- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: in retrospect, Cars is not the shitshow the MTV Board argues
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:31 am to TeddyPadillac
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:31 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
In what way does the Lion King do this?
And I thought we were talking about Pixar..
0
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:31 am to udtiger
I loved Cars
Haven't seen the second
Haven't seen the second
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:32 am to udtiger
I don't like cgi movies that are meant to be cartoons. I like cgi movies that are meant to be films.
Cars is a cgi movie that is meant to be a cartoon.
Cars is a cgi movie that is meant to be a cartoon.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:33 am to TeddyPadillac
Cars has always gotten far too much hate on this board.
I don't have much of a problem with people ranking it low on Pixar's list, because I do as well. It's highly entertaining and all of that, but it's below-average when compared to most other Pixar movies.
But most of the irrational hate that I remember (especially from OML and Freauxzen IIRC) is the whole "how do these sentient cars exist if no humans are around to build/make them? THIS MAKES NO SENSE AND IT SUCKS!!" thing. And that's completely ridiculous IMO. But to each his own I guess.
Also, as I've done before, I'll defend Cars 2 a little bit. Yes, it ranks on the low end of Pixar, but it was still pretty funny and enjoyable for me. And that's all I ultimately care about. It was a little too Mater-centric, but I get why it was. And as much as I'm not the biggest Larry the Cable Guy fan, it doesn't really ruin anything for me.
And one thing is inarguable about both Cars movies...they are absolutely gorgeous.
I don't have much of a problem with people ranking it low on Pixar's list, because I do as well. It's highly entertaining and all of that, but it's below-average when compared to most other Pixar movies.
But most of the irrational hate that I remember (especially from OML and Freauxzen IIRC) is the whole "how do these sentient cars exist if no humans are around to build/make them? THIS MAKES NO SENSE AND IT SUCKS!!" thing. And that's completely ridiculous IMO. But to each his own I guess.
Also, as I've done before, I'll defend Cars 2 a little bit. Yes, it ranks on the low end of Pixar, but it was still pretty funny and enjoyable for me. And that's all I ultimately care about. It was a little too Mater-centric, but I get why it was. And as much as I'm not the biggest Larry the Cable Guy fan, it doesn't really ruin anything for me.
And one thing is inarguable about both Cars movies...they are absolutely gorgeous.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:36 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
It's not made to entertain you. It's to entertain your kid.
I do take issue with that though. Pixar doesn't make movies "for kids." Sure, they make animated movies. And sure, they aim characters and certain jokes at kids. But there is also a lot of deeper meaning to a lot of Pixar movies, and a good bit of adult-oriented jokes and lines as well.
Pixar is so successful because they make fantastic movies, period. And they can be enjoyed by kids and adults alike.
Also, to the people who always say that Cars sucks/is stupid because it's a rehash of Doc Hollywood...so what? Movies re-use plot and plot devices ALL the time. Why is this particular case so bad when others aren't?
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 11:44 am
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:53 am to Indigold
quote:
but what everyone else is arguing is that it wasn't as good as other Pixar films
to adults?
What other Pixar films are better?
Toy Story's
Up
Finding Nemo
I think those are better movies
I'm not saying Cars is the best Pixar movie ever, it's not.
People hate on the Fast and Furious franchise and say the movies are terrible. Pretty sure the people that make the movie don't give a shite about that b/c they are raking in money, which is all that really matters and you wouldn't be raking in gobs of money if people didn't like the movie.
my whole point is, if the movie isnt' as well liked as other Pixar films, why has it made more money than all other Pixar films combined? Why is their merchandise so much better than others. It's b/c kids love Lightning McQeen and Mater. They relate to them, and they are funny in the movie.
Toy Story has just as much the opportunity when it comes to merchandise as Cars does, yet Cars sells 4x more than they have and gave Toy Story a 10 year head start. KIDS LOVE THE MOVIE AND IT'S CHARACTERS!
To an adult Toy Story and Nemo may be better movies, but to a kid, Cars is a great movie, and that's the goal of every animated movie. The fact that tons of adults love the Incredibles doesn't help them make more money. The fact that every kid becomes obsessed with Cars for a short time is why they make so much money.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:07 am to TeddyPadillac
You must have a touch of the tard brush because I've already told you I don't care about how much money it makes or if kids like it. I didn't like it as much
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:14 am to Indigold
quote:
You must have a touch of the tard brush because I've already told you I don't care about how much money it makes or if kids like it. I didn't like it as much
That's fine. I didn't really care for the Godfather, but i have no problem recognizing that it's a really good movie.
Just b/c you don't like Cars doesn't mean it's not a good movie. Cars is just more geared and relateable to kids. Up is more relateable to adults, hence more adults like Up over Cars, but that's not what makes money.
You might not care about money, but money tells us how the masses think about that movie, and they evidently really like it.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:20 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Cars has always gotten far too much hate on this board.
It really hasn't. There are a few loud people like me and OML, but we are generally the minority. The only "hate" it gets is because anytime someone says "Let's rank Pixar films!" both films are usually in the bottom 5, deservedly so. In comparison to other Pixar films, they stink.
However, I'd probably rather watch Cars than Shark Tale (although I'd take Shark Tale over the abomination that is Cars 2.)
quote:
But most of the irrational hate that I remember (especially from OML and Freauxzen IIRC) is the whole "how do these sentient cars exist if no humans are around to build/make them? THIS MAKES NO SENSE AND IT SUCKS!!" thing. And that's completely ridiculous IMO. But to each his own I guess.
Come on, you can't call that irrational. You can call it an opinion that you don't agree with, but it isn't an irrational opinion. Like I said here:
quote:
And Cars 2 makes Cars 1 worse. It shows you how limited an idea is when it doesn't make any sense.
Cars 2 is proof the entire idea is massively flawed. Cars 2 became a movie in which the entire point of the movie was to show how Cars could do "human like things," regardless of how little sense they made. It was dumb. And sadly it lowers the IQ of any child who takes it seriously too.
You're being a little reductive on the argument it isn't:
quote:
how do these sentient cars exist if no humans are around to build/make them? THIS MAKES NO SENSE AND IT SUCKS!!"
And it's more about creating a coherent and logical world that makes the narrative complete. Cars isn't that at all. It lacks realistic consistency and logic, which makes it essentially an inane film. Cars:: Pixar Films as Scary Movie, et al:: Comedy
Where the Scary movies and Friends throw plot aside to simply revolve around the idea of mocking pop culture, so does Cars throw everything aside to simply try to make the Cars as human as possible. It doesn't work.
Sure they make money and they can thrive on the simplicity of plot points and a service to a very strict core audience. But they don't stand up to intensive review. And we can argue all day that this isn't necessary for a kids film. But I'm sorry, it is. And almost every other Pixar film DOES stand up to review. Cars succeeds on bright lights, great animation (you're right about that one), and easy merchandising. It doesn't succeed because it's a good movie.
quote:
Also, as I've done before, I'll defend Cars 2 a little bit. Yes, it ranks on the low end of Pixar, but it was still pretty funny and enjoyable for me. And that's all I ultimately care about. It was a little too Mater-centric, but I get why it was. And as much as I'm not the biggest Larry the Cable Guy fan, it doesn't really ruin anything for me.
I thought we'd at least agree here. I gave Cars 2 a shot, regardless of my disdain for the first, but wow. That was Minions level bad. It made even less sense the first and, like I said, was even more slanted to the "OH Let's have this car do this thing in this human-like way! Genius!" It was dumb and completely absent of plot. I mean I get why they made Mater the main character, he's the easiest sell for toys, but my god, an entire film revolving around him left it nowhere to go.
I dislike Cars but get it. I abhor Cars 2. That's the exact profit grab I never expected from Pixar. It's a film that brought them down a rung for me.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 11:22 am
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:30 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I mean I get why they made Mater the main character, he's the easiest sell for toys, but my god, an entire film revolving around him left it nowhere to go
Good point. I was just reading an article about it, and this was Lasseter's thought process for Cars 2:
quote:
Discussing the inspiration for Cars 2, Lasseter said it came when he traveled on the original Cars promotion tour around the world. "I found myself looking out at these amazing cities and imagining 'What would Mater do?," he said.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:35 am to Indigold
quote:
Discussing the inspiration for Cars 2, Lasseter said it came when he traveled on the original Cars promotion tour around the world. "I found myself looking out at these amazing cities and imagining 'What would Mater do?," he said.
Bad John Lasseter Let me fix it for him...
quote:
Discussing the inspiration for Cars 2, Lasseter said it came when he traveled on the original Cars promotion tour around the world. "I found myself looking out at these amazing cities and imagining 'How much stuff can I buy here if I make a Cars 2?," he said.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:49 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Cars 2 is proof the entire idea is massively flawed. Cars 2 became a movie in which the entire point of the movie was to show how Cars could do "human like things," regardless of how little sense they made. It was dumb. And sadly it lowers the IQ of any child who takes it seriously too.
good thing no kid would ever take it seriously, or even would have any idea of what you just said.
quote:
And it's more about creating a coherent and logical world that makes the narrative complete. Cars isn't that at all. It lacks realistic consistency and logic, which makes it essentially an inane film. Cars:: Pixar Films as Scary Movie, et al:: Comedy
But toys coming to life driving themselves down the street, or fish talking, or a house floating on ballons has realistic consistency and logic.
quote:
Cars succeeds on bright lights, great animation (you're right about that one), and easy merchandising. It doesn't succeed because it's a good movie.
So how is the merchandising for Cars different than Toy Story or Planes? People always give the excuse it's easy to merchandise, then why didn't Planes merchandise take off like Cars did? Why has Cars sold 4x Toy Story? It's just as easy to merchandise the multitude of toys from Toy Story as the cars from Cars.
Lightning McQueen and Mater are two of the most loved Disney characters, and i doubt they would be if the movie sucked. The merchandise success proves the movie was a success, unlike Planes. You don't have Planes rides or a hotel dedicated to Planes like you do with Cars at Disney World.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:56 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
I didn't say that, but it was given a 16 seed in the tournament, which is just retarded.
To be fair, it's still better than Cars 2 and Monsters University. It was 16 seeded in that bracket because it included Big Hero 6, Frozen, Wreck-it-Ralph, Tangled, and Princess and the Frog. My bigger mistake was the seeding of Frozen and Ratatouille, but it worked out well enough.
quote:
I did my argueing for it in the stupid disney tournament that was a failure.
But yeah, frick that guy for not finishing the tournament
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:56 am to TeddyPadillac
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.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 11:59 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Come on, you can't call that irrational. You can call it an opinion that you don't agree with, but it isn't an irrational opinion.
But I think it is completely irrational. Because this:
quote:
Cars 2 is proof the entire idea is massively flawed. Cars 2 became a movie in which the entire point of the movie was to show how Cars could do "human like things," regardless of how little sense they made. It was dumb. And sadly it lowers the IQ of any child who takes it seriously too.
...and this:
quote:
And it's more about creating a coherent and logical world that makes the narrative complete. Cars isn't that at all. It lacks realistic consistency and logic, which makes it essentially an inane film. Cars:: Pixar Films as Scary Movie, et al:: Comedy
Where the Scary movies and Friends throw plot aside to simply revolve around the idea of mocking pop culture, so does Cars throw everything aside to simply try to make the Cars as human as possible. It doesn't work.
Sure they make money and they can thrive on the simplicity of plot points and a service to a very strict core audience. But they don't stand up to intensive review. And we can argue all day that this isn't necessary for a kids film. But I'm sorry, it is. And almost every other Pixar film DOES stand up to review. Cars succeeds on bright lights, great animation (you're right about that one), and easy merchandising. It doesn't succeed because it's a good movie.
Shouldn't matter IMO...at least the part about it being set in an illogical world. Cars are doing human-like things...so what? Big deal. I don't know why you get so hung up on that that you literally don't enjoy the movie (as is the case for Cars 2 apparently). I remember the arguments by you and OML about "But who MADE the cars? There are no humans around...this movie sucks because it isn't set in a logical world" and all that. And I've always said why does that matter so much to you guys? I still don't get it.
So the cars are "human-like." So what? Anthropomorphic cars are more relatable than just regular cars. And them doing things like having jobs or taking showers or getting a paint job/tattoo, or drinking (fuel) all makes sense because they're cars.
WALL-E isn't human at all, but we buy into his human-like characteristics just fine. And I know he was created by humans and that's the difference you're talking about, but I don't get why that matters so much to the point of ruining things.
quote:
I thought we'd at least agree here. I gave Cars 2 a shot, regardless of my disdain for the first, but wow. That was Minions level bad. It made even less sense the first and, like I said, was even more slanted to the "OH Let's have this car do this thing in this human-like way! Genius!" It was dumb and completely absent of plot. I mean I get why they made Mater the main character, he's the easiest sell for toys, but my god, an entire film revolving around him left it nowhere to go.
I dislike Cars but get it. I abhor Cars 2. That's the exact profit grab I never expected from Pixar. It's a film that brought them down a rung for me.
Cars 2 had a very easy, relatable plot. It wasn't just about "OMG cars doing human things!!" It actually had a pretty detailed plot, and much deeper than the original movie. Complain all you want about it, but you can't say that it was "absent of plot."
We do seem to agree on Mater though...him being the central focus of the movie is definitely where it falls flat. And I don't love Cars 2 at all...I just think it's still a gorgeous, pretty entertaining movie instead of the giant piece of shite that most people seem to think it is. And when ranking Pixar films, it's easily near the bottom (with Ratatouille and Brave) for me. But "subpar" Pixar movies are still better than a lot of other movies, and that holds true for those I just listed, at least for me.
And we also agree that the idea of Cars 2 was a disappointment just in general. It was a clear money grab from Pixar, and I won't argue against you taking them down a peg or two for doing that. Even previous sequels (TS2 and 3) felt somewhat organic to the story. I kinda feel the same way about Monsters University as I do Cars 2...it wasn't necessary or organic really (especially considering they went the prequel route). But an Incredibles sequel is something I'm okay with because that movie lends itself to that. Finding Dory I put somewhere in the middle...it's not necessary, but I love Finding Nemo so mcuh that a sequel to it doesn't bother me as badly.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:15 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
Shouldn't matter IMO...at least the part about it being set in an illogical world. Cars are doing human-like things...so what? Big deal. I don't know why you get so hung up on that that you literally don't enjoy the movie (as is the case for Cars 2 apparently). I remember the arguments by you and OML about "But who MADE the cars? There are no humans around...this movie sucks because it isn't set in a logical world" and all that. And I've always said why does that matter so much to you guys? I still don't get it.
Like I said above:
quote:
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.
Simply put I think it's being disingenuous to children. Presenting them something more serious that's actually inane. I think that's a problem at a very deep level. Inane thing are ok if presented that way.
So while I agree that it's easy to say it doesn't matter and that entertainment is entertainment, I just look at it a little differently. Like I said, not illogical, I just think these things more seriously than some people and that's ok.
quote:
So the cars are "human-like." So what? Anthropomorphic cars are more relatable than just regular cars. And them doing things like having jobs or taking showers or getting a paint job/tattoo, or drinking (fuel) all makes sense because they're cars.
WALL-E isn't human at all, but we buy into his human-like characteristics just fine. And I know he was created by humans and that's the difference you're talking about, but I don't get why that matters so much to the point of ruining things.
I don't care about the origin as it relates to reality. I care about the origin as it relates to the film itself. Cars lacks any internal logic.
quote:
it's easily near the bottom (with Ratatouille and Brave) for me.
See and that's crazy talk for me. Ratatouille and Brave are outstanding movies. Pixar has mostly outstanding films 2 or 3 average films, then the Cars Films. Cars wishes it was Ratatouille or Brave (despite the very clear merchandising advantage).
Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:19 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
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.
so all the toys come to life but racecar still needs batteries to run? Where's the logic there? Does Woody need batteries to come to life? How can all the toys move without batteries but racecar needs batteries to move?
Dory's memory is full of inconsistencies.
Everything in the movie Cars, was a car. and the cows weren't cars, they were tractors, and they made fart noises when you "tipped" them, which is funny. Did it bother you that the plane they took to Japan wasn't just an inanimate plane?
You look for reasons to not like Cars, and give dumb examples that can easily be made for Toy Story but you choose to ignore them when watching Toy Story, which most would acknowledge is the best animated film.
As i stated before, i think the dislike for some of you is that fact that Mater is the main attraction of the movie, and some of you have a bias towards him b/c it's Larry the Cable Guy. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen sound perfect for Toy Story. Goodman and Crystal are perfect for Monsters. Larry the Cable Guy is perfect for Mater, yet some of you are to refined to sit back and enjoy that character for what it is. And as i said before, I dont' like Larry the Cable Guy.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:24 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
See and that's crazy talk for me. Ratatouille and Brave are outstanding movies. Pixar has mostly outstanding films 2 or 3 average films, then the Cars Films. Cars wishes it was Ratatouille or Brave (despite the very clear merchandising advantage).
Neither of my two children have watched Ratatouille or Brave. I've put it on and tried to get them to watch it, and they may for a little while, and then do something else.
Cars does not wish it was those two lesser movies.
And any of you are yet to explain how Cars was so easy to merchandise.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:43 pm to MrTide33
quote:
But yeah, frick that guy for not finishing the tournament
We all forgive you man
Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:52 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Give me a reason any movie other than the Toy Story's are better?
I could give you hundreds of reasons why the Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-e, Up, and Inside Out are much, much better films than Cars is. They're masterpieces (Ratatouille maybe the exception), and put a hell of a lot more thought and creativity than just putting Cars in a people world. Seriously, two of the best love stories in the last decade had basically no lines of dialog (referring to Up and Wall-e). I think that's a hell of a lot harder to pull of than anything Cars did.
quote:
The basis of this movie franchise is better than all other animated films except for Toy Story and an argument could easily be made for the Despicable Me franchise.
The basis for the Cars film is 100% flawed. How do Cars exist in this universe without humans? All other Pixar movies put their relationship to humanity entirely in perspective and makes it feasible. Best we can assume is that AI arose and wiped out all of humanity, and for god knows what reason they decide to become Cars.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 12:55 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News