Disney Pixar's Cars

Post by **Meg** » June 15th, 2005, 5:55 pm

Kaszubas wrote:hehe ...and we watched as much as about 1 and half minute long teaser 1,5 year before opening day, so that might have affected our opinion of the whole movie a little

LOL!

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 22nd, 2005, 11:31 am

Yeah, but...

Then there's this "well, let's see how it turns out" lark. Have you guys not learned anything about teasers actually being more indicative of what a final project will turn out like?

Sorry, but Monsters was little more than the Mike'n'Sully show, while Nemo was just like the "asking for directions" spot. I loved both those movies, but their teasers were very much along the lines that those films turned out like.

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 7th, 2005, 4:31 pm

My biggest complaint about Pixar films is that they usually ARE a road picture/buddy film. With only 2 exceptions, they have followed this FORMULA for every film they've made since Toy Story 1.

Pixar is a family entertainment company, no doubt... However, like every other company after they get so big, they get TOO cautious and TOO conservative with their storylines and begin to repeat themselves.

When the lovefest is over and the public realizes what's been going on since 1995, Pixar's going to be in trouble. Just like what happened with Disney after their wave of success in the early to mid-1990s.

Exactly. I was reading yesterday from the new biography of Steve Jobs about the production of Toy Story, how troubled it was. More than once it was almost shut down. But Katzenberg told them to go ahead, and he gave them the idea of how Buzz and Woody should "play off" of each other a la buddy movies like Another 48 Hours, etc....The film's basic problem was that the characters simply weren't interesting enough, and that even though there was a "plot", (two toys get left behind at a gas station) there wasn't a "theme." So "buddies together forever" made that movie what it was in a lot of ways.

Pixar has, with variations here and there, repeated this formula in almost every film. The seed was planted in Toy Story I, and incarnated again and again. No matter how good they are, every Pixar movie's main theme, where all the humor and drama comes from, is the character foil, oh they're friends even though they're different. (not counting Incredibles.)

They are wonderful artists and great filmmakers, but like George said, they've been following a certain path for almost a decade now, and it's time for a change.

I think that Pixar's got a huge amount of potential, awesome creativity and ingenius ideas in their movies. I actually love the look of Cars, and the trailer's really cool. (Plus I'm glad JL's directing again, and I heard that if they stick with Diz he wants to direct Toy Story III.)

Post by **Meg** » July 7th, 2005, 5:48 pm

Formula, formula...Couldn't it just be a sort of coincidence? It's not like Pixar says, "Okay...we need to make another buddy movie. Any ideas?"

The Incredibles isn't a buddy flick. A Bug's Life is stretching it, as is Finding Nemo (couldn't imagine Marlin trying to find Nemo on his own!). Both Toy Storys movies and Monsters Inc. are buddy films. So?

Furthermore, many people accuse Pixar of doing things that (almost) ALL animated films are doing nowadays. Buddy film....Comedy/Adventure...Shrek? Madagascar? Home on the Range?

Quote:

Then there's this "well, let's see how it turns out" lark. Have you guys not learned anything about teasers actually being more indicative of what a final project will turn out like?

Sorry, but Monsters was little more than the Mike'n'Sully show, while Nemo was just like the "asking for directions" spot. I loved both those movies, but their teasers were very much along the lines that those films turned out like.

Well...No. I haven't liked all of Pixar's teasers but loved the movie. I didn't like Finding Nemos' teaser at all, and I wasn't too wild about The Incredibles one, either, but I really enjoyed the actual films!

Kaszubas wrote:
hehe ...and we watched as much as about 1 and half minute long teaser 1,5 year before opening day, so that might have affected our opinion of the whole movie a little

...And most (all?) of that footage isn't even in the finale film.

Post by **Ben** » July 8th, 2005, 7:48 am

It's funny this debate, but I guess the way to see it is that, just as DreamWorks is "famed" for making a "certain kind of CG picture", the same could just as easily be said about Pixar, who, despite different stories each time out, do all posses that same softness about them.

And anyway... Cars is just going to be another road movie.

Geddit? Geddit??

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 8th, 2005, 10:48 am

Formula, formula...Couldn't it just be a sort of coincidence? It's not like Pixar says, "Okay...we need to make another buddy movie. Any ideas?"

The Incredibles isn't a buddy flick. A Bug's Life is stretching it, as is Finding Nemo (couldn't imagine Marlin trying to find Nemo on his own!). Both Toy Storys movies and Monsters Inc. are buddy films. So?

They don't actually say it out loud but yeah, that's basically what they do, if not in so many words.

The Incredibles is a Brad Bird picture that happens to be produced by Pixar--the themes of alienation as well as infatuation with old time heros/villains/fantasy are all very present in the Iron Giant. They basically let Brad do what he wants, and they might do it again, to their credit. But I can't see Bird directing a movie like A Bug's Life in a million years--that's got all of Lassetter's sweet if uncomplicated sunny outook on life, and Incredibles occupies very different territory.

A Bug's Life is a buddy picture as well, IMO. Or a "mismatched buddies" to be exact. Flick and the circus bugs, the ant colony and the circus bugs learning to live together and learning from each other. Defeating an enemy together. Same basic premise as Toy Story. Finding Nemo is actually very much a buddy flick, at least I think so. Half the movie is Marlin/Dory's interactions together, how "mismatched" they are, and how they learn to work together. The burned-out nuerotic and the free spirit. The one who rolls his eyes good-naturedly while the other goes in a million directions. Same thing in Monsters Inc, and from the looks of it same thing in Cars. Toy Story saw a development of that relationship in the sequal, so it's kind of unique, but the whole buddy idea replicates again and again with the other toys--Jessie and Woody. Woody and Bullseye. Mr. and Mrs. Potatohead. Woody and Bo Peep. It goes on and on.

And anyway... Cars is just going to be another road movie.

Geddit? Geddit??

Ha ha.

Cute.

Post by **PatrickvD** » July 11th, 2005, 10:21 am

Okay I've given the teaser trailer some thought and viewed it again several times since it came out.. and all I can say is that I'm happy they appear to acknowledge "A Bug's Life" as one of their films again

Also cool they used the music from it in the trailer. Cars itsself, just like other Pixar films will be great. Regardless of wether it's more of the same. The same can be said about Disney, Dreamworks, Aardman.. don't their movies sort of all look and feel the same? big deal

I was excited when I firt saw the trailer, but when there was this whole load of negativity coming after it, I started to wonder if maybe I saw a different teaser. But it still looks cool. bring on summer 2006.

Post by **AniMan** » July 11th, 2005, 3:52 pm

PatrickvD wrote:Regardless of wether it's more of the same. The same can be said about Disney, Dreamworks, Aardman.. don't their movies sort of all look and feel the same? big deal

I was excited when I firt saw the trailer, but when there was this whole load of negativity coming after it, I started to wonder if maybe I saw a different teaser. But it still looks cool. bring on summer 2006.

Y'know Patrick, that pretty much sums up how I feel about this, too. Even though I don't agree that Pixar uses any "formula", for the sake of argument, let's say they do. So what?? The stories are all different, that can't be denied. And, most importantly, they're all very good and entertaining stories. That's what I ultimately go to the movies for: to be entertained. I am not in the least bored with any of Pixar's films so far, and I doubt that I ever will be. Their reputation shows that they know what they're doing and they do it WELL. Why quibble about something that is actually quite good and not in need of repair, so to speak? Even though Cars doesn't seem to get me going like the other Pixar films did, I am pretty confident that they will deliver the goods again and produce a superior quality film that, well --- entertains me. Again. What's so wrong with that?

Post by **Meg** » July 11th, 2005, 8:31 pm

AniMan wrote:
Y'know Patrick, that pretty much sums up how I feel about this, too. Even though I don't agree that Pixar uses any "formula", for the sake of argument, let's say they do. So what?? The stories are all different, that can't be denied. And, most importantly, they're all very good and entertaining stories. That's what I ultimately go to the movies for: to be entertained. I am not in the least bored with any of Pixar's films so far, and I doubt that I ever will be. Their reputation shows that they know what they're doing and they do it WELL. Why quibble about something that is actually quite good and not in need of repair, so to speak? Even though Cars doesn't seem to get me going like the other Pixar films did, I am pretty confident that they will deliver the goods again and produce a superior quality film that, well --- entertains me. Again. What's so wrong with that?

Yesh! Exactly. So, Cars...looks interesting, no?

Post by **Ben** » July 12th, 2005, 7:14 am

It's funny this debate, but I guess the way to see it is that, just as DreamWorks is "famed" for making a "certain kind of CG picture", the same could just as easily be said about Pixar, who, despite different stories each time out, do all posses that same softness about them.

Post by **AniMan** » July 12th, 2005, 8:29 am

Ben wrote:It's funny this debate, but I guess the way to see it is that, just as DreamWorks is "famed" for making a "certain kind of CG picture", the same could just as easily be said about Pixar, who, despite different stories each time out, do all posses that same softness about them.

...And again, so what?

Post by **Ben** » July 12th, 2005, 9:06 am

Exactly!

Post by **Kaszubas** » July 21st, 2005, 5:57 am

Sorry for interrupting this very interesting discussion

but I've just wanted to ask if anyone had attended this year's comic-con and been lucky enough to see latest "Cars" promo materials - maybe even some new trailer ? I found only some tiny bits of information that such trailer was shown but no details. Only impression I've read somewhere described it as "candy colored"... Nothing more...

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 25th, 2005, 1:18 pm

The same can be said about Disney, Dreamworks, Aardman.. don't their movies sort of all look and feel the same? big deal

Actually, I've only seen one Aardman film, Chicken Run, so I can't judge them right now. But as for Disney--IMO the great thing about them (in their classic and modern heyday) was that yes, even though they used similar characteristics in their stories, their films all had a VERY different feel. Walt never wanted to repeat himself.

I find Snow White to be completely different than Cinderella even though they're the same basic story. Pinnochio and Dumbo are both about pining for a parent's love and wanting to come home, getting your heart's desire, but who on earth could ever confuse those two films? As for the "new Disney": yes, Belle and Ariel are similar in their basic character orientation (independent girls with single dads), but the way they go about getting what they want and reacting to the circumstances they're put in is substantially different.
Who could confuse Lion King with Aladdin, even though the male hero comes of age in both films? The DW films grew out of the new Disney Renaissance and did something different EVERY time--Antz was a parable of the individual craving an identity, Prince of Egypt (like the Lion King) about the harsh mantle of birth and responsibility, Spirit was about braving through struggle and hardship and a character's love of freedom. And I don't think Shrek is one bit like Madagascar, or Sinbad, or the Road to El Dorado. Different settings, different characters, different themes.

I'm sorry but as much as I like Pixar and as eye-popping as their visuals are, for me they will never be the new Disney and I don't feel there's any comparison to Walt's greatest works--not by a long shot. Their films all have unique and fascinating settings that go a long way towards supplying their movies with the interest they might not have if their visuals weren't so spectacular. To me, their characters are great, but (basically) all the same, and their stories cover similar ground. Becuase really, how different is Sulley from Woody, and Woody from Flick? I defy anyone to tell me that.

Post by **Meg** » July 25th, 2005, 4:29 pm

Kaszubas wrote:Sorry for interrupting this very interesting discussion but I've just wanted to ask if anyone had attended this year's comic-con and been lucky enough to see latest "Cars" promo materials - maybe even some new trailer ? I found only some tiny bits of information that such trailer was shown but no details. Only impression I've read somewhere described it as "candy colored"... Nothing more...

A new trailer? Interesting...where'd you find the info? I'd like to hear about it.