Your reality is less believable than the one featured in Cars 
This about sums it up. The original appealed to car guys. But car guys are a fairly small slice of the population. Ratatouille obviously appealed more to foodies, and The Incredibles appealed more to superhero fans, and so on, but all of those also appealed to the general population. Cars, though, appealed to car guys, and that’s about it.
I liked Cars, although it took a little while to grow on me. I had an idea for a prequel that I think would have worked. Set in the 50’s, Guido and Luigi leave their village in Italy looking for a place to open their own tire store. They travel across Europe and the U.S.; Luigi would be the driving force (sorry), and Guido the silent comic always fixing things in the background without being noticed. (Think of Buster Keaton or Harpo Marx.) At the end, they arrive in Radiator Springs in its heyday and start building the Casa Della Tires.
Not really. Kids don’t live in a vacuum. They watch TV, which means they see commercials. They also have friends, and they talk about this stuff. And from a developmental perspective, most kids under about 10 haven’t learned about subtlety. They don’t discern sarcasm and haven’t had the experience to understand language-based humor. Consequently, most of the humor they enjoy involves physical comedy, body functions, and jokes that don’t require a lot of context to understand. Let me put it this way. In the original Cars, the Rust-Eze brothers are funny to adults because we know Tom and Ray Magliozzi by voice and by catchphrase. (“Don’t drive like my brother!” “Don’t drive like my brother!”) Until the sprog knew who they were, that sailed right over his head. On the other hand, he thinks the scene where Lightning McQueen first plowed his way into Radiator Springs is hilarious. The former requires a good bit of knowledge; the latter, not so much. Some things are just funny, y’know?
I’m not sure why you think it matters who pays for the tickets. Can you explain this?
Maybe these cars are made in factories too? Or maybe when two cars love each other very much, they pool their supply of spare parts… 
I wonder if this might be part of why a lot of folks here didn’t seem to take to the Transformers movies? That deep down Uncanny Valley instinct that cars need drivers.
Now if only I could figure out the lack of love for Everybody Loves Raymond…
I’ve got no problem with cars watching other cars race around the track. People do it all the time, watching other people run in a circle. They even televise it internationally every few years.
Along similar lines, the cars that are spies? Maybe that’s just what they do for a living. Some people are triathletes. Others are Spooks, or tow-truck drivers, or mechanics.
And children. Don’t forget about them. You know, the people the movie was made for.
That certainly is a nice chunk of change! A point to consider. Them making much money off of a movie for the masses (aka expliots greedy little children) that more “sophisticated” folks don’t like DOES allow them to improve their technology, make the investors happy, and do the occasional film that really knocks it out of the ballpark in ways OTHER than bringing home the big money.
Selling out a little on occasion and in moderation can actually be a good thing.
Because yesterday we saw X-Men: First Class with my son over The Zookeeper based entirely on my wife’s “Hell no, I’m not sitting through The Zookeeper.”
And yet despite the merchandise money, I can’t find any mention of more 24th scale figures.
I guess you can’t call them figures. Die-cast miniatures.
Well, they can’t say it. It’d be too cynical. But it’s the truth. The one and only reason Pixar made “Cars 2” was for merchandising.
To give you some idea of scale, Pixar films have to date made just under $7 billion on box office gross. The highest was “Toy Story 3” at over a billion, the lowest “Toy Story” at $361 million. (Non-inflation-adjusted.) “Cars” was probably the most disappointing, generating $475 billion when most of its predecessors had done better.
But Cars has generated TEN BILLION DOLLARS in merchandising sales - that figure of $5 billion upthread is way low - more than the box office take of every Pixar film combined, and vastly more than any other Pixar film.
They made “Cars 2” to make money, pure and simple.
Where the hell is Incredibles 2?? I’ll buy some of the crap, ferchrissake!
This. I would love another Incredibles.
That’s an excellent example in that, by any measure of MOVIES, I2 would be a more logical choice:
-
“The Incredibles” was substantially more commercially successful than “Cars” in terms of box office take.
-
“The Incredibles” was, in the eyes of about 99% of the world, a better movie.
-
“The Incredibles” was practically designed to have a sequel.
But “Cars 2” will make billions in merchandising. That’s just the facts.
If it’s any consolation, the NEXT Pixar film, “Brave,” might well be mind-blowingly awesome.
FWIW my Pixar friend said everyone is really, really excited about “Brave.” Maybe they’re just glad to be working on an original concept for the first time in 3 years, but still.
Armond White must be in Hell right now. You just know he wants to rate this the best Pixar movie ever (he gave Toy Story 3 its only negative review at the time on Rotten Tomatoes), but at the same time Ebert rated it 3 1/2 stars and he can’t possibly go with Ebert after Ebert cut into him. If I were him I’d do anything, anything at all, to avoid having to review this.
Anyway, I loved the first movie. I actually think it’s one of Pixar’s 3 best behind The Incredibles and WALL-E. Then again, I got all the in-jokes because I’ve been a racing fan for a long time so I’m its target demographic. I’m sure I’ll love this one, too. It’s amazing how much baggage people carry into a movie and how it can ruin it for you before you even see it. Pixar’s never put a foot wrong, and I doubt they did here, either, in spite of the lukewarm reception. Critics have baggage, too, and a “dud” from Pixar, given their track record, is still bound to be better than most movies even though the critics panned. I suppose I’ll find out tonight.
I liked the original despite the aforementioned misgivings about anthropomorphized cars (they’ve got doors and seats and everything! Why???), but this looks lazy. I don’t mind massive product spinoffs as long as the movie is worth watching on its own merits but I’m not convinced this time around. If I wanted a giant commercial I’d go watch *Pokemon *or *Dragonball Z *or something like that.
I didn’t really have any problem with the living, driverless cars, but what’s really puzzed me is – why does Radiator Springs have sidewalks???
Were there once humans in this world, before the Cars became sentient and took over, ala Terminator? That would add a rather dark subtext, wouldn’t it?
QFT.
It does seem to be a shameless grab for cash. And while there’s nothing wrong with that, I find it a little amusing as I remember threads comparing Pixar movies to Dreamworks movies. Some people thought that Dreamworks just copied everything that Pixar did and relied excessively on celebrity voice actors and references to pop culture. The general impression some people seemed to have was that Pixar wouldn’t sacrifice art for commerce, while they seemed to think the opposite of Dreamworks.
How do you feel about mice with pet dogs?