You should see this aniamted movie because....

[CouchWarrior]

After watching the bonus features of Monsters, Inc. this question somehow burroed(did I spell this right?) into my head. To the regular Joes and Janes out there, is the selling point the big names doing the voice acting, or the animaters? Lets see... If you where not an absolute animaton nut, and would you go to a movie where it was animated by some bum they pulled off the street, but the main character was voiced by Brittany Spears (Sorry, bad famous person, I can't think of anything. O_O;; ) or would you see the movie that combined the worlds finist animaters, but had the bum off the street do the voice acting? Do animaters get enough credit, or do the voice actors get the glory? Having the best from both the groups would make an excelent movie, but why would regular people go spend there money on it? K, this probaly makes no sense, cause I'm just rambling, but you can post your rambles here too if you like.... ^-^;;

(Note: There's a platter of free cheese by the poll! ^_^)

[JetMaster5]

Hey, where's the "It's great" choice?

[Zero Angel]

really you cant have one or the other. you need to have a good mix of both. yes you can have a horrible sounding movie but still like it because of the visuals, but i think it is tougher for a person to get into something that sounds good but looks bad. this has been a big issue when marketing music recently (in the past 20 years really) with the development of Mtv and the like. has anyone ever seen the members of Chicago to know that they make good music? no. do you have to know what Britney Spears looks like to get a kick out of the music? yes.

the point comes down to this my little Yu-gi-oh glomping friend. visuals is all that matters in the world now...but i still say the bum is lucky.

PS : thanks for the sharp chedder.