Disney Pixar's Cars

Post by **Dacey** » March 16th, 2006, 5:29 pm

I have no problem with talking cars.

Funny thing is, I can't get over the fact that it seems like the guys at Pixar were inspired by "Putt-Putt" computer games.

Post by **Meg** » March 16th, 2006, 5:35 pm

I know none of us don't...we're used to stuff like this.

Post by **Dacey** » March 16th, 2006, 5:38 pm

Aye, that we are.

Post by **Macaluso** » March 16th, 2006, 5:41 pm

Meg wrote:Cars worries me because so many people seem intent on hating it for the sole reason that it stars talking cars. I only know a few people who want to see it - the ones who don't are like, "Talking cars? No thanks." Uhm, let's look back a bit...

Pixar made talking toys work.

They made talking bugs work.

They made talking fish work.

The made talking superheroes work.

I'm pretty sure they can make talking Cars work. (Not directing this on anybody here, btw, just at people I know)

Wha? Most of the complaints I've heard were simply that they didn't think the movie was going to be good. However, recently, as soon as this new trailer hit the internet, all the people who were worried about it now think the movie is going to rock.

Post by **Meg** » March 16th, 2006, 5:43 pm

Everyone I know has only seen one or two trailers.

Well, come this June, they won't know what they'll be missing.

Post by **chernabog** » March 17th, 2006, 3:50 pm

Well so far everyone who's seen it thinks it's great, including people who didn't like the look of it beforehand. I think it's gonna take a lot of people by surprise and be a bigger hit than most people anticipate. Course I tend do disagree with the majority 99% of the time anyway. I was really disappointed by The Incredibles and A Bug's Life is my favourite Pixar film.... Go figure.

Post by **Meg** » March 17th, 2006, 3:52 pm

To each their own, I guess.

(I think The Incredibles owns, but that's off-topic.)

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 17th, 2006, 5:16 pm

Feel kinda sheepish here, as I am the only person now not terribly excited about this film....

I'm sure it'll be good, and I might definetely see it twice. But talking cars still doesn't thrill me...

It still seems very much like other Pixar films, funny and fast and awesome to look at.

But nothing really "jumps out" at me.

If this film is monster hit, will they ever get the drive to someday re-work their never-fail formula?

Also in the JHM article it is mentioned that their are quite a bit of references and in-jokes to Pixar, such as an appearance of Red from Red's dream. Wait a minute, in-jokes? I thought all Pixar films were supposed to be magical and timeless and could be viewed in any time and place, especially places where kids own rock'em sock'em robots and have Barbie dream houses. What gives?

I thought it was only studios like DW that had self-congratulatory insights about how well their toys sold and the year they became a big-time studio....oh well.

(Hope my sardonic rant does not offend...I think Pixar is a great place and I certainly don't think DW is perfect...there is a lot that could be fixed there as well. I'm just kinda trying to even the scorecard because I don't think that ANY studio is infallible.)

Post by **Dacey** » March 17th, 2006, 5:19 pm

Hey, there's nothing wrong with a few in-jokes.

Besides, ALL of the Pixar films have them.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 17th, 2006, 5:21 pm

Hey, there's nothing wrong with a few in-jokes.

I certainly don't think there is either. Like I've said before, Pixar is very cool. I'm just trying to point out that they some of the same things other studios do, and that doesn't make them souless corporate hacks, nor does it make the other studios this.

(I think The Incredibles owns, but that's off-topic.)

I do too.

Post by **Meg** » March 17th, 2006, 5:23 pm

I like in-jokes. It's the pop-culture references I have a problem with.

Post by **Dacey** » March 17th, 2006, 5:26 pm

What, even "Farbucks"?

Post by **Meg** » March 17th, 2006, 5:27 pm

Those sort of jokes in Shrek 2 were funny, I admit, but for me really took away the fairy tale feeling. The whole film felt like it took place in an out-door mall rather than a magical kingdom.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 17th, 2006, 5:29 pm

I like in-jokes. It's the pop-culture references I have a problem with.

Yeah...but, not trying to be argumentative or anything, but aren't they the same thing?

No one but Pixar employees and us hard-core fans are going to get the in-jokes. At least pop culture references are aimed at EVRERYONE, the general audience. So it's O.K. to aim stuff at animation/computer nerds
(only kidding of course!!) but not O.K. to aim stuff at the moviegoing audience....? Something seems amiss here.

The whole point of Shrek is that it is a modern twist on a fairy tale world. For those who consider the fairy tale genre to be canon, this might be kind of jarring, so it's probably not their kind of film.

There weren't a whole lotta pop-culture references in Madagascar from what I remember (for example: the Penguins never broke out in a disco rendition of "Staying Alive") Over the Hedge doesn't look like it has much of that either...and if it does, the whole point of the film is that it's a satire of modern suburban life. Satire is a perfectly acceptable genre and doesn't have to be limited only to live-action.

Post by **Dacey** » March 17th, 2006, 5:32 pm

I don't mind pop culture jokes (though they were *kinda* overdone in "Shark Tale").

But the general audience is going to notice stuff like a Jessie doll, ShyVi.