English isn't that good in terms of writing, but I believe it's good enough.
I've been understood a lot before and also been consider helpful to many kinds of things I think.
Critics are consider "important" for media pieces. Generally reviews can be very important for feedback, and suggestions to help find true flaws and fix them.
However, there are times when critics can be argued, and the fact that they can also be so abusive in terms of "critique" which serves no value to any kind of "importance". One of the major issues in "criticism" is apparently "movies" and one of the movies I like to point out as a big example is "Alpha and Omega".
Don't expect this as a review, it's more like "criticizing the "critics"". It might sound a bit like a final review a little though.
Do you think that a person giving a very negative score, based off of bias feeling serve any real value to the "importance" of criticism? The answer is no, it doesn't because if it "does", then "criticism" isn't important.
In other words: Critics that bash art-styles, story-designs, humor designs, and more, serves no real value to the "importance", nor does it serve any value to target and suggest the wrong audience or compare it to movies (whether they want it to be like another or suggest avoidance of it) unless the purpose of the main movie has something to do with them. Basically I don't think Critics exist to do that. They must exist for important things by suggesting that possibly, a purpose can fail to offer it's value, and also suggest more things. E.g. I take food critics more seriously because they often find any flaws for it's main design, taste, etc, etc.
Since it's consider important in terms of critique and other proper suggestions, then I will explain why the main area of critics are overly, and embarrassingly wrong over this film.
One of the "large criticism" of this film is that it's used ideas from other movies and then suggest that adults may get bored, which somehow "confirms" that a movie (for a whole different audience) means that it's a "flaw".
The problem with this is that the main purpose of this whole movie was generally targeted at kids, not adults.
Since it's very much suggested and proven that young people can like this movie, then guess what? This movie did a fine job for what they purposely did. Also, I must mention that it's what they did on purpose and it's a story style. Styles are never a flaw on it's self, no matter how you compare them with other things.
Comparing it to the wrong audience and then claiming the movie to be "bad" when yet, many people (probably the young ones) liked it serves no value into this kind of criticism.
It's as if it doesn't have blood in it, it's somehow bad because some adults who expected "R-Rated" films got disappointed because it was a PG-rated film.
The major possible problem is that if we both made it enjoyable for both, then we may delete something that many other people (from kids or certain adults?) would of liked.. Proving that purpose should be more of the judge.
It's kind of true that "certain people" got bored so I can't argue that part it's self, but I can argue that the story was it's purpose, and the style (as I've said before), and for kids and those who like the stories. It was also proven to work, thus making the story of the film good for what it is. I will show why it worked later on this article.
I've found this review:
I do disagree with certain claims because it does kind of bring out the "using element" thing as a "flaw" I think, and I also disagree with the scoring but it seems to show that this guy enjoys the main "love style" of people. Some people might claim that "love stories" like this can be "boring", but once again, maybe this isn't your type?
Another kind of criticism (May not be as much) was that it copied ideas from other movies. Because of so, it somehow means that the movie as a whole or in bits, somehow means that it's a "flaw" now.
Once they realize that originality doesn't exist, maybe they will think different?
The point is that using a similar idea doesn't make a movie bad because of the fact that kids and other types of audience can enjoy similar ideas. Even if it was used a lot.
The biggest fact is that every movie has done this. E.g. Toy Story 2 has used an element from Star Wars, and what they did with it was actually pretty clever and funny.
It's copied from Star Wars, but it seems good on it's own as some creativity with the same idea or something.
Here is something very interesting too:
Alpha and Omega has done similar things and from what I can see, they have used creative ideas under some ideas already being used, just like Toy Story 2, and many, and I mean many other films as well. Some people may not be a fan of this but since there are a lot of people that enjoys similar ideas being used and that this is also a main purpose of the film, then it's not exactly a flaw. Otherwise it's like calling a work a flaw just because it's different.
Kids and even some Adults love things like this. If I want to see a movie used a good legendary idea like say, the train scene, then I'm glad they did!
There are some "critics" that declare the art-style of Alpha and Omega are somehow a "problem". Some thinks they are "ugly", some compares it to real-life, etc, etc.
The simple truth is that a "Art-Style" or "Design" can never be consider a flaw, unless maybe it's a failed attempt of a different purpose and currently still trying to imitate something else. However, according to some info I've found online, the designs of the mid-anthropomorphic wolves are actually done on purpose.
I've also like to bring this out.
Style" or "Design" to ever be a flaw. Anyone who said they are either dislikes it personality or are comparing them to the things they avoided (e.g. "this world's wolves"), doesn't properly bring any value to actual critique.
Some people seem to bring out "sex jokes" as a "flaw". Though, I'll have to say that many PG-rated movies have done this before. Even on TV-Shows. If it's too much, then another point may be good but simply just because it has a "sex joke" doesn't make it a bad movie. Slight, tamed down jokes or non-jokes involving sexuality seems to fit well with "PG". It's not a G-rated movie, it's a PG-rated movie. If it seems too much that it can dangerously effects kids or violates the PG rating, then you may make a good point in terms of "sex jokes" or other sexual contents.
Since some say that "kids won't get it" but "adults will", then it's probably not much of a problem.
Other Type of Reasons
Some say this film is a "failure" but since that's so absurd and to why I think so, then I would like to point out the fact that a lot of people actually loved the film and according to Wikipedia:
"The film ended its run on December 2, 2010 after grossing $25 million domestically and $25 million in other territories. Produced on a $20 million budget, the film had been declared a financial success, and is Lionsgate's highest-grossing animated feature, as well as Crest Animation's highest."
I also want to say that for some reason, the wikipedia of this page keeps changing. Not sure why though.
I've also heard it's gotten a "cult following" fan base but now it's not at wikipedia anymore? This is strange and I just noticed the reason why it isn't there now was because it "wasn't source" or something, however, it's true that there is a fandom going around that involves this movie and it's sequels.
There has also been a couple of videos on Youtube that were very biased against the film and when I went to one of the videos, it was disliked a lot and lot's of people were pissed off at the guy. I can understand why because it's very biased and all wrong not only because the review arguments were so weak and very biased, but there was a general amount of dislike of this review, proving that they as audiences, loved it.
Meanwhile, there are some "haters of this film" that pretends "wolf fans" "furries", or for any sake, "fans" don't count. Now that does not for any reason whatsoever make any sense! Movies are made for the purpose of interest and they can be made for a certain audience target. Since this movie is focused on wolves, and the fact that it seems good as a mid-anthropomorphic type of style, then those people liking that obviously count. Otherwise it's like going into an Anime film and pretending that anime fans don't count as feedback.
I will also say that "fans" are direct feedback, as it's part of the main point as to why media entertainment exist. Fans are people that already prove that the film was enjoyed because they are already the ones that enjoyed the film.
Pretending that "non-fans" only count is not only hypocritical, but very bigoted.
From what I can study, the film Alpha and Omega actually did a near-perfect job as it's own film and coming from a small company.
For my own reason, I can't tell on everything of the film for now but I may say that it's NOT a perfect film, but it's not even bad. The story is enough for what it is to be enjoyed for certain audience and the main purpose of the film is directed at those. It also doesn't matter if certain ideas were "already used" or not. Some criticism of this film is actually biased and serves no real feed-back as they suggest things the original makers avoided. It's fair to say that those kinds of critics are wrong for there scoring because they failed to prove that somehow "films" must make the "wrong audience" happy in order for it to be good. The predictions of "failure" were already disproved as well.
What happened was that this film went good for certain audiences (Not 100% but it has enough) and the general haters who complain are often the ones who expected a whole different style that the makers didn't even do, and pretended that there "opinions" were superior or counted for a score. Though, the main target was kids and for certain fans and that's been kind of proven successfully.
For "Not 100%", this goes to any other movie in the world. I personality didn't like the movie Frozen that much and I wasn't a big fan of singing but I will never consider it a flaw because it's the style.
It's impossible for a movie to be liked by everyone in this entire world. There will probably always be a time that one person will not like it. We have gens, and different audiences and if we need "criticism", we need to use them for the main purposes. Not suggest "flaws" because some people hated the style of any film.
Not only certain criticism of this film offends the culture of those who enjoys remixing, but it can make others feel bad for there "own things" who wanted to be inspired by yet, another similar idea.
Anyway, some criticism might make some good points, but the general hatred of this film by some are really absurd.
Go on, and embrace Alpha and Omega if you want, even if it somehow had a lot of "flaws".
A real good critique shall never compare a purpose to another purpose that has nothing to do with the original's purpose. -Remember these words.
I would like to ask for critique suggestions for my writing on here.
Copyright - Republish is allowed as long if people don't re-edit this other than the purpose of better writing of it's main point.
I do not claim Copyright to the links or the first picture nor some of the content in the "Art Style" pictures.