>>105174578We're supposed to be talking "best 3-D animated film"
>>105174444, not most interesting stylistically, are we? Different doesn't mean better, anon: It means different. That's something perfectly commendable on its own that doesn't need to be streamlined as universal quality to be worthwhile.
I agree it looks more interesting than basically any big CG animated feature released in recent (or even not that recent) memory. But best film overall? Including writing, dialogue, characterization and storytelling? Character and set design? Actual technical execution? Music? You can argue ItSV's got strong stuff in all those points, but BEST EVER?
