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

[davejames]

44% on Rottentomatoes?!? Come on, I can see it's no masterpiece, but there's no way it's THAT bad. I can't help but think critics are judging it a lot more harshly simply because it's Pixar.

My least favorite Pixar films (and I'm a huge fan, about the only modern Disney stuff I don't detest) is Ratatoullie. I could not get past the fact that the hero was a cooking rat: that made me want to hurl throughout the film whenever I thought about it too much.

Actually Ratatoullie is probably the one that surprised me the most. I put off watching it for the longest time because it looked way too cute and sentimental, and a cooking rat just didn't sound interesting.

But the story was so well told (and so damn charming) that I couldn't help but love it by the end.

 

[bigdaddy]

While many people talk about Cars as being their least favorite Pixar movie, the fact remains it was beyond the most profitable of ALL the Pixars movies. Hell it's merchandising alone made more then all other Pixar movies, combined.

I agree.

But Pixar supposedly stood for more than just profit.

Or maybe I'm wrong

You are.

Yeah Pixar makes movies to make money. Disney wants a lot of money from it.

 

[Captain Craig]

CARS and Ratatoille are the only two Pixar films I've not seen.
I have no interest in this then obviously.

I watched Kung Fu Panda for the first time last month to see if it was worth a sequel and it was just *meh*. I know it made lots of money and hence they made a sequel but I think this movie suffered from the effect of having settled in people didn't want more Panda and it's been showing at the box office. It's going to make less than Thor at this point it seems and no one predicted that.

Will CARS suffer a similar type of response? We'll know soon enough.

 

[Sheep]

I liked the original Cars. It wasn't the best Pixar movie but it was still better than 95% of the shit that comes out of other animation studios.

That said, I think Toy Story 3 is the worst of the Pixar movies. Maybe it's because I'm comparing it to the first two which were awesome movies, but that one just lacked that extra spark.

 

[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.

I'm really looking forward to the latter, by the way.

 

[bigdaddy]

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.

I'm really looking forward to the latter, by the way.

Me too. Every once and awhile they just need to make a movie to make toys. Plus the spy thing seems fun.

The one I really don't understand why they are making is the Monsters Inc. prequel, I just don't get the point of that.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I liked Monsters, Inc well enough that I don't mind that, as long as they've cooked up a good story for it.

Here's more about Brave, by the way.

 

[tomalak301]

I liked Monsters, Inc well enough that I don't mind that, as long as they've cooked up a good story for it.

Here's more about Brave, by the way.

Good to know they're coming out with an original movie next year and not having two years of sequel/prequel.

I am surprised by the reviews of Cars 2. I mean reading them it's almost as if critics hated cars so much that Cars 2 was "Dead on Arrival". This is still the same company that gave us movies like Wall-E, Up, the Toy Story Franchise that I wish it was given more benefit of the doubt.

 

[Christopher]

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.

I once read a Roger Zelazny story in which intelligent robot cars had gone wild, in the literal sense -- they roved the plains in vast herds like the buffalo. Maybe the intelligent cars rose up and killed off their human masters, then did their best to replicate a human way of living in an attempt to atone for their genocide.

Personally, I've never really understood why Cars became such a hot commodity for Pixar/Disney and something like Toy Story really didn't.

Perhaps because the Toy Story toys lacked a unifying theme to market them under, and because so many of them were already owned by other companies (Mr. Potato Head, Barbie, etc.).

That said, I think Toy Story 3 is the worst of the Pixar movies. Maybe it's because I'm comparing it to the first two which were awesome movies, but that one just lacked that extra spark.

Hmm. It didn't have quite the freshness of the original, of course, but I found it a very powerful, rich, and moving film.

 

[Gaith]

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.

Of course Pixar is in it for the money. Why hasn't it made a single movie for adults (and don't you dare cite that movie with the goofy kid and his talking dog here, don't you dare)? It's the money, Lebowski, the money! Kid-aimed CG movies, where you can get big actors to toss off voice perfs in their spare time while you Happy Mean toy the bejeezus to the littluns, is the most profitable genre around. Pixar's primary distinguishing feature, animation innovation aside, is that they craft their scripts with as much care as they do their visuals. Which is commendable, but hardly the makings of great art in of itself.

For shizzle.

 

[Amaris]

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.

Of course Pixar is in it for the money. Why hasn't it made a single movie for adults (and don't you dare cite that movie with the goofy kid and his talking dog here, don't you dare)? It's the money, Lebowski, the money! Kid-aimed CG movies, where you can get big actors to toss off voice perfs in their spare time while you Happy Mean toy the bejeezus to the littluns, is the most profitable genre around. Pixar's primary distinguishing feature, animation innovation aside, is that they craft their scripts with as much care as they do their visuals. Which is commendable, but hardly the makings of great art in of itself.

For shizzle.

Great art is in how it inspires others. Pixar makes me feel like a child again. Their medium of choice, motion pictures, enables me to see life through the eyes of an innocent that isn't yet cynical and jaded of the world. That takes great narrative skill, and Pixar has accomplished this on multiple occasions.

 

[Gaith]

Great art is in how it inspires others. Pixar makes me feel like a child again. Their medium of choice, motion pictures, enables me to see life through the eyes of an innocent that isn't yet cynical and jaded of the world. That takes great narrative skill, and Pixar has accomplished this on multiple occasions.

I think that great art inspires us to evolve. Pixar inspires us, albeit with great skill, to regress - with the possible exception of A Bug's Life, which does attempt to look forward rather than back.

 

[Amaris]

Great art is in how it inspires others. Pixar makes me feel like a child again. Their medium of choice, motion pictures, enables me to see life through the eyes of an innocent that isn't yet cynical and jaded of the world. That takes great narrative skill, and Pixar has accomplished this on multiple occasions.

I think that great art inspires us to evolve. Pixar inspires us, albeit with great skill, to regress - with the possible exception of A Bug's Life, which does attempt to look forward rather than back.

It's only regression if you wish to replace your future with the past. You learn from the past. So you take that innocence and imagination and you bring it back with you into the present.

 

[Jetfire]

Great art is in how it inspires others. Pixar makes me feel like a child again. Their medium of choice, motion pictures, enables me to see life through the eyes of an innocent that isn't yet cynical and jaded of the world. That takes great narrative skill, and Pixar has accomplished this on multiple occasions.

It's only regression if you wish to replace your future with the past. You learn from the past. So you take that innocence and imagination and you bring it back with you into the present.

This.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

I think that great art inspires us to evolve. Pixar inspires us, albeit with great skill, to regress - with the possible exception of A Bug's Life, which does attempt to look forward rather than back.

Did you even see Up? Or Finding Nemo? Or Toy Story 2 and 3?

 

[Christopher]

Of course Pixar is in it for the money. Why hasn't it made a single movie for adults...?

First of all, what have those sentences got to do with each other? Movies for adults are made with profit in mind too. It's a given that any business is seeking to make money, but that's in no way incompatible with seeking to create art. Because you can't create art if you don't have the money to stay in business.

And second, who says they haven't made movies for adults? Who says a movie can't be made for kids and adults at the same time? Most of Pixar's movies are smarter, richer, more complex, and more challenging than the majority of "adults-only" movies you get in any given year.

I don't see any way in which, say, The Incredibles could be considered exclusively a kids' movie. It has themes of aging and marital strife, it has quite a lot of death and violence, it has a degree of implicit sexuality, and it even goes out of its way to point out that the kids on the adventure are in mortal danger and are in over their heads. Not to mention that it's a pseudo-period piece with a '60s flavor and a heavy James Bond influence, which is certainly not something you'd expect in a story aimed at young children.

Nor is WALL-E specifically a kids' movie. There aren't any children in it, although a lot of the human and robotic characters are childlike. The characters in Ratatouille are all adults, including the rats, and they're pursuing adult concerns like careers and artistic callings. Even in the Toy Story films, the toy characters are portrayed as adults, and the latter two films deal with themes of maturity, aging, and life transitions.

Pixar doesn't make kids' movies. It makes family films, and families include adults.

 

[Amaris]

Great art is in how it inspires others. Pixar makes me feel like a child again. Their medium of choice, motion pictures, enables me to see life through the eyes of an innocent that isn't yet cynical and jaded of the world. That takes great narrative skill, and Pixar has accomplished this on multiple occasions.

It's only regression if you wish to replace your future with the past. You learn from the past. So you take that innocence and imagination and you bring it back with you into the present.

This.

Of course Pixar is in it for the money. Why hasn't it made a single movie for adults...?

First of all, what have those sentences got to do with each other? Movies for adults are made with profit in mind too. It's a given that any business is seeking to make money, but that's in no way incompatible with seeking to create art. Because you can't create art if you don't have the money to stay in business.

And second, who says they haven't made movies for adults? Who says a movie can't be made for kids and adults at the same time? Most of Pixar's movies are smarter, richer, more complex, and more challenging than the majority of "adults-only" movies you get in any given year.

I don't see any way in which, say, The Incredibles could be considered exclusively a kids' movie. It has themes of aging and marital strife, it has quite a lot of death and violence, it has a degree of implicit sexuality, and it even goes out of its way to point out that the kids on the adventure are in mortal danger and are in over their heads. Not to mention that it's a pseudo-period piece with a '60s flavor and a heavy James Bond influence, which is certainly not something you'd expect in a story aimed at young children.

Nor is WALL-E specifically a kids' movie. There aren't any children in it, although a lot of the human and robotic characters are childlike. The characters in Ratatouille are all adults, including the rats, and they're pursuing adult concerns like careers and artistic callings. Even in the Toy Story films, the toy characters are portrayed as adults, and the latter two films deal with themes of maturity, aging, and life transitions.

Pixar doesn't make kids' movies. It makes family films, and families include adults.

Bingo! For some reason, people have it in their heads that family movies have to be dumbed down so the kids will stay in their chairs, while the adults sit zombified. Pixar doesn't work that way. All of their movies work for adults on some level, at least they do for me.

Just my opinion, but when I watch a Pixar movie I see two themes: A theme for the children so they can enjoy the movie, and a theme for the adults, so they can feel like they're young again, by touching on bittersweet moments we all felt when we were much more innocent and with more open hearts and minds. I consider that a wonderful value for my ticket price.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

44% on Rottentomatoes?!? Come on, I can see it's no masterpiece, but there's no way it's THAT bad. I can't help but think critics are judging it a lot more harshly simply because it's Pixar.

Oh come on, Rottentomatoes is never wrong.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I found this while browsing around and found it rather amusing:

http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/famous-movie-cars-as-pixar-characters/

Would have to say Herbie fits it best

 

[Gaith]

@ 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