re: in retrospect, Cars is not the shitshow the MTV Board argues

quote:

---

good thing no kid would ever take it seriously, or even would have any idea of what you just said.

---

You don't give kids enough credit. They use everything they intake to start interpreting the world. And yes this includes entertainment.

quote:

---

But toys coming to life driving themselves down the street, or fish talking, or a house floating on ballons has realistic consistency and logic.

---

Actually yes. They were both logical and consistent. They had rules and followed them. They created worlds that actually allowed those things to happen.

For instance, there's no reason to have "Cow Cars." None. They did it because it's cute and provided a laugh. Not because the story needed it or because "the world's rules would require it." Why did they need a cow-like creature?

On the other hand, the fact that Toys were coming alive and Mr. Potato head could be a "living thing" despite they ability to essentially break himself, made complete sense. That's what Mr. Potato Head is. That's probably how kids "see" him when they play with him in real life. There's a logic there that "Cow Cars," lack.

ETA: Look, this is nearly an impossible discussion to have, because this mostly revolves around psychology, meaning, myth, logic, etc. Extremely subjective stuff. Which to me are critical to children and development. If Cars/Cars 2 were meant to be Baby Einsteins of pretty color and lights to entertain kids. That's fine. That's essentially what they should be. But they aren't. Nor are they taken that way.

If you want me to say that Cars has a competent story, I'll give and say it does. But that's about as far as I can go. It has a competent story. But it doesn't have a complete narrative, and it isn't "good," because of that.