>And you're completely wrong.

Not only am I not wrong, we are talking about a film which by any estimation was a box office bomb.

However this mix of styles is characteristic of the film in general, which mixes 3d and 2d animation, and 18th century technology and futuristic.

To my surprise reviews of the film were not particularly positive (69% nice on Rotten Tomatoes). To quote Robert Ebert

>I am not concerned about technical matters. I do not question why space ships of the future would look like sailing ships of the past. I can believe they could be powered by both rockets and solar winds. It does not bother me that deep space turns out to be breathable. I do not wonder why swashbuckling is still in style, in an era of ray guns and laser beams. I accept all of that. It's just that I wonder why I have to. Why not make an animated version of the classic Treasure Island ?

On the whole he gave the film a thumbs up, but he questioned the overall motives for these clashing decisions. Ultimately people's tolerance mileage is going to vary for its various flights of fancy. For me, it's seeing that the deuteragonist is a doctor who happens to be a bipedal dog whom all the characters pretend is not a dog. For others it might be using an 18th century galleon as a faster than light vessel.