Actually I think I say that because it's still always hard to write your name. You should ask first before you treat your assumptions as a fact.
Alpha and Omega is good because it's about new wolf characters falling in love which as a whole hasn't been done. That alone is an effort, along with new adventure, and even some new surprising things. The characters are enjoyable just like that fox from Zootopia. If that doesn't count, then Zootopia is a bad movie too if I agreed. What makes Zootopia so great then?
...Yet, those who say it's unoriginal are coming from those who has nostalgia for old movies but expected new... That's bias.
What matters is probably the purpose behind the work.
IF a movie is MEANT to be inspired by old stories and that's what it shows, then you CAN'T say there is lack of effort on that. It's impossible. They are not trying to do something else much, so it's impossible.
I say it could of added more because it's possible they were trying to aim at some adults including those who wanted more new things... but however other than that lack of new things, it still shows a good effort alone.
So Good, but can be better sounds a lot better.
I say "It could add more" because a lack of stuff can make a movie less enjoyable sometimes in a general way. So it can be criticism to suggest adding more and as long if it works for that world, which I should of said too I guess.
You're right that it's subjective for the characters, but what makes a good movie then? Isn't some form of specific subjective allowed? Yeah, that might sound hypocritical, but usually characters being enjoyable being aligned with subjective is usually a way to make something good.
Then there are those who hate them... so the question is: What matters? I argue the positive because those who don't like it can watch something else. The purpose of art is usually to find more people to like it. That's the goal maybe.
You had a different "like", it was the belief that it's "bad it's so good".
I can have the same belief with Zootopia and how would you say if I said "That doesn't make it good.?"
Your argument that it's bad is, well, bias. I know you believe it's always bias, but I just don't agree with the argument.
See, that article I made which you edited a bit, and while it's hard to remember it, I honestly think today of something better involving the whole critique involving what is good or bad. But obviously I might not bother writing it here. I already kinda did on my own journal. It's called "Objective of Critique Exists!" https://another-realm.deviantart.com/journal/Objective-of-Critiquing-Exists-7258...
_____________
Honestly, I feel like I'm lost. I am getting sick of this thread, and while I kinda am asking for replies due to arguments, it's not exactly always the case when it comes to a comment having nothing to do with it...
Here is a basic form as to why Alpha and Omega is good (or could be).
Alpha and Omega is an inspired film by old movies, the character designs are just like any character. Nick is no different. Kate, Humphrey, Lilly, and Garth and the visuals can't be flawed because they are directly effort alone, and the goal of making art is to grow an audience, and that did well with such characters. That's why I argued the are likeable, but I probably should of said they are likable by a lot of people, serving that goal.
The story itself IS original because it combines things and does something new with it, and it's not even "Same story but with wolves", that's actually not true due to the ending and maybe other parts of the movies.
In order to make SOME new things, you have to use something more similar. I also cringe at the argument saying "It rips off other movies"... how is using multiple ideas and combining them like any movie does the same thing? So those negative arguments are just... bad.
I don't 100% know their goals and neither do you.
But as I said: "To properly critique an art is to first understand the artist's main intention behind the creation, and then call out anything that failed to follow such intention.".
That's how you can judge when something is bad or good in art.
Only time it's always bad is... well look at the other part of the journal. XD
__________
Needed to log in, since this comment is long, it's possible I may need to edit some things.
Sorry for any mistakes.
Actually I think I say that because it's still always hard to write your name. You should ask first before you treat your assumptions as a fact.
Alpha and Omega is good because it's about new wolf characters falling in love which as a whole hasn't been done. That alone is an effort, along with new adventure, and even some new surprising things. The characters are enjoyable just like that fox from Zootopia. If that doesn't count, then Zootopia is a bad movie too if I agreed. What makes Zootopia so great then?
...Yet, those who say it's unoriginal are coming from those who has nostalgia for old movies but expected new... That's bias.
What matters is probably the purpose behind the work.
IF a movie is MEANT to be inspired by old stories and that's what it shows, then you CAN'T say there is lack of effort on that. It's impossible. They are not trying to do something else much, so it's impossible.
I say it could of added more because it's possible they were trying to aim at some adults including those who wanted more new things... but however other than that lack of new things, it still shows a good effort alone.
So Good, but can be better sounds a lot better.
I say "It could add more" because a lack of stuff can make a movie less enjoyable sometimes in a general way. So it can be criticism to suggest adding more and as long if it works for that world, which I should of said too I guess.
You're right that it's subjective for the characters, but what makes a good movie then? Isn't some form of specific subjective allowed? Yeah, that might sound hypocritical, but usually characters being enjoyable being aligned with subjective is usually a way to make something good.
Then there are those who hate them... so the question is: What matters? I argue the positive because those who don't like it can watch something else. The purpose of art is usually to find more people to like it. That's the goal maybe.
You had a different "like", it was the belief that it's "bad it's so good".
I can have the same belief with Zootopia and how would you say if I said "That doesn't make it good.?"
Your argument that it's bad is, well, bias. I know you believe it's always bias, but I just don't agree with the argument.
See, that article I made which you edited a bit, and while it's hard to remember it, I honestly think today of something better involving the whole critique involving what is good or bad. But obviously I might not bother writing it here. I already kinda did on my own journal. It's called "Objective of Critique Exists!"
https://another-realm.deviantart.com/journal/Objective-of-Critiquing-Exists-7258...
_____________
Honestly, I feel like I'm lost. I am getting sick of this thread, and while I kinda am asking for replies due to arguments, it's not exactly always the case when it comes to a comment having nothing to do with it...
Here is a basic form as to why Alpha and Omega is good (or could be).
Alpha and Omega is an inspired film by old movies, the character designs are just like any character. Nick is no different. Kate, Humphrey, Lilly, and Garth and the visuals can't be flawed because they are directly effort alone, and the goal of making art is to grow an audience, and that did well with such characters. That's why I argued the are likeable, but I probably should of said they are likable by a lot of people, serving that goal.
The story itself IS original because it combines things and does something new with it, and it's not even "Same story but with wolves", that's actually not true due to the ending and maybe other parts of the movies.
In order to make SOME new things, you have to use something more similar. I also cringe at the argument saying "It rips off other movies"... how is using multiple ideas and combining them like any movie does the same thing? So those negative arguments are just... bad.
I don't 100% know their goals and neither do you.
But as I said: "To properly critique an art is to first understand the artist's main intention behind the creation, and then call out anything that failed to follow such intention.".
That's how you can judge when something is bad or good in art.
Only time it's always bad is... well look at the other part of the journal. XD
__________
Needed to log in, since this comment is long, it's possible I may need to edit some things.
Sorry for any mistakes.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.