CARS spinoff "PLANES" in theaters on 8/9/2013
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I just saw a bunch of toys from this movie being sold at the store tonight. Wow, talk about fast!
Why do you think they made this movie? Just to sell toys.
Planes Trailer 3
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_yOrOG7tXM[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_yOrOG7tXM
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_yOrOG7tXM[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_yOrOG7tXM
Both my boys are excited about seeing it. Cars 2 was my older sons first movie in a movie theater. Now my younger sons first theater go will be with Planes. I agree this looks to be awesome and more inline with the original Cars movie.
I've been perusing the Internet to see how Planes is being received in general, and I can't help but feel like people have completely missed the point. Yes, the film is formulaic and is basically "Cars with wings", but that's not really a valid criticism, IMO (I'll get to why in a second).
All 3 of my local radio hosts who reviewed the film were quick to point out, the film has a charm of its own even though it IS admittedly very formulaic, yet all 3 of them gave the film 3 stars out of 4.
What I think they saw that many others seem to have not, BTW, is that there are actually very few movies these days that aren't formulaic in many regards, and it is for that reason that I don't really think calling the film 'unoriginal and formulaic' is actually a valid criticism against it.
I realize that opinions are going to vary wildly, but with most of the reviews I've seen complaining about it being unoriginal (uninspired) and formulaic, I have to question why that's such a bad thing for this film in particular when the same criticism could to some degree be leveled against nearly every other movie ever released.
I haven't yet seen the film myself (the plans I had to go see it this afternoon with my girlfriend fell through after she started feeling under-the-weather last night) and I don't generally pay much attention to mainstream critical reviews, but decided to just see what the 'general consensus' was, and really don't think it's all that fair to criticize the movie for being unoriginal and formulaic when, as I noted above, you'd be hard-pressed to find something these days that ISN'T.
All 3 of my local radio hosts who reviewed the film were quick to point out, the film has a charm of its own even though it IS admittedly very formulaic, yet all 3 of them gave the film 3 stars out of 4.
What I think they saw that many others seem to have not, BTW, is that there are actually very few movies these days that aren't formulaic in many regards, and it is for that reason that I don't really think calling the film 'unoriginal and formulaic' is actually a valid criticism against it.
I realize that opinions are going to vary wildly, but with most of the reviews I've seen complaining about it being unoriginal (uninspired) and formulaic, I have to question why that's such a bad thing for this film in particular when the same criticism could to some degree be leveled against nearly every other movie ever released.
I haven't yet seen the film myself (the plans I had to go see it this afternoon with my girlfriend fell through after she started feeling under-the-weather last night) and I don't generally pay much attention to mainstream critical reviews, but decided to just see what the 'general consensus' was, and really don't think it's all that fair to criticize the movie for being unoriginal and formulaic when, as I noted above, you'd be hard-pressed to find something these days that ISN'T.
Last edited:
You gotta read between the lines. Movie critics hate to call a movie "boring", because their job is to write an interesting review, and it's very difficult to make the opinion that something is boring interesting. Also, critics are loathe to admit to being bored, because they think they're too smart and cultured to suffer that state.
So you can bet that, if the main theme of a review is that the given movie was "uninspired" and "formulaic", the critic was bored out of his/her damn mind.
... Which was almost certainly the case here.
I liked it. My kids loved it. It was derivative of Cars (no shit) but I liked Cars a lot.
I was thinking that when I left, but you probably won't get "Boats", unless we're talking speedboats. Anything else would only travel about as fast as a car on a highway.
There was an article on CNN awhile back about how the technical consultant had to fix a bunch of issues with the movie as originally animated. Things like a crop duster trying to race a jet (changed to a turboprop for vague believability), and propellers rotating backwards.
I don't think anyone should expect anything from this movie. I guess the question is whether it's better or worse than Cars 2.
And 'Trains' would seem to be rather limited, since they can only go where their tracks do.
Although I believe sentient trains and boats DO exist in this universe...
There is an aircraft carrier in the film, and there are also train tracks in another scene.
There was a train in the first Cars movie, after Lightning McQueen rolls out of Mac and is chasing after him. He has to rush past the train, trying to catch up to Mac but it turns out to be a Peterbilt.
The carrier scenes were my favorite parts of the movie...
I just saw the film - I liked it quite a bit!
(Favorite scene in the whole film: When Dusty is flying into JFK Airport, the controllers talking to him over the radio speak in Kennedy accents.
)
Only thing, though:
The carrier USS Flysenhower is sentient...so why does it have a crew?
(Favorite scene in the whole film: When Dusty is flying into JFK Airport, the controllers talking to him over the radio speak in Kennedy accents.
)Only thing, though:
The carrier USS Flysenhower is sentient...so why does it have a crew?