Artwork is not a problem in this movie. I think everyone here understands that "computer animation" is no such thing at all. The animators are people, and the computer does the mindless crunching out of their work. (The smartest thing it does is interpolate between key frames.) If the technology allows for easier, faster, and cleaner artistic expression than the old frame-by-frame photography of clay models, I'm all for it. I do know that there's a certain "method loyalty" ingrained here, and departures will cause some anxiety. I'm a big fan of Ray Harryhausen and Will Vinton myself.
Aardman even preserved the stop-motion feel here by dispensing with motion blur. I really have no problem at all with the artistic output. Whether the story and tone would appeal to all here is another matter. What's there has very high production values, and that definitely includes the audio.
Apparently it cost a lot of money to put it together.
Do you mean that the movie cost a lot to make, or that it would have been too costly to make with stop-motion clay animation?
