skyjedi2005 said:
The amount of money a film makes is no bar to how creative and artistic a film is.
The prequels made shit loads more money than the original versions of the original star wars trilogy and they suck as far as i'm concerned.
More than suck, actually they are a complete unmitigated unforgivable travesty of a classic, so far watered down now for the kiddies. and they added fake cgi for the bubblegum brained morons who like this shit better.
If the amount of money a film makes is the only important factor then films the dumbed down american public goes to see, (aka the average stupid american who watches american idol), are the most sucessful and artful films ever made.
hey, i'm totally on your guys side about box-office being a negligable factor...i only brought it up, since someone *AHEM*COUGH*PSYCHO_DAYV****AHEM**
thought some move *AHEM* was a flop, when in fact it was actually a HIT.....i also brought it up to compare its performance to other pixar movies...
anyways, enough of that.....
about watching a lot of cg movies, yes shrek 1 was decent, and the graphics were average, but the plot saved it.......i thought dinosaurs was
very cool, especially after seeing 'jurassic park'<-good effects, terrible translation from book.......................hey , you can't really know if a movie
is going to be good until you watch it right???????????????? i know a lot of people thought 'cars' was a waste of time, and for kids only, but
to me it was a breakthrough..............................
going back a bit.....i remember a 2d/3d animated movie , called 'iron giant' that didn't do that well, but it is still one of my favorite movies also..
with a great plot, and beautiful animation also...........................i'm sure there are others out there as well..
later
-1