The Gang of Five
The Land Before Time => 1988 Theatrical Release => Topic started by: pokeplayer984 on July 20, 2010, 11:58:53 PM
-
3D has become all the rage in "Creating A Movie for Theaters" these days. So, if Universal decided to take the original The Land Before Time movie and make it 3D, would you go see that?
Now, I understand that 3D is nothing more than a fad that EVERY Director/Producer is pushing down our throats, trying to show us that it's the way of the future. It would be nice to see how much The Land Before Time would be graphically improved by it, but do I really want that? I don't know to be honest. I've got mixed feelings on it.
Would I see it in the theaters if it really happened? Yes, and I would go for the 3D. However, I would only do it for the experience, and nothing more.
What about you guys? Would you go see it if it did happen? In fact, do you want it to happen? Let's discuss.
See ya later! :)
-
Hmm, maybe. I don't think it would really work in 3D, but I couldn't pass up seeing LBT in theaters. But the format of cel animation doesn't really lend itself to 3D.
-
3D is nothing more than a gimmick. a good story doesn't need 3d, imo. Most stories in 3d, in fact, flat out stink..see the upcoming Cats and Dogs 2 or Step Up 3d.
-
I would definitely, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt...NOT see Land Before Time in 3D!
Like I said in a previous topic, 3D does not make a movie better. It doesn't add anything to the movie going experience. "Ohh, it looks like stuff is flying at me, it's so amazing!!!!1111". What I find interesting is that most people today don't even know that 3D has actually been around since the 50's. Except back then, 3D was usually only used for comics. It wasn't until, I think about the 70's when they started using it in movies. And even then it didn't last too long.
Now as for LBT getting the 3D treatment...why? I don't think LBT needs 3D. It got where it is by being a generally good movie. Unless the 3D adds more depth to the story and characters, then it's not necessary. Not to mention that it wasn't even filmed in 3D so converting it to 3D would make for a total disaster. Just take a look at all the movies being released that were originally intended to be 2D only but were then converted into 3D.
So no I don't think Land Before Time needs the 3D "treatment". It's good enough as is.
-
I would see it for the very sole purpose of supporting LBT. Otherwise, in my opinion, 3D is overrated and an excuse for theatres to charge more for movie tickets that are already outrageous in price.
-
No. 3D's a gimick and adds absolutely nothing. Besides which, 3D hurts my frikkin eyes!!!!! They do eventually adjust, but its a painful trip that I would rather not go on, and as the result I miss out on most of the early scenes of films made in 3D.
-
Nope. I wouldn't. Now if they made a new sequel and it was ONLY out in 3D then yes, I'd have to see it. But I hate 3D and I really don't want to be forced to watch it.
-
If it did come out I would watch it. To turn LBT into a 3D movie additional drawings would have to be made and I suppose it would be more likely than not that parts would be added. There are some scenes in LBT which I think might look interesting in 3D.
I am not a particular fan of 3D technique, but neither do I see it with the extreme hatred expressed by many here to the point that they wouldn't watch it out of principle. Like you I focus more on plot than on animation (though even a decent plot can be presented in a poor manner (personally I consider LBT 8 an example for that)) but I don't think a 3D version of LBT would be a loss and therefore something to be actively dreaded.
-
3D spooks me. :bolt :bolt I'll get motion sick over a lot of movement too so 3D stuff in any film never works for me.
-
Wait, are we speaking of 3D with these glasses or a completely 3D animated movie? :huh:
Either way, I would watch it. Probably not in theaters, but on DVD. :)
-
I would go see it, but not because of 3D.
-
I'd go see it, only for the fact that it is the land before time :)
-
3d in movies goes way way back. One of the 3 stooges shorts was shot in 3d, forgot which one. Most of today's folks likely do not know how old 3d is.
-
Sure I would. People today see 3D in films the way I guess people once saw colour in films (And maybe even sound, or indeed just moving images?). You don't need 3D, colour, sound, or even images to tell a story, it's perfectly true, but that doesn't mean they don't have their place. 3D isn't any different from those other examples in my opinion. It's not a "gimmick", it's just bringing the picture quality closer to reality (the problem, I suspect, is the unfortunately well-founded belief that sometimes 3D causes focus to shift from plot to eye-candy, which isn't good, but isn't the fault of 3D technology itself).
EDIT: Wait, are we speaking of 3D with these glasses or a completely 3D animated movie?
Does the technology for 3D without special eyewear even commercially exist for film?
-
Sure I would. People today see 3D in films the way I guess people once saw colour in films (And maybe even sound, or indeed just moving images?). You don't need 3D, colour, sound, or even images to tell a story, it's perfectly true, but that doesn't mean they don't have their place. 3D isn't any different from those other examples in my opinion. It's not a "gimmick", it's just bringing the picture quality closer to reality (the problem, I suspect, is the unfortunately well-founded belief that sometimes 3D causes focus to shift from plot to eye-candy, which isn't good, but isn't the fault of 3D technology itself).
EDIT: Wait, are we speaking of 3D with these glasses or a completely 3D animated movie?
Does the technology for 3D without special eyewear even commercially exist for film?
I have movie that was made in 1982 that was released in theaters and DVD in 3D.
-
I think people don't realize that today's 3D is completely different from the red-and-blue glasses 3D technology of yesterday. They are not the same thing.
The 3D nowadays is much more advanced and much less of a gimmick. I'm not saying that many studios don't just tack it on as an aside to make more money, but a movie designed for 3D like Avatar really showcases that it can be quite awesome if done correctly.
-
Too bad Avatar was a subpar film in and of itself. And no, its just as much of a gimmick as ever. Does 3D effect the writing? No. Does it effect how much a person enjoys a movie? Hell no. Oh, and even today's 3D hurts my eyes.
-
Does it effect how much a person enjoys a movie? Hell no. Oh, and even today's 3D hurts my eyes
That depends on the person. To me it doesn't make a major difference (neither positive nor negative), but a good number of people I know have been quite impressed with the 3D animation. If the reactions to 3D were so entirely negative without any effect of luring more people to the cinemas I don't reckon they would take the additional costs for 3D animation.
-
I do wonder if it's here for good or a fad. It was a fad in the 50's and 70's.
-
I think people don't realize that today's 3D is completely different from the red-and-blue glasses 3D technology of yesterday. They are not the same thing.
The 3D nowadays is much more advanced and much less of a gimmick. I'm not saying that many studios don't just tack it on as an aside to make more money, but a movie designed for 3D like Avatar really showcases that it can be quite awesome if done correctly.
So as long as the 3D is good, then it doesn't matter if a film has a painfully generic story, cliched characters, and a plot even older than our grandparents? I liked Avatar for what it was: Eye candy. But that did not save the movie. Ever hear the expression "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig"?
Someone before me mentioned that we didn't need color or sound to help tell a story. Well I strongly disagree. In the case of such movies as Land Before Time, Wizard of Oz, and Willy Wonka(the original) to name just a few, the colors and sounds helped to bring these movies to life and to help set the mood for these films. Take Wizard of Oz for example: Would any of us have felt as terrified by the Wicked Witch if the entire film was shot in only black and white? ...Probably not. Would we have found Oz as magical and beautiful if the movie was only in black and white? Doubt it. Color does help to tell a story, in more ways than we think. 3D however, does not help to tell a story in any way. "Oh but 3D makes the movie SOOO realistic!!!" ...No it doesn't. Movies are meant to be fiction. Fiction. As in not real. Not likely to happen in real life. Another problem is that 3D doesn't work for every movie out there. Only for a very small minority of movies does it work for. Imagine if they did Where the Wild Things Are or Precious in 3D. Those movies would look like crap.
-
If the newer movies are in 3D, then I'd watch it. The original movie is too good to be fouled up by an attempt to make it 3D.
-
As somebody who hates 3d with a burning passion, no. 3d feels weird and t makes me sick watching it. I hope this 3d craze is just a passing fad.
-
Ugh. Why is everyone so willing to defend 3D? Its a gimmick. Nothing more.
-
Ugh. Why is everyone so willing to defend 3D? Its a gimmick. Nothing more.
I wonder the opposite; why everyone feels the need to knock 3D. 3D hasn't had all the kinks worked out yet, some directors are still too pleased with it to stop just playing with it and integrate it properly and it just generally hasn't had much chance yet. New improvements to 3D are being made all the time, which one day should alleviate the pain it causes your eyes.
Realistically, 3D as an advance in technology for media is no different to any other; it's a huge increase in the visual experience (which is part of what films are about; if I solely cared about plot and characters I'd be reading a book rather than watching a film, or listening to the radio).
-
If it was still the same, then I'd see it. I'd also like it even more if it was remastered.
-
(which is part of what films are about; if I solely cared about plot and characters I'd be reading a book rather than watching a film, or listening to the radio).
That is exactly the mentality that movie goers today possess. "Oh but the movie has good effects and good 3D so why should it need a story? It's not like it's trying to win an Oscar!!!" Sorry but character development and story are necessary to make a good movie no matter what film it is. Without character development and story, why should I care that a team of superheroes is trying to save the world from the evil Dr. RichScumBag? Why should I care that five horny teens are being chased by a crazed serial killer? Why should I find two pot heads who have the munchies funny? What does it matter to me if that cowboy doll and the cool spaceman action figure get back to their owner? Story! Character development! These are what movies need! I don't care if your movie has the best effects in the whole friggin' world! If the writing sucks, so does the movie! That's the reality of it!
As an aspiring writer, I find it very disheartening that people are so taken in by animals farting, 3D and giant robots beating each others' brains...er circuits out that they no longer care about the quality of the movie's writing. You ever see the movie Idiocracy? There's a scene in that film that explains that in the future, the highest grossing movie of all time is called "Ass" and all it is is an ass farting on screen for two hours. That scene reminds me of what's happening with movies today. Most good movies are shunned and bomb at the Box Office and crappy movies like Transformers 2 and the Last Airbender end up making money. If one of my stories ever gets made into a movie, I'm going to personally request that they don't make it in 3D. I would want people to admire the characters and story, not the "too coo' fo' skoo'" 3D.
-
What Animeboye said, I can't put it any better. No, films not are just about the visual aspect. They require good writing, too. I am appalled to be on the same website as someone like you. With a single comment about movies not needing character development or good stories you have offended every intelligent brain cell I possess.
-
I am appalled to be on the same website as someone like you. With a single comment about movies not needing character development or good stories you have offended every intelligent brain cell I possess.
Sorry that he somehow insulted to the point of personal attacks with his remarkably benign comment, but you've also interpreted his meaning incorrectly.
it's a huge increase in the visual experience (which is part of what films are about;
He did not say that movies don't require good stories, he said that they do require good visuals, along with good writing and character development. A movie can have a great storyline and a well crafted complete hero's journey, but if the camerawork and acting is poorly done, the movie will flop, though it might have made a good novel.
-
No, he said that films about the visual experience and can just be eye candy. He also said if he was worried about story, he'd a read a book. I find that offensive as a budding writer, myself. Oh, and films with bad writing and acting do do well. Just look at both of the Avatar movies.
Also, 3D is not a big leap in the visual experience. They're moving cardboard cut-outs in front of a background. Nothing more. No 3D film has ever increased my enjoyment of a film. And if any of you would bother to read my post, 3D GRAPHICS FUCKING MY FUCKING EYES! I refuse to ever see any film in 3D. Its pointless, useless, and it hurts. My. Eyes. A film should stand on its own with a useless gimmick. And if a part of your audience is swinting, looking away, and trying to deal with actual pain while trying to watch your over-priced movie, then its especially uselesss and that person isn't getting much out of, is he/she? The only good advancements in film and the ones that everyone can enjoy, like further perfecting CGI and the like.
-
No, he said that films about the visual experience and can just be eye candy. He also said if he was worried about story, he'd a read a book. I find that offensive as a budding writer, myself.
No WR, what he said was:
Realistically, 3D as an advance in technology for media is no different to any other; it's a huge increase in the visual experience (which is part of what films are about; if I solely cared about plot and characters I'd be reading a book rather than watching a film, or listening to the radio).
"which is part of what films are about..." I think it is hard to make a point of movies being not partly about the visual experience.
Please WR take a deep breath for I really think that you are overreacting here. Nobody is trying to offend you. I appreciate your contributions but I really think you are currently talking yourself into a rage where there is no cause.
Some people appreciate 3D technology (which does not mean that they are automatically supportive of the decrease in story quality that may get along with 3D quality in case of some movies). Decrease in story quality and 3D however are not the same. Please relax and don't take offense in the fact that some people like or don't care about 3D rather than hating it with heart and soul.
-
If I want 3D, I go outside. I don't need no stinking glasses, either (that's a lie, if i don't wear normal glasses I will walk into a tree at some point).
A theatrical presentation is just that, a presentation... and thus it is in the eye of the beholder to get what he wants out of the experience. If said person would enjoy a movie more because of the 3D aspect, then good for them. Same reason why some people enjoy story and character, and others just want to see robots beat each other up... it's all in what the audience wants or expects. You aren't being forced to watch what you don't like... and as such wouldn't see something like Shrek for the gripping story and well written characters, or Inception for the silly fart gags (of which there are none, so there).
As for LBT going 3D? No, just no. It wont work and couldn't possibly increase the enjoyment factor. There is simply not enough scenes that could take advantage of the technology.
-
By the way, aren't the movies produced in 3D shown in regular style in the US as well? Over here movies like Avatar, Ice Age 3 etc. are usually shown as both normal and 3D in the theaters (in which case there really isn't much of a problem if everyone can pick the version he or she prefers).
-
In Tasmania (and the rest of Australia I would presume) we get a choice of 2D or 3D for movies. We don't have many theatres down here, so when a 3D movie comes out theres only one or two that offer the 3D option.
It doesn't seem to be a big fad down here. Everyone was going on about the 3D sequences in How To Train Your Dragon, but I saw it in 2D and still thought it was a good movie. Avatar in 3D was just... disorienting.
-
No, he said that films about the visual experience and can just be eye candy. He also said if he was worried about story, he'd a read a book.
I said if I was solely concerned with plot and characters I'd read a book rather than go see a film, and often that is indeed the case; I actually read a lot more than I watch. But there are times when I want a visual aspect as well, and that's when I hit the cinema (or more usually our rental outlet in reality).
Also, 3D is not a big leap in the visual experience. They're moving cardboard cut-outs in front of a background. Nothing more.
I think it's a little more sophisticated than that; even you're a big hater of 3D, I can't quite understand how you can claim it doesn't look amazing. I mean, I only very vaguely enjoyed Avatar because of the terribly-written characters (and it dragged...on...and on...), but I still have to admit that it is one of the most gorgeous-looking films I've ever seen.
And if any of you would bother to read my post, 3D GRAPHICS F*****G MY F*****G EYES!
I understand skim-reading other people's posts, I really do; when one has other things to do and there are a few topics one wants to get a reply in, but when you're complaining this badly about other people doing it, I'd think it would be best to check you're not doing it first:
New improvements to 3D are being made all the time, which one day should alleviate the pain it causes your eyes.
-
I think it's a little more sophisticated than that; even you're a big hater of 3D, I can't quite understand how you can claim it doesn't look amazing. I mean, I only very vaguely enjoyed Avatar because of the terribly-written characters (and it dragged...on...and on...), but I still have to admit that it is one of the most gorgeous-looking films I've ever seen.
Because it's not that amazing. It's images popping up at you. Whoo hoo! Big deal! They've been doing movies where things pop up at you since the 50's. It wasn't impressive then and it's not impressive now. And I for one do understand why WeirdRaptor doesn't think 3D looks "amazing". Because it's a stupid, overrated, overblown, overexposed fad that people hype up as the most impressive cinematic experience of your life. Well if that's the case then I should have enjoyed Avatar a lot more than Dark Knight. Well guess what? I saw Avatar in 3D and Dark Knight in 2D. Guess which one I had better time at? That's right: Dark Knight.
To me 3D shows that audiences today care no longer about the quality of the movie and would rather watch an ass farting on screen for two hours. Perfect example: The Last Airbender. Awful, AWFUL movie yet is somehow making a profit. Originally shot in 2D, converted to 3D for Who-knows-why and people still go to see it in 3D despite numerous reviews saying how bad the 3D is. Proof that most people simply don't care anymore and will blow their money on whatever crappy brainless summer blockbuster comes out. I just wonder how long it will be until Ass: The Movie becomes a reality...In 3D!!!!!!
-
Everybody take it easy!
Some sound like you were personally blaming one another for whichever of the two options you dislike :rolleyes
On something that is so much a matter of personal taste it really ought to be possible to agree to disagree rather than making it sound like any personal feud.
-
Well guess what? I saw Avatar in 3D and Dark Knight in 2D. Guess which one I had better time at? That's right: Dark Knight.
Well, that's one thing we can agree on. Dark Knight was a much better film. I'll be the first to freely agree that good plot is far, far more important than good looks (although Dark Knight wasn't exactly shabby!), but that doesn't mean visuals don't have their place. All I'm saying is that if we could combine the two then we'd be rocking.
If you don't like the way 3D looks right now then....well, okay. It's nowhere perfected yet, but I have hopes that one day they will bring it up on par with regular vision; at which point I'd assume you'd be happy with it?
Back on topic: I'd see LBT in 3D, but I highly doubt it would work. The animation style....you know. I wince at just the current CGI-ish scenes. Doesn't really work for me.
-
They've been saying that steps have been taken to ake to 3D stop hurting people's eyes for years. I don't buy it. How can I believe they don't look amazing? Because they literally hurt to look at for me. The reason I'm so vehemently opposed to it hear is because of that. If 3D takes over the theaters completely, I'll quite going to them, because: A. I wouldn't be able to afford the overpriced ticket. And B. I'd probably go blind!
-
As with most people. The fact that LBT was back in cinemas would be my reason for going to see it. I wouldn't go for the 3D aspect of it all coz that doesn't really interest me that much. It's a nice touch but very few movies have done it well. Just the mention of LBT being back on the silver screen would be enough to get me in line but I'd probably pass on the need for the nerdy plastic lenses :p :lol
-
I can't stand 3D not just because it hurts my eyes, which it does. Being nearsighted, my vision's already not too great. But I also can't stand 3D because I see it as a shield most directors use to cover up the fact that their movies more than likely suck. Case in point, The Last Airbender, originally shot in 2D, then converted into 3D. Sucked. Clash of the Titans, shot in 2D, converted into 3D. Haven't seen it but it sounds sucktacular. I'm glad that there are directors out there like Chris Nolan and even Michael Bay to a lesser extent, who know they don't need 3D to make their movies good. Michael Bay even said he sees 3D as a gimmick too so for that I applaud him *wishes there was an applauding smilie*
I'll never understand why people would want to waste seven extra dollars on a 3D movie when they can see the same movie in 2D at a much cheaper price. Just like WeirdRaptor said, if they ever end up showing movies in only 3D, then I will never step foot in a theater again.
-
Like everybody else has said, I would go just to see the original in theaters. I was born after the first movie was made so I never got the pleasure of seeing it in theaters, so to get that opportunity would be awesome. Of course, such thing will most likely never happen, but still the thought of it is nice.
-
I wonder the opposite; why everyone feels the need to knock 3D.
Here, let me spell it out.
1. It makes me nauseous watching it.
2. I don't like the movie being shoved right into my face.
3. I hate those stupid 3d glasses.
4. It is more expensive. A regular ticket is 7 dollars. A 3d movie ticket is about 12 dollars.
5. It adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the story. I go to the movies to watch a story, not sit through two hours of eye candy slapped on top of a crappy plot. That is why I thought Avatar sucked.
-
I don't see why not, considering all of you probably have already seen this movie more then 20 times now. I would prefer 3d in a theater anyway, so I don't see all the crap around to distract me from the film. Seems like every movie I watch, there's always that snotty dude or kid that brings their cell phone to the show to text, which makes the screen incredibly bright and disruptive. There's always this biased, accepted opinion that 3d is just a gimmick because it costs more money, which I find to be incredibly naive. Much can be said the same for surround sound and HD projection. If you chose to watch something that is, admittedly, graphical eye candy without any substance in 2d when 3d is clearly available, then you must be kidding yourself.
Edit: Let me also say that I misunderstood the title of this thread as "What if land before time came out in CG" for a few seconds, which will give me nightmares for now on.
-
There's always this biased, accepted opinion that 3d is just a gimmick because it costs more money, which I find to be incredibly naive.
Uh, excuse me? No one on here said that 3D is a gimmick because it costs more than a 2D movie. We said that it's a gimmick because it doesn't help to improve a movie in anyway. Reread peoples' posts and you'll see that no one said anything of the sort.
EDIT: And yeah, I do think it's stupid to pay to see a 3D movie. You're throwing away 5-7 extra dollars on one of these films when you can see the same thing in 2D for a much cheaper price.
-
Uh, excuse me? No one on here said that 3D is a gimmick because it costs more than a 2D movie. Reread peoples' posts and you'll see that no one said anything of the sort.
I was not talking about all the members on this site, but mostly public opinion period. I guess I kinda went off on a rant.
We said that it's a gimmick because it doesn't help to improve a movie in anyway.
It doesn't improve the movie, it can help immerse you into it. Again, that depends on how it's used. It could look natural or completely ridiculous.
EDIT: And yeah, I do think it's stupid to pay to see a 3D movie. You're throwing away 5-7 extra dollars on one of these films when you can see the same thing in 2D for a much cheaper price.
Depends on the film. Imagine a documentary in 3d compared a pixar 3d film.
I'm not saying all films would look good in 3d, I'm just saying it can fit for some. I originally saw avatar in average cheap theater and I was happy with it (although I would notice how bad it was later) but I wouldn't mind seeing it again in 3d. I guess I just like 3d more then others
Absolutely no offense intended to you man, I'm sorry if you felt that way
-
Dude why would you have offended me? I mean if you like 3D, that's fine. I just don't. Truthfully it makes me sick. I already don't have the greatest vision in the world, seeing as how I'm nearsighted. I saw Avatar in 3D with my friend and his dad and it gave me a headache. As they drove me home I kept rubbing my eyes the whole way.
Look I'm sorry if I sounded peeved. You didn't offend me in anyway. You have your opinion, I have mine.
-
I mean if you like 3D, that's fine. I just don't. Truthfully it makes me sick. I already don't have the greatest vision in the world, seeing as how I'm nearsighted. I saw Avatar in 3D with my friend and his dad and it gave me a headache. As they drove me home I kept rubbing my eyes the whole way.
I'm actually nearsighted as well. I usually have to bring my glasses to a theater, otherwise I won't be able to tell whats going on on screen very well. But even then, it starts to irritate my eyes after a while from how bright the screen is in the dark. I kinda prefer watching movies at home, where I can at least have some light in the background.
-
Better immerse myself in the film through 3D? Sorry, but I don't need the visual help if I like what I'm seeing.
-
My little cousin just watch the first film a while back, and starting crying cause the Sharptooth scared her.
Now image how all little kids would react to seeing a sharptooth in 3d.
and image how your gonna feel when your watching Littlefoot's mom dying in 3d.
-
My little cousin just watch the first film a while back, and starting crying cause the Sharptooth scared her.
Now image how all little kids would react to seeing a sharptooth in 3d.
and image how your gonna feel when your watching Littlefoot's mom dying in 3d.
It really depends on the type of kid. Not all kids are going to be completely terrified of Sharptooth. I first saw Land Before Time when I was about three or four and I wasn't terrified of Sharptooth at all. Just how old is your cousin?
I don't really see how 3D would make Littlefoot's mom's death any sadder than it already is.
-
I'm a traditional guy but It still doesn't matter to me if its 3d or not. As long as I don't have to put on those 3d glasses...
Plus, I'm not sure certain characters would look that appealing in a third dimension. Anyone that has played the PS games would pretty much get an idea of how they would look.
-
I've already explained why I personally hate 3D and I think the reasons I gave are perfectly legitimate.
Let's see...
It makes me sick, I hate the glasses, it is more expensive, I hate the odd feeling of having everything pushed into my face... Those sound like legit reasons to me.
I don't think Land Before Time needs 3d. 3d is pointless.
-
Just like Frank Oz said when asked if he would appear in The Power of the Dark Crystal: Why?
I honestly do not see the hype of 3D Movies.. Although im currently enjoying Clash of the Titans and sometimes forget that it was 3D as well.. :p But still, I think 3D Is supposed to be something to enjoy at Parks (Universal, Walt Disney World, etc..)
-
As other people said, 3D is just too gimicky. I find the 2D animation so much more beautiful and expressive than any 3D animation could hope to achieve.
-
the movie in a blue ray would be great
-
I opt out of 3D since it usually makes me feel a little sick to watch an entire movie that way. So, I don't think I would see it in 3D even if they ever considered it. In the same note with what's "cool" today, I much prefer traditional hand drawn animation to cgi. Since "The Princess & the Frog" there have been no more traditional animated projects. This really upsets me...perhaps more are in the works? Now don't get me wrong, ANY movie can be great...it's the STORY and the CHARACTERS that should take top priority. I LOVE some of Pixar's works, despite the cgi medium. I saw Toy Story 3 last summer, loved it. The type of animation doesn't matter as much as the story...but, I still feel there is something very special that traditional animation has that cgi just can't match up with. There's more of a personal connection between the artist, for one...and there's just something about the emotion in hand drawn that cgi has yet been able to get right. LBT or any of the "classics" in cgi would just NOT feel the same...
-
I'd guess many 3d movies are very gimicky and have stuff come at the audience instead of not drawing attention to itself and having it be a natural part of the movie, maybe even in a way you may not notice at first.