Well, I let you judge for yourself:
Well sure, if opening weekend BO and masses flocking is your thing.
I happen to prefer quality, and that seems to be closely associated with stopmotion craftsmanship.
I think someone had a deadline to meet and nothing to meet it with.
What a completely non argument.
Waste of an article.
Exactly - and the vast majority of CGI looks like what you posted, aside from a small handful of really top-notch examples.
Heh - also, is this guy pointing up - or doing the Loser thing on his forehead? I thought he was pointing up - that's why I used him in my last post (pointing to the post above it).
I think it's the Loser thing.
I think you're right - but his thumbs sure did get short between and
It could be interpreted it as a reference to the loser who wrote the article in question. A happy accident
You know what I take from that article? Stop Motion costs half as much to make! Yet, it is so much more satisfying than the empty calories of CGI. Three cheers for low rent!
Sure, stop motion "draws attention to it's methodology", in that it looks like what it is, in varying degrees. Wood carving looks like wood carving, pencil drawing looks like pencil lines on paper. What does CGI look like? Itself? It's ones and zeroes - anybody want to look at that?
Art comes from the tension between the force of the idea, and the resistance of the medium. A lump of wood can be modified to a bare minimum, to create only the suggestion of a character, or it can be beautifully carved to follow every curve and wrinkle, and finished to a high degree, but the essential woodiness remains, and contributes something positive.
The thing is that nowhere in the article does he explain why stopmo isn't nice, aside from that it doesn't make enough in the BO. It's utter crap. I'm glad he gets rinsed in the comments. I thought the guardian had higher standards than releasing this crap.
As someone said in the comments: "As for commercial success, are we now prepared to acclaim McDonald's as the finest restaurants in the world?"
I'm tempted to email the guardian. This is the most unresearched, unnescesarely rude, and ridiculous article. I wouldn't mind if he had given some proper arguments, but he has none.