- 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 4:06 pm to TeddyPadillac
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:06 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
TeddyPadillac
I appreciate you joining the board Larry. Let me be the first to say Welcome!
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 4:07 pm
2
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:11 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I appreciate you joining the board Larry. Let me be the first to say Welcome!
I was just thinking the same thing
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:16 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
That makes no sense whatsoever. They were "cows" just like the cars were people. They went "cow tipping" and when they did it made the tractors make a fart noise. That's funny to every kid that has ever watched it, and it was funny to the kid in me. That was the sole purpose of that scene, to make you laugh, not dissect the evolution of cows in the movie.
So wait, are the Cars supposed to be Humans, homo sapiens, or are they supposed to be animals? What branch of the evolutionary tree are they? And how are Human Cars related to Cow Cars?
quote:
This movie was meant to appeal to adults by taking cars and making them have human problems but with a car twist. That's it. It is meant to be funny not realistic in evolution.
So you admit that it isn't realistic? That the movie lacks logical consistency? If so, we are on the same page you just don't see it as a problem and some of us do.
That's cool.
quote:
Doesn't sound like you have no bias, and that review just lamented more as to how the cool hip critics hate for Larry the Cable Guy and his brand of comedy, which was very popular at that time, may have influenced many adults in how they viewed this film. It's ok to laugh at jokes made by Larry the Cable Guy. It doens't make you a white trash redneck to think something he said was funny, but some people will never admit that he's funny b/c they think they are lowering themselves by doing so. and again, I do not care for him, he's funny at times, but i think theres a lot a people that hate him and dont like the comedy he represents, or mainly the crowd he attracts.
It's cool Larry. I watched Blue Collar once and laughed a few times. You can be funny occasionally, in small doses. I have uttered the phrase git her done at least a couple of times
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:19 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I appreciate you joining the board Larry. Let me be the first to say Welcome!
as i've stated many times, I am not a fan of him, and the thought that someone might not like the movie just b/c of him didn't enter my head until we started discussing this movie in this thread.
I think about how some of my friends make fun of one of my friends who loves Larry the Cable Guy. Adn i know the reason they dont' like him and make fun of him, even though they've never heard one of his shows, is b/c they associate white trash redneck with him.
It's funny how the movie is trying to get across that just b/c Mater talks funny and looks cheap and dingy, doesn't mean he's not a good guy or a good friend, yet some of you adults are doing exactly what this movie is trying to show kids not to do. It's rather ironic.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:22 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
So wait, are the Cars supposed to be Humans, homo sapiens, or are they supposed to be animals? What branch of the evolutionary tree are they? And how are Human Cars related to Cow Cars?
I don't understand why this matters to you so much.
quote:
So you admit that it isn't realistic? That the movie lacks logical consistency? If so, we are on the same page you just don't see it as a problem and some of us do.
It's as realistic as Toy Story, in that it's not. Toy Story lacks logical consistency as well, you just don't have a problem with it.
quote:
It's cool Larry. I watched Blue Collar once and laughed a few times. You can be funny occasionally, in small doses. I have uttered the phrase git her done at least a couple of times
I have never uttered the words "get er done" and judge people when i hear them say that
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:23 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Why does this matter?
Because it makes the film ultimately pointless.
quote:
It's not important that Simba is a lion. Where's the bitching for that murderous movie that was given a 1 seed if i recall correctly.
I'll grant you that the Lion King could be done in the human world, but there is also a hierarchy that is still conformed to what we know about nature in the Lion King. Lions are kings, lions murder each other to control prides, hyenas are ruled by matriarchs and are arch enemies to lions, and warthogs stink. How many animal puns are there in the Lion King? Not many. We believe in them as characters first. Cars though has nothing but car jokes. It doesn't make sense in the way their world works at all, while it does in the Lion King.
quote:
Did we really need minions? we couldn't just use midgets like on Willy Wonka?
The Minions are just funny, and we didn't need to know where they came from, unlike the Cars.
quote:
Why did Nemo have to be a fish? they could have all been humans and told the same exact story?
No, unlike the Lion King, it is necessary from the plot that Nemo is a fish. There is a large hierarchy to this world and how it interacts with humanity. Large plot points change if everyone is of the same species. Lightning McQueen could have just been a racer who gets lost as he does in the movie, and the plot is the same.
quote:
Why did they have the little gnomes in Frozen?
To be honest, I didn't see the need for the trolls either in Frozen.
quote:
Everyone except kids, b/c they aren't thinking that deep about this kids movie.
So you don't think Cars told a story that kids can relate to? you think it was just cars acting like humans and pointless?
Cars is simple. It's a funny movie that centers around friendship. There's no deep thoughts needed. It shows us that we can be friends with people that may seem different at first or have different interest, once we get to know them. That is something every kid experiences many times in life, as well as adults.
I never said that Cars isn't relatable. I can relate to what's going on with the characters. Unfortunately what's going on with the characters has absolutely nothing to do with them being cars. If the toys were human in Toy Story, the plot falls apart. If the emotions were human in Inside Out, the plot falls apart. If Wall-e and EVE are human, the plot falls apart. What these characters are is important in most of Pixar's work, and then Pixar takes what they are and how that helps define their character. Nothing about them being cars affects these characters' personality. While I haven't seen it, Cars 2 is a spy film for crying out loud.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:24 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
as i've stated many times, I am not a fan of him, and the thought that someone might not like the movie just b/c of him didn't enter my head until we started discussing this movie in this thread.
I think about how some of my friends make fun of one of my friends who loves Larry the Cable Guy. Adn i know the reason they dont' like him and make fun of him, even though they've never heard one of his shows, is b/c they associate white trash redneck with him.
We've given you a bevy of examples of why the film is not good. You just keep telling us we don't like Mater. Literally. And I've said the story is ok, and I've said that although Mater is a slight problem, I don't really have a problem with him in the first movie. I do, however and ridiculously so admittedly, have a problem with Cow Cars and Human Cars and their inane existence in the same world. It makes no sense and that has absolutely nothing to do with Larry the Cable guy. None. Who I also admit, has some funny jokes.
quote:
It's funny how the movie is trying to get across that just b/c Mater talks funny and looks cheap and dingy, doesn't mean he's not a good guy or a good friend, yet some of you adults are doing exactly what this movie is trying to show kids not to do. It's rather ironic.
I'm not judging Cars because of Mater's presentation, I'm judging Cars for it's worldbuilding. And yes world building is important in kids movies.Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:24 pm to Freauxzen
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:26 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
I don't understand why this matters to you so much.
The fact that we have to ask the question is exactly why it matters.
EDIT: To add, so you agree that the inclusion of these things is inane, that even outside of being logical (which we can disagree on), that there are major elements in the film that are completely silly, ridiculous, outlandish, etc. Correct? The the fundamental environment that these creatures inhabit lacks any rules or organization. Correct?
If so, then this discussion is pointless because we merely disagree on the IMPORTANCE of these items. And that's something we probably can't argue about.
quote:
Toy Story lacks logical consistency as well, you just don't have a problem with it.
Incorrect. Explain please?
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:27 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
OMLandshark
It's quite possible that we're being trolled. No one can want to defend Cars this much
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:31 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Mater isn't a dud character, and you've further shown how your bias towards the actor portraying him has influenced how you like this movie and that character.
I don't really give a shite if Larry the Cable Guy is voicing him. He's just annoying. I like Chris Rock, but I find him pretty insufferable in his voice work. It's nothing personal against Larry, he just portrayed an annoying character from a studio that makes really nothing but likable or intentionally unlikable characters. Can't think of one other charter they've done that I find annoying.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:31 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
yet some of you adults are doing exactly what this movie is trying to show kids not to do. It's rather ironic.
That's another thing I forgot to address. The moral of the story is basically that we should take life a little slower. One line in the movie pretty much outright says that when talking about Route 66, "Cars didn’t drive on it to make great time, but to have a great time."
This is a fricking movie about cars, the high-powered, engineering marvels that have completely changed our world over the last century, and instead of showing their high paced abilities, the movie pretty much tells us to slow down and enjoy life. That's a great message, but I could probably come up with a few plots that are more relevant to cars than this.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:47 pm to Indigold
quote:
This is a fricking movie about cars, the high-powered, engineering marvels that have completely changed our world over the last century, and instead of showing their high paced abilities, the movie pretty much tells us to slow down and enjoy life.
I will say, the concept of a racecar that's built to just go fast nonstop and compete realizing there's a lot of good to be had in slowing down and cruising, may actually be the strongest concept of the movie.
However, it would have been massively better if the cars were still semi-anthropomorphic with human drivers similar to how toys work in Toy Story. Making it a world of living cars and nothing but cars does lead to logical inconsistencies.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:48 pm to MrTide33
quote:
However, it would have been massively better if the cars were still semi-anthropomorphic with human drivers similar to how toys work in Toy Story. Making it a world of living cars and nothing but cars does lead to logical inconsistencies.
Bingo.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 5:01 pm to Freauxzen
Actually could've been a fairly artistic movie if the humans were mostly silent and out of the way, but it showed that the cars were reflections of the human story going on simultaneously. Basically, the Blue Umbrella short but probably a bit less photorealistic
Posted on 10/7/15 at 5:08 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
EDIT: To add, so you agree that the inclusion of these things is inane, that even outside of being logical (which we can disagree on), that there are major elements in the film that are completely silly, ridiculous, outlandish, etc. Correct? The the fundamental environment that these creatures inhabit lacks any rules or organization. Correct?
There are rules. Every living creature is some sort of vehicle. WHy do you need to know how that came to be and the evolution behind it?
This is obviously a lot more important to you than most others.
And of course the inclusion of vehicles as living creatures is silly. That's the point.
quote:
Incorrect. Explain please?
Why does racecar need batteries to go, and why does he need to be controlled by the remote?
How does no one ever notice toys are alive, other than Sid that one time?
Why doesn't Buzz break more often, like the real Buzz does in real life?
How does Mr. Potato Head control the piece of meat just b/c his eyes are attached to it. How can Mrs. Potato Head see through the eye not attached to her? Can they see through all the eyes they have all the time? Can they control all of their attachments no matter where they are? When do they get control of new attachments given to them by their owner?
How does Woody stand up? He's made of cotton.
Why doesn't Woody's hat ever come off when he's thrown around? It's as if it's glued to his head, yet he can take it off with ease when he wants to?
How does Woody and Buzz magically appear on the side of Andy in the car, after "falling with style" through the sunroof, which no one seems to notice? Oh yeah "they must of been here the whole time"
How did Woody learn to read and write? I guess Dory taught him.
Buzz thinks he's a space ranger, even though he's seen that the other toys are toys, and acts like a toy when Andy is around.
Who gives out the toy souls? Woody gets to come to life but a ball doesn't? How do they decide who gets to talk? you have to have a mouth to talk? mouths don't produce sound.
here, read this for fun.
Pixar Theory
Posted on 10/7/15 at 5:11 pm to Indigold
quote:
That's another thing I forgot to address. The moral of the story is basically that we should take life a little slower. One line in the movie pretty much outright says that when talking about Route 66, "Cars didn’t drive on it to make great time, but to have a great time."
that is one of the morals of the story, which is more geared towards adults.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 5:35 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Why does racecar need batteries to go, and why does he need to be controlled by the remote?
How does no one ever notice toys are alive, other than Sid that one time?
Why doesn't Buzz break more often, like the real Buzz does in real life?
How does Mr. Potato Head control the piece of meat just b/c his eyes are attached to it. How can Mrs. Potato Head see through the eye not attached to her? Can they see through all the eyes they have all the time? Can they control all of their attachments no matter where they are? When do they get control of new attachments given to them by their owner?
How does Woody stand up? He's made of cotton.
Why doesn't Woody's hat ever come off when he's thrown around? It's as if it's glued to his head, yet he can take it off with ease when he wants to?
How does Woody and Buzz magically appear on the side of Andy in the car, after "falling with style" through the sunroof, which no one seems to notice? Oh yeah "they must of been here the whole time"
How did Woody learn to read and write? I guess Dory taught him.
Buzz thinks he's a space ranger, even though he's seen that the other toys are toys, and acts like a toy when Andy is around.
Who gives out the toy souls? Woody gets to come to life but a ball doesn't? How do they decide who gets to talk? you have to have a mouth to talk? mouths don't produce sound.
The answer to every one of these is simple: Because they are toys and that's how I believe they worked as a kid.
I'll use the same story I referenced early to reiterate. When kids play with a Mr. Potato Head, they don't think they are removing the eyes of some disembodied Potato. They believe they are rearranging his face and his face still works. His eyes still see, his mouth still moves.It's still "him."
He's still believable in that sense. Mr. Potato Head didn't become the meat, it's just that his limbs were attached to something that allowed him to manipulate. The limbs are still Mr. Potato Head and they still work when not attached (if not, then he's one of the most disturbing toys ever built).
That's why Toy Story doesn't need much explaining even as an adult, because we all lived that stuff. The Toy Story world makes sense specifically because the Toy Story world is built on the childhood beliefs and dreams we all had. Who didn't believe that their toys were in some way alive? That's the core of the movie, and that's precisely why it works.
And there's a big difference. Even as a kid, I never thought my Hot Wheels were alive, they just had really tiny drivers. (And Cars isn't about Toys. That's a pretty big distinction.)
On that note, here's another alternative Cars story:
Why not make it about "Toy Cars," rather than Cars? Why not play up a "Toy Car world," in that sense, there's more room for all of the silliness. Because there are literally Car Cows, Car Bugs (thanks transformers).
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 7:20 pm to udtiger
For what it worth, I like Planes better than Cars. Cars is a great movie, hits you right in the feels several times. But I think Planes is much more rewatchable. My 4 year old has this preference too.
I think it's because they don't make Dusty turn into a douche at any point. He's just a genuine nice guy, and the movie is a direct contrast to the whole "nice guys finish last" meme.
Fun fact you probably already know: the two fighter jets that help Dusty are Anthony Edwards and Val Kilmer. If you look at their helmets, it's clearly those of Ice Man and Goose.
I think it's because they don't make Dusty turn into a douche at any point. He's just a genuine nice guy, and the movie is a direct contrast to the whole "nice guys finish last" meme.
Fun fact you probably already know: the two fighter jets that help Dusty are Anthony Edwards and Val Kilmer. If you look at their helmets, it's clearly those of Ice Man and Goose.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 9:21 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
The goal of every movie is to make a lot of money.
So they should be the McDonald's of the movie world? Who cares if the product sucks as long as it makes money (Fast and Furious). The goal of movies should be to tell a good story that can be enjoyed for years to come.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News