Will Cars 2 be PIXAR'S first flop? Will you see the movie?

[Amaris]

@ OdoWanKenobi: no, yes, and yes. TS3 was pretty weak sauce; it's a movie about slaves yearning to find a new master to treat them like mindless... well, toys. And I'm supposed to applaud?

And second, who says they haven't made movies for adults?

Uh, I do. Obviously. Or else you wouldn't be so defensive, now, would you?

And no, I don't care if I'm the only one in the whole damn world. It's who I am, so deal.

Who says a movie can't be made for kids and adults at the same time?

Observation: compared to adults, children are emotionally and intellectually undeveloped. It amazes me that that statement might be anywhere near controversial, but then millions of people thought George W. Bush would make a fantastic Leader of the Free World, so there you go. Batshit country we gots ourselves here.

Kids and adults are different. Adults might enjoy A Bug's Life or Wall-E, but no small kid will love Hamlet, The King's Speech, or Zodiac, to name but a few. And there's a reason for that. Honest-to-goodness art for adults goes over kids' heads. There's little slapstick relief, reliance on bright colors, fast pacing, or strictly pre-adolescent emotions in any of those movies.

Shit, take Spirited Away. I have my doubts about the maximum sophistication levels of animated films, but there's a deliberately-paced movie that doesn't rely on a propulsive narrative, goofy characters, or juvenile sight gags to interest the kiddies. And yet, to adults, it's not boring.

When Pixar makes anything near as sophisticated a movie as Spirited Away, we can debate further. In the meantime, what do we get? Fucking Cars 2. About an idiot and a car that races by going real fast. Zoom zoom. Vroom. "Aw, shucks! I'm a stoopid American who's confused by geo-pawlitics!"

I rest my case.

Hugs,
Gaith

Your talents are wasted here. You should apply for critical commentary at the Louvre. Go. Teach. Enlighten. Illuminate.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Cars was... OK, but nothing special, and I feel zero one way or the other about a sequel.

Then again, I had the same reaction to Madagascar, and its sequel was *way* better than the first movie.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think Cars 2 is, to some degree, a concession to stockholders. Do a movie like that to bring in the merchandise cash, then make something like Up or Brave.

Right, because nothing says "artistic daring" like a Disney-produced fairy tale movie for kids.

No one said anything about artistic daring. Shareholders griped about Up and its lack of moneymaking potential:

Well, here's a quote that's gotten some play. Co-director of Up, Pete Docter, has stated that he doesn't really care about the money potential of a project. He said: "We make these films for ourselves. We're kind of selfish that way." Oh, gee, thanks a lot, you overpaid Pixar punk. Just out of curiosity, do you care at all about shareholders like myself who have held Disney for a really long time? Do you realize that the dividend received no raise this year?

It's no surprise that after complaints like that, the next two Pixar movies are sequels to movies that have sold billions in merchandise.

Brave won't be revolutionary; I'm sure they'll throw in lots of action and funny male characters with the intention of keeping boys interested. But given the industry-wide belief that little boys won't go see movies about female characters, it's likely that Disney and its shareholders consider it risky.

So, again, if making Cars 2 means Disney will let them make movies like Up or Brave, I'm okay with that. My nephew seems to think Lightning McQueen is the greatest cinematic character since Charles Foster Kane, so he can go see this one and I'll wait 'til next year.

 

[Dream]

Brave won't be revolutionary; I'm sure they'll throw in lots of action and wisecracking male characters with the intention of keeping boys interested. But given the industry-wide belief that little boys won't go see movies about female characters, it's likely that Disney and its shareholders consider it risky. .

I don't think that is true. Tangled was pretty good and did well at the boxoffice, though it was released by Disney. It won't matter if the main character is a female, people will check it out as long as the writing is great.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

It may or may not be true, but it's a widely held belief.

Edit: I just found this, which talks about it a bit. I guess Disney's done with fairy tales and princesses for a while. It makes some goofy statements, though:

The other reason, frighteningly, is that young girls consider themselves too cool to want to be princesses.

I don't think there's anything remotely frightening about young girls not wanting to be princesses. What a strange thing to say.

Media critic Dafna Lemish, who has written about the influence of film and television on children, said in the same article, "By the time they're 5 or 6, [girls are] not interested in being princesses. They're interested in being hot, in being cool. Clearly, they see this is what society values." (That's right: A girl born in 2005 already is worrying about how "hot" she is. Have fun with that, moms and dads of the world.)

That's running a bit with what Lemish said. The author's inferring a sexual connotation, but that may not be the intent. She might be talking about fame, which is at least somewhat less disturbing.

The author also implies that Winnie the Pooh is a boys-only movie, which is bizarre.

 

[Trekker4747]

Observation: compared to adults, children are emotionally and intellectually undeveloped. It amazes me that that statement might be anywhere near controversial, but then millions of people thought George W. Bush would make a fantastic Leader of the Free World, so there you go. Batshit country we gots ourselves here.

Kids and adults are different. Adults might enjoy A Bug's Life or Wall-E, but no small kid will love Hamlet, The King's Speech, or Zodiac, to name but a few. And there's a reason for that. Honest-to-goodness art for adults goes over kids' heads. There's little slapstick relief, reliance on bright colors, fast pacing, or strictly pre-adolescent emotions in any of those movies.

Shit, take Spirited Away. I have my doubts about the maximum sophistication levels of animated films, but there's a deliberately-paced movie that doesn't rely on a propulsive narrative, goofy characters, or juvenile sight gags to interest the kiddies. And yet, to adults, it's not boring.

When Pixar makes anything near as sophisticated a movie as Spirited Away, we can debate further. In the meantime, what do we get? Fucking Cars 2. About an idiot and a car that races by going real fast. Zoom zoom. Vroom. "Aw, shucks! I'm a stoopid American who's confused by geo-pawlitics!"

I rest my case.

Hugs,
Gaith

Incredible.

 

[Thestral]

I actually really liked Cars. I didn't see it in theatres, but when I did see it with a couple friend I was surprised how much I enjoyed it, even if it was pretty straightforward. Growing up in a small town that had pretty much died when other forms of transportation became big (in my town's case the switch from rail to highway, then exacerbated by the switch to interstates) might've had something to do with that though, and the company I saw it with.

That said, I have no particular interest in the sequel.

 

[captcalhoun]

i enjoyed Cars, but i don't know if i'll see Cars 2 in the cinema as i'm more interested in Cap America and Conan. and since Cars 2 is out at the end of July over here, and i need to husband my money - being unemployed...

 

[Christopher]

And second, who says they haven't made movies for adults?

Uh, I do. Obviously.

And you're wrong.

Observation: compared to adults, children are emotionally and intellectually undeveloped. It amazes me that that statement might be anywhere near controversial, but then millions of people thought George W. Bush would make a fantastic Leader of the Free World, so there you go.

Irrelevant. Kids' films are made by adults. And if those adults have any sense, they don't dumb their material down to what they imagine children are capable of. That does children a disservice. Children have a way of rising or sinking to whatever expectations you set for them. It's good to challenge children, to give them stories that make them think and learn new things and help them raise their game.

And human beings aren't uniform. There are 10-year-olds who can easily read on a college level, and there are 40-year-olds who would struggle to comprehend a Goosebumps book. Good storytellers don't aim their work at the lowest common denominator.

Besides, parents should watch movies and TV along with their children, supervise what they're exposed to. Why force those parents to be bored? Why not tell a story that engages and satisfies them as well as their children?

Adults might enjoy A Bug's Life or Wall-E, but no small kid will love Hamlet, The King's Speech, or Zodiac, to name but a few.

Which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be material that's exclusively for adults or exclusively for children. I'm just saying that it's also possible to have material that's accessible to both. I'm saying that the middle ground is an option as well as the extremes. I'm saying that "family film" isn't always just a code word for "children-only film that adults will only see out of obligation," but can truly and literally mean a film that's able to delight and fulfill an entire family, parents and children alike.

And there's a reason for that. Honest-to-goodness art for adults goes over kids' heads.

And honest-to-goodness art for children can easily delight and enrich adults, as long as those adults are not so elitist or insecure that they have to convince themselves it's beneath them. And honest-to-goodness art that contains levels for both children and adults can satisfy them both simultaneously in different ways. You're so caught up on this binary opposition that you're missing the middle ground where most of reality lies.

Shit, take Spirited Away. I have my doubts about the maximum sophistication levels of animated films, but there's a deliberately-paced movie that doesn't rely on a propulsive narrative, goofy characters, or juvenile sight gags to interest the kiddies. And yet, to adults, it's not boring.

And that's precisely an example of what I'm talking about -- a film that's both for children and adults at the same time.

And it's a non sequitur to suggest that just because a film is made by photographing drawings rather than live actors, that somehow magically imposes a limit on how sophisticated its script and ideas can be. You can take the same script and shoot it either way.

When Pixar makes anything near as sophisticated a movie as Spirited Away, we can debate further.

I think that's already happened. I'll agree that the Cars franchise is on the low end of Pixar's sophistication scale, but it's a gross mistake to treat it as typical of their output.

 

[I Grok Spock]

I enjoyed the first Cars as well. I found it quite funny. I also liked the sub-plot of the small town bypassed by the big interstate. And it featured Paul Newman in his last film performance. Granted, there are many Pixar films that I like more, but it's not bad.

I'll see Cars 2 in the theater, as I happen to have free tickets, but I would have gone regardless.

 

[StalwartUK]

Having looked at lots of opinions and reviews I will NOT be seeing this movie on the big screen. I don't want to contribute any of my money towards further development of this franchise potentially at the expense of other potentially better films.

Personally I hope The Incredibles gets a sequel someday. Wanted one ever since I first saw that movie. I wouldn't be opposed to a Monsters Inc. sequel either but what I've heard about the upcoming movie has made be cautious.

 

[Gepard]

The most daming part of the Cars 2 reviews for me is that even the positive ones effectively say the movie is about cool explosions and fast "fun." No mention of any of the heart that was in prior Pixar releases.

 

[Dream]

Cars 2 has fallen to a 33% score on RT...

 

[Gepard]

44% among top critics, which is hardly better.

Ebert gave it three-and-a-half stars, for reasons which seem mostly to do with nostalgia. I can't fault him for the review, which is honest about his motives, but its yet another one which indicates the content that people like is not anything I care about.

 

[tomalak301]

Has anyone here actually seen the movie yet? Despite the reviews, I'm probably going to see it just because it's Pixar. In my opinion, a bad movie from Pixar is a good movie from any other studio, and that's a good reputation to have.

 

[Maestro]

My daughter LOVED the first one, so we went to see the sequel tonight. Other than a cameo by the F/V Northwestern, with her Captain, Sig Hansen, doing the voice, it was unremarkable. But for those few minutes that Captain Sig and his boat were in the movie, I was riveted to the edge of my seat.

 

[Dream]

For those that have seen Cars 3, how is the Toy Story short "Hawaiian Vacation" that was shown before the actual movie? Does it fit with the Toy Story movies?

 

[tomalak301]

For those that have seen Cars 3, how is the Toy Story short "Hawaiian Vacation" that was shown before the actual movie? Does it fit with the Toy Story movies?

Well let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

I did find out about the Toy Story short and looking forward to that as well.

 

[Gaith]

Children have a way of rising or sinking to whatever expectations you set for them. It's good to challenge children, to give them stories that make them think and learn new things and help them raise their game.

Obviously. So, how has any Pixar movie since A Bug's Life challenged kids, or seriously tried to expand their critical faculties?

Besides, parents should watch movies and TV along with their children, supervise what they're exposed to. Why force those parents to be bored? Why not tell a story that engages and satisfies them as well as their children?

That's all well and good. Where it gets out of hand is when Pixar's kids-aimed movies get nominated for Best Picture, and go on best of the year lists. Sure, TS3 is a charming flick for the whole family. But one of any year's best films? Give me an effing break. Random example: any adult that would call Up better than Sin Nombre is, to my mind, a tad bonkers.

When Pixar makes anything near as sophisticated a movie as Spirited Away, we can debate further.

I think that's already happened.

Well, shoot, cowgirl, don't just tease a gent like that, tell us more...

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yeah, I always thought it was creepy that there were no humans in the Cars world. Where do baby cars come from? What do they look like? What will happen when that world runs of gas?

Why do they have doors?

My morbid theory about why there are no people in the Cars world is that an alien race visted Earth and accidently killed off the entire population of humans. In order to make amends, the aliens brought all the cars to life and gave them intelligence.

'Cars' is set in the aftermath of the movie 'Maximum Overdrive':

As the Earth passes through the tail of a comet, previously inanimate objects (ranging from vehicles to lawnmowers to an electric knife) start to show a murderous life of their own. In a pre-title scene, a man (cameoed by Stephen King, the film's writer and director) tries to withdraw money from an ATM, but it instead calls him an "asshole".

Marauding big rig trucks trap a small group of people in a roadside truck stop called "The Dixie Boy" just outside Wilmington, North Carolina. When the trucks begin demanding more than blood (they order the humans to pump diesel), the Dixie Boy survivors realize they will become enslaved by their own machines, and they must escape to Haven Island just off the coast of North Carolina, on which no vehicles or machines were permitted.

Bill Robinson (Emilio Estevez) rallies the survivors; they use a cache of guns found hidden under the diner. The trucks fight back themselves, at one point human fatalities result from an M274 "Mule" firing its mounted M60 machine gun into the building.

Eventually the survivors escape to the docks where the featured Green Goblin semi kills one more trucker. The semi is destroyed and the humans sail off to safety.

At film's end, a perfunctory title card differs from the explanation of why the machines came to life then the opening title card, strongly implying extraterrestrials were behind the homicidal machines as part of a preliminary invasion.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYwOfShX41I[/yt]

Sleep tight, kids.