Cars 2

[Dacey]

This is just silly:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/5-Ways-P ... 25386.html

[EricJ]

Somebody came bringing the rope....

(Seriously, where DOES it come from?
I know the effigy-bonfires for "Treasure Planet" and "Home on the Range" came from the growing frustration to kick Eisner out and an overabundance of fanboy loyalty to L&S, but didn't know anyone had anything against Lasseter...)

[Darkblade]

I have a serious doubt that this will be in the awards(which it isn't likely). If it is, Disney obviously bribed them.

[EricJ]

Y'know, all the obsession with "Pixar won't get an Oscar this year!" might be the key Freudian breakthrough to solving the mystery of the whole Waiting-to-Fail theory:

Does it go beyond mere
A) Weariness with seeing Pixar take the suspense out of Best Animated every year (the way part of the backlash against 90's Disney Musicals first came out of watching Alan Mencken take home Best Original Score every year for five years running),
and all the way into
B) "Survivalist cynicism", ie., "Well, the law of averages says it's going to happen sometime, so we'd just better pack in, stock up on bottled water, and accept the fact that one of their movies is going to betray our childlike innocence and get bad reviews--Uh, yeah, maybe it's this one: Oh, look, Incredibles didn't make as much as Nemo, that proves it!"?

Either way, nice opportunity to put ourselves on the couch this week, and start looking at some inkblots that look like horsies and bunches of carrots.
Me, I'm in favor of the old-school "Slap in the head" therapy when it comes to treating mass neuroses, but then, I've often been known to go back to basics.

[estefan]

That last paragraph made absolutely no sense to me.

I'm a huge Pixar fanboy and the last thing I wanted was to see them make a critically-derided feature. However, despite liking Cars 2, I understand why the critics don't like it, since it lacks Pixar's trademark emotion and strong character development.

And, frankly, if I was an Academy member, I probably wouldn't nominate Cars 2 myself as Rio, Rango and Kung Fu Panda 2 are superior animated films, in my opinion. And we're only halfway through the year with plenty more to come. Needless to say, this is the first year in which not a single Pixar work is in my top three animated films of the year.

And, keep in mind, I was somebody who was in complete support of Toy Story 3 winning best picture. So, trust me, I don't want to see Pixar with a failure on their hands. But, despite me liking Cars 2, it is indeed their weakest effort yet.

[EricJ]

And, keep in mind, I was somebody who was in complete support of Toy Story 3 winning best picture. So, trust me, I don't want to see Pixar with a failure on their hands. But, despite me liking Cars 2, it is indeed their weakest effort yet.

Well, I thought Nemo was their weakest effort yet, but that was just me.
(And I was all for TS3 for Best Picture, but only so much as it would finally kill off all that ten-nomination, "Let's modernize the rules!" hogwash.)

Thing is, is it really a backhanded compliment that we're psychologically obligating Pixar to top themselves and set new bars every year?
"They can't do something as trivial as Cars 2, it's not going to be as OSCAR-WORTHY as TS3!!"
Yes, they can--Their only obligation as a movie studio is to do a movie that doesn't stink.
(Something Dreamworks has particular difficulty doing, never mind whether we were realistically expecting them to "top" themselves after Dragon.)

I'm glad folks here think Pixar should Excelsior themselves with every single release, but isn't most of the backlash really more about ourselves than the studio?

[LotsoA113]

Saw it yesterday and...I enjoyed it a ton! What's funny though is agree on two points with the critics: it is PIXAR's weakest and Mater...well Mater has undergone some changes.

I was very uneasy about Cars when it was announced, but belive it or not I was happy to hear that Mater would be leading this one. The big problem I had with Cars deux was that there was no possible story. Lighnting had undergone his character arc. But fear not! For Mater would be given the limelight and thus, possiblities of some expansion was assured. another expanision was in terms of setting. After Cars, PIXAR has gone to Paris and Venezuela and left pllanet Earth altogether. Obviously, a sleepy empty dessert town seemed like n ochallenge. Creating 4 different countires? Ah, there's the thrill of challenges that PIXAR has continiously upheld. These new ideals lend the story much help...and yet....

As I said earlier this is PIXAR weakest yet. Not by a long shot (and frankly, this movie is a B+, so if this is their worst possible product they can put out, then PIXAR might have even gained MORE respect from me) but it still feels like a step down from the heights of TS3, Up, WALL-E and Ratatouille. This isn't as good as Cars, mainly because the new charcaters aren't as fun, easily relatable or interesting as the Radiator Springs gang. Finn McMissle and Holly Shiftwheel are fun, as are Proffesor Z and his "lemons". Yet Miles Axelrod was never given much beyond stereotypical "CEO guy" and Fransecso was nothing more than Chick Hicks with an italian accent. To boot, Mater's gone from a loveable puppy-dog like fellow from the first one to an ADHD child, though his old self shines through in the beggining and returns during the start of the climax.

Still, the settings are dazzling (makes me want to travel more!) and there are still tons of gags (look for Ratatouille and Incredibles references) that'll get bellylaughs. The soundtrack was also a delight, as a fan of Brad Paisley (George Straits heir to the throne as king of icountry music) I enjoyed hearing 2 more songs by him and You Might Think by Wheezer was another joy. Add in a hillarious Toy Story Toon, a nostalgia filled 3D Lion King preview (the 3D, BTW, looks fantastic and blew me away. Will be seeing defeintly come September), perfect vocal performances (love seeing Bruce Campbell in anything) and you have a not perfect, but still a surefire winner from PIXAR.

[Whippet Angel]

I loved it! But my expectations for it weren't terribly high to begin with, so that's probably why.

While it didn't have the emotional depth of the more recent Pixar films, it was entertaining for what it was. I thought the action sequences were well done (I saw it in 2D, which was good enough for me), and I liked how they tried to capture the grittiness of an actual spy film.

The soundtrack was good as well. I loved Giacchino's score, plus the "You Might Think" cover. Weezer's been my favorite band for years, and it was a delight to hear them in a Pixar film.

[Ben]

Cars 2 is expected to open around $70m, so it's not Pixar's weakest effort by a long-shot, in terms of audience approval, and that's basically what counts with a franchise picture.

Yes, they got lucky with sequels to Toy Story, but they were franchise pictures too and the bottom line was what was important.

Cars 2 more than anything looks to have been made for the money, to promote more Cars merchandise ("now with added 2!") and is effectively more lightweight and broadly entertaining as a result...why do you think they went with an international storyline, for one thing, and then specifically in London, Paris and Tokyo - the three major cities in countries where Pixar films are as popular as in the US?


I still don't get, however, how someone can come into a film around six-months to a year before release (after it's been going for two or three) and then claim a "directed by" credit and nudge the guy that's actually done all the ground-laying work to a "co-director" who isn't getting any recognition at all?

And I wonder why Randy Newman didn't return? My guess is that the spy element was something Giacchino could play up to more than the homespun Americana of the first film...something that looks to have been thrown out in the pursuit of money and that the critics have noticed. It's also telling that less than 40% of Cars 2's admissions are coming from 3D screens...the effect really is starting to wear off now...

[GRUNT]

I think critics are being a wee bit hard on Cars 2 just because it's a Pixar film. If it were Dreamworks, it'd probably fare better, and the majority would say something along the lines of it having a somewhat banal emotional hook, but it's still a highly enjoyable action romp.

But yeah, it doesn't feel like most other Pixar films (I actually still think A Bug's Life is my least favourite ).

One thing I have to ask - what was with that car in Paris? The one with-

Eyes in its headlights instead of the windshield? It was really disturbing!

That one totally flew over my head, and I can't seem to find an explanation for it...

[Kaszubas]

I still don't get, however, how someone can come into a film around six-months to a year before release (after it's been going for two or three) and then claim a "directed by" credit and nudge the guy that's actually done all the ground-laying work to a "co-director" who isn't getting any recognition at all?

It is probably naive to think that way, but maybe knowing Cars 2 is not going to be critical success Lasseter just took all this burden on his shoulders rather than letting media blame original director Brad Lewis (in his directional debut) for Pixar's first rotten tomato ? He would obviously know that thanks to his very strong and long established position in the industry it won't hurt his career as much (if at all), especially that this movie will still bring gazilion of $ to Disney reinforcing him as WDA & Pixar CCO...

[Dusterian]

Well, if you want the reason I wanted it to fail, it's as simple as two big things: first is that I don't want the crown of animation king to be taken from Disney (you can it already has all you want, I won't believe it no matter what) and second, I don't want anything to have a perfect score. It's creepy and it's like the company is inhuman, and impersonal.

But this getting a lot of financial success doesn't make it a real greta film. Look at Alvin and the Chipmunks 1 and 2, it got so much money showing that audiences must have "loved it", and we know those were crap.

I don't know how anyone thinks Pixar would actually ever make a movie just to sell toys. Isn't it clear that this was made because John Lasseter loves cars so much because he's really a little boy in an adult man's body and since he's the head he was able to make films that really personally interest him? It wasn't for toys...it was for himself! Which is probably why it didn't do so good...

I will admit that the choices of international places where Pixar is most loved used for the settings was probably used to aid in the film being liked, but not to sell toys, rather, to try and make people love the cars John loves so much...

[LotsoA113]

My opinion for it's existence is frankly, Toy Story 3 was such an exhausting process to make, they needed to make a film this time around that was easier to make and less emotionaly draining. How about a film that was just fun? Thus...Cars 2 entereth!

[Macaluso]

Well, if you want the reason I wanted it to fail, it's as simple as two big things: first is that I don't want the crown of animation king to be taken from Disney (you can it already has all you want, I won't believe it no matter what) and second, I don't want anything to have a perfect score. It's creepy and it's like the company is inhuman, and impersonal.

These are both stupid reasons sorry

[Dacey]

Dusty, "Cars" merchandise has literally sold billions of dollars for Disney. It may not have been the only factor behind the film, but it was certainly a big reason for it.

And, as I think Ben has said elsewhere, at the end of the day, studios NEED to have films that they know are going to make money. With the very risky "Brave" coming out next summer (look at the teaser trailer. It doesn't have one joke!), it made sense for Disney to have something dependable like "Cars 2" as a "cushion" in case that film ends up bombing.