Has not aged well

Agreed, the animation hasn't aged well.

That doesn't really mean it's bad though.

In regards to some CG animation today it's still pretty damn good. Like compare a lot of television-based CG animation to this movie and it's still up there.

but I mean, classic Disney cartoons haven't aged well but people still enjoy them. Having a dated look doesn't mean the underlying movie/show/etc isn't still great.

I'm an animation major in college though so maybe I have some bias?


I mean to expand on this though, rewatch the first Toy Story. That was the veryfirst full length feature film done in that animation, period, and while the story is still great and the plastic, untextured look works for the toys, look at Andy and you'll see how dated that movie is as well. Our nostalgia for it kinda blinds us to the imperfections. Not too many kids are that nostalgic over Chicken Little since it didn't do very well when it was released (for the rather weak story. I love the movie but I admit it has a few flaws).

Well the look is definitely "rubbery", and it seems to have been made as a parody of Disney productions with anthropomorphic animals such as 'Talespin' and 'Ducktales'. I just watched it on Netflix and I can't really comment on its age, but I can say that it doesn't look "Disney". The story seems Disney-ish but it looks like Disney was trying to make a CGI version of a traditional Warner Brothers or MGM ('Tom & Jerry') production, or maybe they were trying to copy DreamWorks, and it just looks weird.

I can't call it a bad movie, it's just different and non-Disney looking. After coming off of 'Zootopia' I kinda like it. In fact, I like it even more now than the first time I saw it back in 05' when it was in theaters. It doesn't deserve the low rating it's getting in my opinion.

"When is there not a need for a fox taser?" - Stu Hopps