There’s no doubt that Pixar has had an extraordinary run these last few films. Heck, they’ve had an extraordinary run in all the films they’ve made, from “Toy Story” right through “The Incredibles.” Can they do it again with “Cars”? The early signs look good (the reviews from people who saw the sneak preview on IMDB look good). Anyone here fortunate enough to see it yet?
The preview looked rather underwhelming to me, but I guess we’ll see. Seemed to be targetted for a younger group of kids (than the other films) at least.
Wait…you mean “Toy Story” with vehicles?
“Shrek” with cars?
It’s so freakin’ played out. It has been for a while, too.
That coulda been my thoughts word for word…
Ebert and Roeper reviewed it on their show and, and I can’t emphasize this enough, LOVED IT!!! I mean, went bonkers crazy in love with it. So, at least 2 adults thought it would appeal to adults too.
I have no doubt it will be wonderful. I always hate Pixar’s previews, they never ever make the movies look good. I always hate the look of the film, the dialogue, the voices, the story, everything. But, when I actually see the film itself, I always love them. That’s happened every single time.
I’d say that if someone loved the other Pixar films, you’re going to love this one too. If you hate Pixar films, you’re an ogre and I don’t like that you exist on my planet. edges away
I get the idea of it being “Toy Story with vehicles,” but I don’t get the idea of it being “Shrek with cars.” Not only was Shrek not a Pixar film, it actually had a basic premise that was more than just “if _____ could come to life and talk.” Which reminds me of a joke Jon Stewart made on The Daily Show about the Disney-Pixar merger, something to the effect of “Pixar is the producer of such films as Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3: Monsters Edition, Underwater Toy Story, and their latest, Super Toy Story.”
I realized the mistake after I read it, the second after I posted it.
I (unfairly) lumped Shrek in there initially just because of the super CGI graphics.
My wrath cannot be so easy on the Toy Stories and the Incredibles and the rest of the ilk that it DOES apply to.
It’s amazing. It’s so damned formulaic, yet people still flock to it in droves. I dun get it.
How is it formulaic? Other than being animated and from the same production company, what does the Toy Story have to do with the Incredibles? They’re completely different plots.
Animation is a technique for making films, but it is not a genre or a specific plot.
That’s like saying that Basic Instinct 2 and Tristan and Isolde are “formulaic” because they’re both live-action and released by 20th Century Fox.
Inanimate object is brought to life by animation and “fun for the whole family!” ensues.
The first couple might have been fun and interesting, not to mention “new”.
Not so much now.
Agreed about the Pixar previews being weak. I’ve owned Pixar stock from near its IPO and its been velly velly good to me, but every preview I have to ask myself if its time to dump out of this cash cow. I am, each time, very grateful that I’ve hung in there. Preview looks lame, movie is great, every time. Notice that Disney is consistently up ever since the merger was announced? People believe in Steve Jobs and his ability to assemble creative people and get them to create … for good reason.
Pixar movies all the same? Huh? I guess you’d say Terry Pratchett is formulaic as well. Whatb exactly is their formula that they’ve played out, praytell? Other than knowing how to create characters that people care about, whether they be toys, bugs, monsters, fish, superheros, or cars. What has made each Pixar movie a hit, while many other CGI movies have been anemic (Shrek being a notable exception), is that they understand that the medium is not the message: the story matters; the acting matters; levels of comprehension with jokes for the older crowd that will escape the kiddies, matter.
You dun get it, and just like jokes, you can’t explain it to someone who doesn’t get it.
Have you even seen The Incredibles? The movie about a family of superheroes? Are superheroes inanimate now?
What about Shrek? With evil princes, a princess and a troll? Fantastical, but not inanimate. I suppose a talking donkey might qualify, but although donkeys aren’t sentient, I would call then inanimate.
Sorry about the typo.
Rather, I wouldn’t call them inanimate.
I find them repetitive. It’s not that I don’t necessarily “get the joke”, I’d just like to see something new and different. I’m simply not seeing it.
No, I haven’t seen “The Incredibles”, and if I bonk into it on tv sometime and I’m in the mood, I may watch it. I’ve no desire at all to watch it or to go see “Cars”.
Yes, superheroes, trolls, and donkeys are all inanimate objects now.
Those movies just aren’t my cup of tea. Yeesh, who knew you guys would be so touchy about it?
The problem I have with CARS is that it looks like Doc Hollywood with cars instead of people. And a race car instead of a plastic surgeon.
Doc hollywood wasn’t that great… a rip off isn’t going to be that great either.
I’ll go see Cars. I’ll probably enjoy it. But I do wonder if it would’ve worked better as a Days of Thunder kind of movie. All about the racing, not about the tired “to thine own self be true” themes.
Sorry if you thought I was being “touchy” about it. If it’s not your preference, that’s fine. And there are plenty of reasons why you might not like animated movies. We all have preferences on how we want to spend out entertainment dollar
However, calling Shrek, Toy Story and The Incredibles formulaic simply because they’re all animated doesn’t make sense.
Now that I’ve taken the puppies out and thought about my position more, it’s because the market for childrens’ movies is so weak. Disney hasn’t come out with a decent cartoon since “The Lion King”. Before that, it was “Aladdin” (if my memory serves me right). They’re few and far between and Disney hasn’t added to their canon of great animated films in a long time. They NEED Pixar. Without Pixar, Disney would be releasing more straight to DVD tripe.
Because the market is and has been so weak when it comes to family films, they had to add something into the kids’ films that adults would like. That’s why they pay Eddie Murphy (who had the potential to be one of the top 5 funniest people ever since he sold his soul to shitty Disney films) and Tim Allen, and etc. millions of dollars for these voices. Kids don’t care about these famous voices. They wouldn’t know Ellen DeGeneres’s voice from Sam Kinison’s (that’s definitely hyperbole). Parents pay for movies and don’t want to sit through a mundane childrens’ movie if they can help it. That’s where the “adult jokes” and pop culture references come in. Kids still don’t care for those because they’re not for them.
For the record, I also never said I didn’t like animated movies or that these movies are formulaic “simply” because they’re animated.
I did say that it’s the style of animation that they use, not the fact that they ARE animated that makes them similar.
For the record, I also don’t find babies to be cute, for the most part. We can now pile on that as well.
Additionally, I can’t think of any nicer way to put it and don’t want to come off snarky, but you might want to re-read my posts and make sure you get my point first.
I don’t hate them, but I find them boring, unfunny, predictable, and entirely forgettable. I don’t feel strongly enough about them to hate them.
Incredibles was the best James Bond movie in years.
Cars is going to blow your mind, folks. Toy Story was a buddy movie. Monsters was a comedy of errors. Cars is a story about self discovery and reinvention, done by people who honestly love cars. The casting is inspired, too.
This is going to rock more than god. I swear.
Well, now we are getting somewhere!
I mourn the loss of hand-drawn animation and the variety of them. But Pixar, again, does well because of the content of its product more than because of its technique. The fact that its graphics are eye-popping is a given, but was never the reason for its success and is less so now. Chicken Little’s graphics were eye-popping too, but it had no soul. Final Fantasy’s graphics were to die for but what a boring piece of detritus. Which is why you are right about Disney needing Pixar, and also, by extension, about Disney needing Jobs, who brings more to Disney than Pixar alone. CGI will eventually mature and produce other looks than attempts at hyper-realism. In a few years that look will be boring to all and the creative types will discover what other effects computer animation can bring to the table. And that may get a few to look, but the story, the characters and the humor will be what makes for a hit. Or not.
Which us back round to the levels of content. Catering to adults as well as kids is nothing new in animation. Have you watched old Warner’s Brothers as an adult? Boy, lots of jokes that I missed as a kid, and a few I still don’t get! Even early Rugrats had jokes aimed at the parents and many that were above many parents heads or aimed at particular subpopulations. (Cafe Enuii and “I think I broke my shin” still crack me up.) Parents have always paid for the tickets and most mega hits for kids had to appeal to the folks as well at some level or another. Barney and Mr. Rogers would never make for a blockbuster … except maybe as a cage match: “This is MY neighborhood!” “I’m gonna give you a hug you won’t forget Mister!”
Get past the skin. I mean are all books formulaic because they are written in typeface on paper? The look serves the content, not the other way around. If you find the humor unfunny, the plots boring, and the characters uninteresting and without any development, as Smeghead apparently does, then fine. You don’t like these movies, to each their own. But to dismiss them exclusively on the basis of the style of animation used is, well, superficial.