Oh?
So if a film is hand-drawn that automatically makes it a good film?
I'm going way off topic here to respond to both this and Frogboy's posts...
Indeed the method of animation does not ensure a good project... a good looking one, sure... but it all comes down to story. Again, i bring my 2 examples... Pocahontas was a good looking movie, but it was the most dull, boring, and overrated thing I've ever seen come out of the Disney studios. And then take the old Bullwinkle show. Terrible Mexican animation (It even embarrassed Jay Ward and crew at points)... but the writing shone through, making it a lot more memorable, storywise.
Of course, you could have BOTH terrible animation and visuals and terrible script... you wind up getting Clutch Cargo... or at least those terrible Pixar ripoffs made in Brazil.
Disney had a LOT of misfires with 2-D films... and certainly Dreawmorks blanketed the market with meh 2-D films as well (long before they showed any interest in CGI).
What it comes down to is the oversaturization of CGI movies, especially from third parties like Sony (they have no freaking business in the business if you ask me)... most of which come off gimmicky and have a general air of wannabe-ism. Mainly companies that wanna be Dreamworks, making pop culture driven, derivative Shrek clones. Did we need 2 Happily Never After movies? Did people even notice that there was one to begin with?