Cars 2

[Ben]

Didn't much care for the first one, hated how the franchise became merchandise driven (sorry, no pun intended) and was just dismayed when a sequel was announced, since it was only being done to make money, keep Pixar's newly Disney owned stock up (hence the rash of sequels from them) and to ram more Cars toys down our throats as if to justify the original film ("see, it was popular...look at the amount of toys we sold...everyone loved the first one!").

THEN I heard about the "international race" concept, and I have to say I've been intrigued (and, okay, just a little bit excited by it) ever since. I didn't think the first film did anywhere near what it could have done with the concept, being too pleased with itself to just be a standard character arc story, but this looks like BIG fun.

My only worry is that they've gone in the other direction and are doing all the obvious things in terms of chase/spy movies, with all the gadgets and gizmos. Though it's funny, I hope Cars 2 will be an epic adventure that will have more scope than what's just in the trailer, which looks like an extended Tokyo Mater feature so far.

[Tweaked]

I found 2 trailers for the Cars 2 movie. Look’s pretty impressive.

http://www.vidznet.com/new-trailers-for-cars-2/5180/

The movie will be releasing in 3D, June 24th 2010...

[DisneyPictures]

Hi everyone!

I actually work for Disney thought you might like to check out these new images of Finn McMissile, Professor Z, and some of the other characters Mater and McQueen will be meeting on their international adventure. Let me know what you think!

[James]

Got to say I feel just the opposite of Ben on just about everything he said up there!

I thought it was very cool and almost risky how "non-actiony" the first film was. How many animated films slow down and allow characters to take their time or even just talk as much as Cars did? It was bookended with some action, but the whole point of the film was enjoying the journey, and stopping to smell the roses. The pacing was something we've never seen before in animation and really reinforced the whole message. And I think that is why the people that don't like it didn't like it. Too slow, boring. Which of course missed the point.

Merchandising is a fact of life. And I don't see how if you disliked the movie you could care that it has became merchandise driven. But Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh are all merchandise driven as well. Their new movies and shows aren't mainly done for the art's sake - they'e done to sell the toys! And Cars turned out to be (and note it wasn't created to be) a perfect storm of story and product. It lends itself so well to the idea of a whole universe outside the film, and that is the toy jackpot.

The new film is what I'm scared of. It looks like they took the best of the first film, threw it all out but the characters, then took the complaints about the first film and are trying to sell to them.

Now before the attack begins, I'm not saying Cars is the best Pixar film. But because it could be seen as the weakest, I think people that are waiting to pounce on Pixar's failings have magnified its problems into something bigger.

[Randall]

When I first saw Cars, I was bored with the Nascar stuff that started the film. Just not my thing. And I figured I'd seen this story too many times already--- the young hotshot who gets his comeuppance, etc. etc.

But when Lightning took his pleasure drive with the girl car (i.e. the movie slowed right down), I saw the REAL themes the movie was going for, and fell in love with it. Of course, the opposite was true for my daughter. She liked it a bit at first, but by the end was thoroughly bored. On the other hand, my little guy now loves it, because, well, he's a boy and he loves race cars.

[Ben]

And Cars turned out to be (and note it wasn't created to be) a perfect storm of story and product.

Every film has the toy potential looked at very early on, and Lasseter was on record saying how cool it would be to have the characters as toys, so it was clear that Cars was designed with the toys - okay, if not at the forefront - but in mind.

I got that it was about smelling the roses and slowing down, but my beef with it was that it was 20 minutes overlong and repeated sequences rather than moving forward. And I'm all for characters stopping and talking - almost nothing happens in The Illusionist and yet it's fantastic - but they picked the wrong figures to do it with: cars can't emote with exhaust pipes and fenders, and that took away from what they were trying out...Up a couple of years later got it so much more spot on.

Maybe I didn't explain, but it was disappointing (for a Pixar film) when the toys became the bigger success and reason for continuing with new shorts, more toys and, eventually the announcement of a second film. Not that I "disliked" the first one, but I found it a shame that it had basically been reduced to that. And now Cars 2 is being made as a franchise product and not because they have a great story, or for the art.

I actually agree that they seem to have thrown out what made Cars "Cars", and are certainly going in a much more commercial direction, more akin to the CarsToons shorts like Tokyo Mater, which all pretty much dispersed with any connection to the original movie. But, like you said, merchandising is a fact of life, and now Pixar are under Disney's wing and have two big risky projects coming up (John Carter and, if it gets made after Mission: Impossible is a hit, 1906) they need that "sure thing" bumper to fall back on. So Cars 2 may well, and probably will, be a more mainstream, formulaic film.

I think it will appeal to wider audiences than who loved the first one, as it certainly looks more "fun" and less preachy, but then that's its job: no good making a movie that doesn't bring anything new or just repeats itself. But then I also hope it will still appeal to those that got what they got out of the first one, without taking that soul away in the process to more jokes and action.

Maybe that's the influence Lasseter has brought to it since returning to the director's chair?

[James]

And Cars turned out to be (and note it wasn't created to be) a perfect storm of story and product.

Every film has the toy potential looked at very early on, and Lasseter was on record saying how cool it would be to have the characters as toys, so it was clear that Cars was designed with the toys - okay, if not at the forefront - but in mind.

I didn't mean to imply there was no thought of merchandising -- just that no one could have predicted how perfect it would end up being from a merchandising stand point.

But when Lightning took his pleasure drive with the girl car (i.e. the movie slowed right down), I saw the REAL themes the movie was going for, and fell in love with it.

I admit it is not my absolute favorite Pixar film. But I do absolutely love the message they were going for and how they went about telling it. Like I said, I think that was very risky of them in this day and age of the wacky non stop DreamWorks films that print their own money.

[Ben]

You know, it's funny, but people seem to think that I don't "like" Cars. I saw A Bug's Life again the other day and, much as I do still enjoy that, the combination of a pretty mundane story and some of the less sparky animation means that I'd probably place Cars above it, if asked. It has better characters, but half way through the film the pace stops and the story has trouble resolving itself without going to a formulaic approach.

I think, originally, Bug's had more momentum behind it because of Toy Story and this was the "next thing" from Pixar, while Cars has more nuance, even if it being less than better that Finding Nemo meant people were ready to pick it apart. I do have length problems with Cars, and for me it's also a little schizoid because you have this nice warm inner Pixar core that's dressed in a pop-culture DreamWorks coating, but it has more going on in it than Bug's (which seems to be the other "non-great" Pixar movie) for sure, for me at least.

[EricJ]

The focus on "Look at the marketing!" was basically studio and industry spin to convince the knee-jerk press that hey, some people actually DID like the movie--
At the time, there was still the studios' fear and awe of trying to explain why so many people went to see Nemo; the studio believed the next one would do even better, and the press was almost drooling to prove that it had all been a fluke, and that pride was immediately going to result in a fall of catastrophic proportions on the next movie, which would make an even better story.
It didn't happen, of course, and the press seemed rather frustrated that it didn't: Incredibles didn't singlehandedly outdo Nemo, of course (coming out in winter with other good films in theaters), and the press leaped on reasons why it had "flopped"--Too dark? Kids were scared? Audiences didn't like action?
And when Disney made its colossal foot-in-mouth to predict that Cars1 would outdo Nemo on its first week, the press (ahemjimhill) thought they had all the story they needed: Pixar's first flop!--That's it, guys, law of averages, knew it would happen, roll up the studio and start the barbecue! Even when Cars didn't turn out to be a flop, the press seemed frustrated that they couldn't get to write the story they'd been preparing. ("Jack Black topples Pixar on second week!...Oh, wait, no he didn't--Well, he could have, if last week's stupid movie hadn't been so popular!")

Iger took it all a little personally, and like Princess/Frog, started all the spin about how well the marketing sales proved box office be darned, real audiences LIKED it! The fact that Cars got a sequel was the same petulance toward the press, but the idea never went beyond "World Rally"--Just how exactly the darn spy plot got in there too, that, I'm assuming, is the mystery of the Pixar Story Room, and just how exactly they do it hasn't let us down yet.
Seems like even when we know the plot, every Pixar teaser always looks like it's going to be a "disaster"...

[estefan]

My main reason for not caring for Cars actually didn't have to do with the story or the themes, which I very much enjoyed, but rather because it was difficult to buy into this world only populated by vehicles. There were just so many un-answered questions. How do they draw blue-prints to make the buildings? How do they give birth to little baby cars? Just to name a few.

That said, I have the feeling this spy plot may not be a big part of Cars 2 and being trailers, they are marketing the slightly more enticing bits.

[Bill1978]

Why do these cars even needs doors? Do other cars sit in them?

[droosan]

So that Doc Hudson can access the internal organs ..

(WARNING: slightly disturbing image inside)

[James]

...Seems like even when we know the plot, every Pixar teaser always looks like it's going to be a "disaster"...

This is very true.

[Bill1978]

I'm not looking forward to this movie at all. Firstly I'm not a big enthusiast of any car related movie and secondly that trailer just smacks of sequelitis. My gut feeling is that this will be Pixar's first true misstep in the world of movie making. The first time that they have really become cocky about their product.

While I'll admit I'm not a major fan of the first Cars, there are elements that I really like. I tend to tune out the beginning and really only care for the movie once Lightning gets lost. The real part I really enjoy is the scene that accompanies the Our Town song. It gets me everytime and makes me realise that perhaps I really should stop and enjoy little towns on my journeys and then I feel remorse for the towns that have become ghost towns because of our need to go from A to B the fastest. And as cliched as it is, I do enjoy the actual finish to the big race at the end even if I don't care about the race at the start.

Cars though is one of Pixar's movies that I don't choose to watch. I tend to watch it with my nephew and maybe that's why I'm already dreading a sequel to it.

[Ben]

If the cars of Cars have internal organs including a digestion system and muscles, why do they need engines?

As per my original review back in 2007, one of my problems was that the Cars world didn't make sense: exactly why do they have doors, how do they build the buildings, why do they build the buildings... It seemed to me that they must be a part of a bigger "robotic" world that would have to assist them in making things like wire fencing, flatscreen TVs, etc.

But then you can go nuts thinking about that, so the best thing to do with Cars is try and forget it. But then that's lazy construction by Pixar, and not the standard we expect from them. The explanation, shallow as it is, is just "this is a movie about cars. It's like our world but it's cars instead of people". That's it. No "humans were wiped out and solar powered cars were all that remained", or anything to explain why they exist.

Yes, you could argue that Shark Tale pulled the same trick, but whatever the merits (or not) of that film, it was grounded in an old animation staple that provided context. Of course cars have been featured in animation before, but there was a reason for them to be there. But the Cars set up is so flippant that I think bringing more fun to the already absurd scenario can't help but be a good thing, really.

Interesting what you say, Bill, about it being "cocky". I actually worry that the film won't work because it's being made for the wrong reasons. Cars is a story that's been told: this is sequel filmmaking 101, and being done for the bottom line. Perhaps that's why they're being a bit "brash" about it? Since they know we know that it's not a "real" original film unlike, say, Monsters Inc. 2, which had many ways to go after that last shot of the first film and I think will turn out to be a worthy sequel because it's not particularly toy-driven (franchise and money driven, yes probably) and the story will reflect that.

Cars 2, on the other hand, is going international if for no other reason than for Disney to be able to sell a Pokemon number of various toys based on the hundreds of new models that will show up in the movie.