bad even though the adventure can be unique.
The models were fine, I don't see any problem with it. They had a lot of detail, and the characters were smooth and likable like any character. Let's see you model a character, honestly. And now you're just insulting the creator's effort because you really don't know how it's like to animate.
That's still an opinion (the MLP and Zootopia) thing. Hell, when I saw some plot of it, it sounded kinda generic in a way (but I still need to research that), and again, a movie doesn't need to be unknown to culture in order for it to be good. Ever heard of spiritual successors when something is MEANT to be similar but with a new adventure, or another new thing?
That's what I see with these movies, but a little more "original".
Two wolves, loving each other, with an adventure.
Here's the new thing: "New characters fall in love, in a new world, with a new adventure, with even a "no bad guy" surprise". THAT NEVER HAPPENED as a whole.
You even said something that no bad guy was more "original" but here you are being less honest and saying it's "completely unoriginal" even though that statement is already wrong regardless.
Stuff about Cult of Originality:
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/28/the-cult-of-originality/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc
Note: I might not preview my comment much, I apologize for any mistake.