re: Which was the more original concept: Toy Story or Monsters, Inc.?

it’s the 5th lowest audience score on RT.

ahead of Cars 2 and 3
The Good Dinosaur and
Turning Red

quote:

---

Nice animated adaption of Seven Samurai (which was a masterpiece).

---

It’s possibly a vague reference to 7 Samurai, but other than a guy going and finding people to protect a village it’s close. Most obvious difference betting there are 9 circus bugs.

Monsters University is better than Monsters Inc.

quote:

---

CocomoLSU

---

You know it's one of those arguments I'll never give up on

Cars. Makes. No. Sense.

Even in the question of the OP - no one would ever make it part of that conversation. It doesn't feel like a "real world." It doesn't feel fleshed out. It's hackey and weird. Where the screams as power, idea, and building a power infrastructure on that... making laughter "more powerful" as resource, even if it's a weird concept - within the concept of the world it's fun and feels complete, or like there's a rationality in the MI world.

In Cars.... there are sentient creatures that resemble real cars, or are our real Cars made sentient later. But they retained all of their internal working mechanisms, didn't evolve. They still have doors with no passengers, yet Cow Cars evolved from... something? Or are the frankenstein result of cows and cars being evolutionarily merged? Like WTF.

They run on gas, but gas doesn't power doors, yet they can control their doors? They have babies?

It's just dumb.

ETA: I know the franchise prints money, or at least did, and that's fine. but it's the definition of completely inane world building. There is no consistency, or reason, behind the world. No identifiable central thesis. It's just "Make cars talk and move." It didn't have the attention of a Toy Story that built big emotions and ideas - like the idea of giving up a Toy or how toys viewed kids, etc. - into the thread of the film and world.

My Daughter and I still quote a line from that movie, "it's a rock".

And Wall·E is #1.

quote:

---

In Cars.... there are sentient creatures that resemble real cars, or are our real Cars made sentient later. But they retained all of their internal working mechanisms, didn't evolve. They still have doors with no passengers, yet Cow Cars evolved from... something? Or are the frankenstein result of cows and cars being evolutionarily merged? Like WTF.

They run on gas, but gas doesn't power doors, yet they can control their doors? They have babies?

It's just dumb.

ETA: I know the franchise prints money, or at least did, and that's fine. but it's the definition of completely inane world building. There is no consistency, or reason, behind the world. No identifiable central thesis. It's just "Make cars talk and move." It didn't have the attention of a Toy Story that built big emotions and ideas - like the idea of giving up a Toy or how toys viewed kids, etc. - into the thread of the film and world.

---

You just overthink it to a ridiculous level. IMO it quite literally is just:

quote:

---

"Make cars talk and move."

---

That's what it is...that's it. With little jokes thrown in here and there due to it being a ridiculous premise of a world (like the tramp stamp tattoo joke or the babies). You just overthink it for some reason.

Yet you aren't complaining about other ridiculous Pixar things like Woody being out of breath despite being a toy with no workable lungs.

quote:

---

Cars sucks. And the concept was stupid. And the world makes no sense whatsoever. It's completely ridiculous and insane next to the other two.

---

Definitely one of the weakest Pixar entries, and Cars 2 might be the worst movie Pixar has made. To an adult, the world is ridiculous especially in some of the offshoots (like car dinosaurs).

Kids freaking love it though, which is why it’s the biggest Pixar franchise. As a dad to a 2yo boy, I have to watched a lot of Cars/Planes recently.

There is a lot of cleverness with some of the details and real world references though, I will admit.