I saw this news yesterday and was peeved by the film editor of the Guardian's really nasty comment about how he hates Aardman. I'm like hello???!!! How strongly can you feel hate for a person, or a thing in this case plasticine? I normally dont post in newspaper blogs but I registered and gave him a mouthful - actually, I couldnt make myself to do it, I just said he didnt get it, and I felt the same way with Dreamworks, they just didnt get it either.

Yes guys, just do it and we will come!

Interesting. I seem to recall that when Aardman said Flushed Away would be done via CGI, it was only going to be for that one film (and only because the effects they wanted to achieve weren't possible with claymation). Maybe Dreamworks just weren't prepared to wait three or four years for another W&G film to be made? I don't know.

It's all about the money dont you think James?

Thought I'd link the article to humor all of you.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/01/post_6.html

Richard, without meaning to crawl and not because you are my friend, you are way much of a better writer than this guy, why you are not in the Guardian doing his job is totally beyond me. Oh I forgot, Filmstalker is much hip than the Guardian's Entertainment section.

i was going to write something, headline in mind was, "dreamworks kick aardman in the jacobs" - but, and this is true, i've covered my dislike of the rapid generation of a sub-genre of movies that's cute animals done in CGI. funny thing was, aardman either fell for dreamworks idea of a larger scale film than was possible with clay and so trained their animators to do CGI, or the whole reasoning behind 'flushed away' wasn't put across we enough in interviews and marketing. shame, but i think aardman are stronger than the connection to dreamworks, though the distribution and finance helped. theres always a good chance someone a little more ofay with cultural differences will step in with more cash and let aardman do what they want 100% in the future.

Well if you want to gain an audience a quick way is to rub them and rile them.

HAHAHAHAHAHA Touche!

That was for your last comment Rich.

I mean you are so right, put a headline with something like: this classic film totally sucks! and you are definitely going to get attention. Isnt there a saying that when you dig a hole, fill it up, saying something sucks or that you hated it without giving details is not good enough. And not just that, because once you say it sucks and people disagree with you then they come back with, but come on, film is subjective so I am right, and you are wrong. Lame. It still surprises me why people with a very limited knowledge of cinema and its art can pass as so called critics of their own right just because they can afford to open a website. Sorry I just had to vent off some steam.

Please dont resort to such cheap gimmickry to gain an audience. Why did I even say that? I already know you wouldnt!

Don't worry, I'm not going to. I'm really pleased with the type of people and the audience that Filmstalker is attracting, in fact I'm stunned by the figures. Yet it's the people that are the most important and the quality of discussion.

Oh, the first anniversary is coming...

Yes I know! Time sure flies eh? Have you got something in store for us filmstalkers???

Well I'm toying with the Filmstalker Hotdogs for the anniversary...better get working!

I know it's off-topic (but you prolly wont be that upset) but after 7 years, tonight I ordered a hotdog in the cinema, and all I can remember whilst I was putting ketchup and mustard on it was that hotdog story with the fiancee you shared with us a while ago.

I am still sniggering, look! :D