Argh. Pixar's Cars is NOT Doc Hollywood!

Except in that it’s part of a larger and longer tradition.

Let me get this off my chest. I have many a time (as recently as today) seen reviewers of movies, people-on-the-street, and even the erudite persons on this message board claim that Pixar’s ‘Cars’ is merely a remake of ‘Doc Hollywood’.

This irritates me something fierce.

A) I quite like Cars.

B) It is, if anything, ancestored by Brigadoon with Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse and the Broadway play before.

C) Even beyond that the ‘fish out of water finds wisdom’ story concept goes back essentially forever in European legend and story tradition. To beat on Cars for being part of this tradition is equivalent to mocking Star Wars for being in on the ‘Hero of a Thousand Faces’ tradition.

So. Let’s let this one die, shall we?

No.
The lack of creativity that went into CARS sullies the otherwise solid reputation that Pixar has built. Yes all of their other movies are literally or even just thematic riffs on other movies… with CARS it just seemed lame and hackneyed.

You’re absolutely right. Cars is not Doc Hollywood.

For I actually enjoyed Doc Hollywood.

Cars is Doc Hollywood” is merely a convenient shortcut meme for lazy reviewers.

Did Julie Warner pop up naked in a lake?

What were we talking about?

Pay me and I’ll write a five page treatise on the subject.

Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight.

Part of your defense of Cars is that it didn’t rip off just one movie but a lot of other movies?

I thoroughly enjoyed Cars, but I can still readily see that in storyline and theme and characters and tone, it’s pretty much a lot like Doc Hollywood. That’s simply a statement of fact. That Cars borrowed heavily from a lot of other, similar stories – and that Doc Hollywood did likewise – is also pretty much just true. I don’t quite get why the OP should be bothered by this. If you liked Cars, what does it matter if it’s similar to other movies or not, or if people point out those similarities?

You know, I never thought about it before, but Cars is indeed Doc Hollywood. I enjoyed both movies very much.

Saying Cars isn’t Doc Hollywood is like saying Avatar isn’t Dances With Wolves. Which it is.

I didn’t even see Cars, but everything about the trailers, advertising and promotion of the story made me think it was a child of Doc Hollywood, which I did see and only sort of liked, except for loving Julie Warner and the butcher at midnight telling Michael Fox that he was pretty handy with a knife. In fact, one of the reasons I didn’t take my kids to see the one and only Pixar flick they missed was that I resented the obvious cheap manipulation.

I don’t even know that the plots were all that similar except for the “big-city-hot-shot-gets-an-enforced-chance-to-stop-and-smell-the-country-grown-roses” theme that was liberally trowelled all over both. But somebody made sure that the vibe of Cars advertising and promotion resonated with anybody who enjoyed Doc Hollywood, and they did it so shamelessly that even I, normally clueless when it comes to media trickery, resisted it.

Wow, this is a fun little time capsule of a thread…

When this *Cars *thread was posted four years ago, Pixar hadn’t yet released *Ratatouille *(2007), Wall-E (2008) or *Up *(2009).

And yes, it was just an animated version of “Northern Exposure”… I mean, Doc Hollywood.

That said, it will still go down in history as Paul Newman’s last role.

Maybe this thread should be merged with the “Going Native” thread?

“Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.”

When this was set down (some 2275 years ago,) you know there were Hebrew critics complaining, “Feh! Heard it before! Get a new schtick, you hack.”

Whatever happened to Julie Warner? :frowning: