Those kind of comments are artistically immature. They fall into the 'medium over content' category in my mind - that is, they concentrate on how the image was produced over what the image is about or its aesthetic merits. As has more or less been said above, tools are tools - there are very good tools and not so good ones, but in the hands of a great artist a piece of charred wood on a scrap of newspaper can yield fantastic results.
One of Pop Art's seminal images , 'Just What Is It That Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?' by Richard Hamilton (1956) was produced by collaging elements from magazine cuttings to make an entirely new image. Through this 'appropriation' of pre-existing elements the artist was able to construct a re-presentation of the world in which he lived; the aspirations of a moment in time of a particular culture. Had he gone to all the effort of producing all the elements himself by photographing or drawing/painting them, the artwork would probably have lost some of its vitality and reference to the culture to which he was referring.
The use of pre-made content for Poser or any other software app doesn't in any way diminish the credibility of the final composition IMO. In the example of a GC movie, there are hundreds of creators working on modelling, texturing, lighting and animation sequences. The main producers/directors couldn't possibly make all that stuff themselves - they would never finish the projects. But no-one would dismiss their vision as portrayed in the final movie based on the fact that they hadn't personally 'made' everything. It is important that the skills and individual visions of those who are responsible for all those aspects are properly credited and appreciated as well though.
No, these Poser bashing comments and purist attitudes are childish views IMO.

'Only the Sith deal in absolutes'.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com