Hey Ben, looks like you were right about Cars as well!
If Flushed Away is a hit, grossing over $100 million, will Aardman's name and quality be hailed as the reason of the film's success, or Aardman's switch to CGI? Likewise, what will be said if the film bombs?
Yeah...I've been wondering about this too. Especially with the supposed "resemblence" to Ratatouille.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
I frankly think it's a shame that Aardman has gone the CG route.
What with the new trailer making it very clear that the clean, un-finished rendered look IS the final product, and Aardman's name almost missing from the trailer, it marks the end of an era.
Not saying that Aardman won't go back to stop-motion, but consider them officially "tainted". If Flushed Away is a success, it will be "because of DreamWorks help in finishing the movie". If it bombs it will be "because this was Aardman's first stab at CGI".
Regarding Aardman's use of CGI for Flushed Away, Wikipedia has an interesting piece of trivia:
Wikipedia wrote:The main reason why Flushed Away is computer animated is because of the complexity of the water. It was originally intended to be yet another of Aardman's stop-motion animated features, but it would have been too expensive to composite the shots including water, and since the story involves a lot of it, they chose to go all CGI.
As for the water bit...okay I'll buy that. But surely there's better ways to overcome such problems than to completely change your well-oiled and respected production pipeline?
