[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Cars is a story about self discovery and reinvention, done by people who honestly love cars.
[/QUOTE]
The director grew up around the Chevy dealer where his dad was the parts supervisor.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, once again, it’s not even the style of animation that gets me. Quite frankly, I don’t see why they’d stop. They’re making heaping assloads of money with every picture. They’d be insane to stop before the trend looks like it’s over. That’s also the problem. There doesn’t seem to be a next step. All I’ve ever seen from Pixar is this style of animation. Unless they start divresitying their portfolio, they’re simply a slave to this style and a slave to the exact date the trend ends.
I don’t necessarily find the plots boring, characters uninteresting, or without development. The first couple were cute, nice, and imaginative. After a while, it was simply exploiting the same formula to produce a few more pictures.
How can you not want to see a movie that stars both Paul Newman *and * Larry rhe Cable Guy?
Well now that you put it that way, I’m sold on not seeing it!
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Well, once again, it’s not even the style of animation that gets me. Quite frankly, I don’t see why they’d stop. They’re making heaping assloads of money with every picture. They’d be insane to stop before the trend looks like it’s over. That’s also the problem. There doesn’t seem to be a next step. All I’ve ever seen from Pixar is this style of animation. Unless they start divresitying their portfolio, they’re simply a slave to this style and a slave to the exact date the trend ends.
[/QUOTE]
There’s always a next step: doing something new with what they have.
Toy Story: their first feature film. Everything was new.
A Bug’s Life: all those ants on the screen at the same time.
Toy Story 2: all those Buzz Lightyears on the screen at the same time.
Monsters, Inc.: Sully’s fur as he’s sledding.
Finding Nemo: all those seagulls and all that water.
The Incredibles: the superheroes’ powers.
Cars: I’m guessing all those spinning wheels on the screen at the same time.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Well, once again, it’s not even the style of animation that gets me. Quite frankly, I don’t see why they’d stop. They’re making heaping assloads of money with every picture. They’d be insane to stop before the trend looks like it’s over. That’s also the problem. There doesn’t seem to be a next step. All I’ve ever seen from Pixar is this style of animation. Unless they start divresitying their portfolio, they’re simply a slave to this style and a slave to the exact date the trend ends.
I don’t necessarily find the plots boring, characters uninteresting, or without development. The first couple were cute, nice, and imaginative. After a while, it was simply exploiting the same formula to produce a few more pictures.
[/QUOTE]
(1) You don’t think the animation has changed? Compare Toy Story 1 to The Incredibles. They are doing SO much more than they did before. True, they have not thrown out all of their technology and started over. But there’s also not just resting on their laurels.
(2) What, precisely, is the formula that you are so sick of? Can you sketch out in broad terms what it is that Toy Story 1&2, Finding Nemo, Bug’s Life, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles and Cars have all had in common, plot-wise?
The same formula of a childrens’ movie infused with “adult jokes” and overpaid celeb voices to keep parents happy.
I don’t believe I’ve seen Toy Story 2, havent seen Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, A Bug’s Life, or all of Finding Nemo, or Cars.
This is where you tell me I’m full of it and I’m obviously a barbarian because I haven’t seen all of these films in question.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
This is where you tell me I’m full of it and I’m obviously a barbarian because I haven’t seen all of these films in question.
[/QUOTE]
No, this is where we say you cannot possibly comment on “formulaic” if you haven’t seen more than one and a half of their movies.
Same difference. Does every Pixar movie not have the things I’ve listed?
If it doesn’t, I’ll happily recant my previous statements.
Er…if THEY don’t.
There we go.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
The same formula of a childrens’ movie infused with “adult jokes” and overpaid celeb voices to keep parents happy.
[/QUOTE]
You are most certainly wrong.
One, they are classic tales of friendship, and journeys, and rescues, and adventure. But not cloyingly sweet like you would find in many other movies.
Two, there are almost no “Adult Jokes” that I can recall. Most of the humour is character-based or situation-based, not pop culture or anything “adult”.
Three, the actors are cast because they are character actors who have suitable voices, not because they are the latest big-name celebrity to tout on the posters and draw in their fans. Tom Hanks was cast before Philadelphia was released, so he was still Turner and Hooch fare at that point. Billy Crystal is a great character actor. Ellen DeGeneres is hardly A-list, and was perfect for her role. The Incredibles had such “superstars” as Craig T Nelson and Jason Lee, almost unrecognisable in these parts.
I think you’re too heavily influenced by the concepts of Dreamworks, with their films like Shrek and Sharktale, which are exactly as formulaic as you claim.
[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
I think you’re too heavily influenced by the concepts of Dreamworks, with their films like Shrek and Sharktale, which are exactly as formulaic as you claim.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’ll ditto this. I work in a video store, and play a lot of kids movies on the TV at work (we can’t play much else, given our ratings restrictions). I think Least Original User Name Ever is indeed confusing Pixar’s movies with most of the CGI movies put out by other studios. Those movies (Madagascar, Chicken Little, Sharktale, Robots, and even the Shrek movies) are generally okay the first couple times you see them, but the annoying pop-culture references, self-conscious attempts at hipness, sarcasm, snideness, and pointless celebrity voices wear thin after a while. The Pixar movies hold up much, much better. The humor is based on the characters and situations. There are almost no pop culture references (with the exception of the Toy Story movies which are, after all, about brand-name toys – and even there, the toys in question are almost all classic, time-tested toys that kids have been playing with since the '50s (slinkies, Etch-A-Sketch, Barbie, etc.)). There are non of those “hip” songs on the soundtracks that plague the other movies. There are celebrity voices, yes, but as someone mentioned above, you can tell they cast the voice to fit the character. For example, in “Madagascar” you know they cast Ben Stiller, David Schwimmer and Chris Rock not because they’re particularly great voice actors, but because those are the biggest, hippest actors DreamWorks could get at the time. People will go to a cartoon just because Ben Stiller’s in it - at least while Ben Stiller’s still hot. No one’s going to go to a cartoon because Holly Hunter or Albert Brooks are in it; they’ll go for the story, and they’ll keep coming back for the story.
Oh, and the plots aren’t formulaic either. The theme of the Incredibles isn’t something you see that often in any movie lately, animated or not.
Give the Pixar movies another try. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and The Toy Story movies are the very best ones, IMO; Monsters, Inc. is a slight notch below that, and A Bug’s Life is a tad below that, but still worth seeing.
Oh, and…
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Cars is a story about self discovery and reinvention, done by people who honestly love cars.
[/QUOTE]
Not having seen it, I’ll preemptively say that this is by far the worst part of the movie. The American obsession with cars has (IMHO) already been so detrimental in so many ways; did they really have to fan the flames? Couldn’t they have made a movie glorifying forms of public transportation instead? :mad:
[QUOTE=Smeghead]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, sorry. Since I can’t edit my post, pretend I said “…or find them boring, unfunny, predictable and entirely forgettable.” There. Now get off my planet.
Of all the words to describe, at the very least, Toy Story 2, those don’t even belong in the same universe. These movies are absolutely delightful, but that one in particular is nothing short of brilliant.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
I don’t believe I’ve seen Toy Story 2, havent seen Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, A Bug’s Life, or all of Finding Nemo, or Cars.
[/QUOTE]
You too. Out. Shoo.
Ok, don’t Pit me, but GEEZ! Smeghead might be an ogre not worth salvaging, but you haven’t even SEEN the best of the Pixar movies. I don’t even know why you’re in this thread. Do you go into every thread where you know little or nothing about the subject and give your opinions about how much you dislike the whole shebang? That takes such balls…do they hurt? Maybe that’s your problem. At least, PLEASE, at some point watch (and pay attention to) Toy Story 2. I really enjoyed the first one, but TS2 is ten times better.
Here are my favorites, in rough order:
Toy Story 2
The Incredibles
Monsters, Inc.
Toy Story
Finding Nemo
A Bug’s Life
I don’t know where Cars might fit, but it might be down there at or near the bottom, based on the previews. But see, even my least favorite, A Bug’s Life, is pretty good to me. I just have a non-preference for talking bugs and fish. We’ll see how I feel about talking cars after I see it.
Sorry to continue the hijack, but it is ridiculous for someone who has not actually seen most of Pixar’s films to attempt to make definitive statements about their similarieties or differences. For one thing, as several posters have mentioned, the only common thread amongst most of them is that they are animated via CGI and that John Ratzenburger seems to end up doing a voice bit in each of them. Secondly, AFAIK there is no serious question, amongst the community of critics and those who actually make films, that the stories, dialogue and acting performances found in both Toy Story films, and in The Incredibles, put them amongst the greatest films ever made, regardless of style or genre.
All right. So, will Cars meet this standard? I say probably not, based on the trailers and the extended promo (with incredibly non-funny bookended bits from the aforementioned Mr. Ratzenburger) on ABC last night. In this case, it appears that the plot arc and outcome will be fairly predictable, and unless there is a good dollop of the subtle sort of social commentary that has made John Lasseter’s previous films such a delight, it’s likely to be just a lot of really, really pretty pictures.
With all that said, however:
[Quote=Rodgers01]
The American obsession with cars has (IMHO) already been so detrimental in so many ways; did they really have to fan the flames? Couldn’t they have made a movie glorifying forms of public transportation instead?
[/Quote]
Er, Thomas the Tank Engine has already been done. Anyway, I think one may percieve a possible bit of the social commentary I alluded to earlier in that in the movie, the dominant life form in North America is the car and humans are completely absent. Actually, though, it’s probably not as heavy as that; Cars seems pretty clearly targeted at those who, like me, are fascinated by automobile styling and design and who collected huge numbers of Matchbox and Hot Wheels cars in their youth. I’ll still be going to see it, for that and for the undeniable technical wizardry displayed in the clips I’ve seen so far.
Y’know, now that you mention it, I can’t think of a single joke or reference that was aimed exclusively at adults … unlike in Shrek, Chicken Little, etc etc. … okay maybe some of the James Bond asides and superhero basic knowledge in The Incredibles, but that’s it. The humor and stories are just ageless, so we adults enjoy it too. Least, you really do have some chutzpah commenting on what you imagine these movies must be because you’ve seen one and another one that is animated like it. Pixar has been aiming for their movies to be classics. They know that such staying power is handicapped by too much hipness; hipness today is dated in two or three years. Now your formulaic charge can be levelled at much else in the children’s animation camp in recent years. Smart-talking sidekick, trendy references, smug asides referencing pop culture of today or of parents youth, and hope that the “oh wow” factor carries it the rest of the way. The fact that that has been the competition is one of the reasons that Pixar movies have stood out so much. Don’t get me wrong: I enjoyed Shrek, with its smart talking sidekick, pop culture references, sarcasm, innuendo, and Oh Wow animation; but few will be watching Shrek again with the Grandkids in 20 years. The Pixar movies they’ll be buying again then (in whatever new content delivery media is the new thing then with all the enhanced features) They have staying power.
Well, it’s also a story about finding America, about the lost Main Street of America, about what happened to Route 66… Cars are a metaphor for people, after all.
Paul Newman was genius casting, and having him as a old Hudson is even better. Almost the color of his eyes, and that old girl was a famous stock car at the time. The Andrettis started off racing Hudsons. To people who know cars, that showing up says “Old timer with a few tricks left who can show the fancypants kid a thing or two.” Or, to put it another way, “Paul Newman.”
Now, if you want to talk about glorifying cars, that’s something different. But they did make America what it is, and they do have a lot to say about who we are, and I think you’re going to have a greater appreciation of that when the movie’s done.
Oh, and Least Original… I wasn’t kidding when I called The Incredibles the best James Bond movie in years. That’s what it really is, when you look at it. He’s married, he’s retired, and he’s pulled out for one last mission. Maybe you don’t like the style, but it does work. It’s no worse a house style than Disney’s animation. But it’s a house style, not a gimmick.
If you want complete CGI reproduction of reality, go rent Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. It can be done. But they’re not doing it that way.
[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
Three, the actors are cast because they are character actors who have suitable voices, not because they are the latest big-name celebrity to tout on the posters and draw in their fans. Tom Hanks was cast before Philadelphia was released, so he was still Turner and Hooch fare at that point. Billy Crystal is a great character actor. Ellen DeGeneres is hardly A-list, and was perfect for her role. The Incredibles had such “superstars” as Craig T Nelson and Jason Lee, almost unrecognisable in these parts.
[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t Craig T. Nelson in Coach, a sitcom I know only through skipping past syndicated reruns and a reference on Who’s Line Is It Anyway?
I agree about the voice casting. I think it was Billy West who said that it’s harder and harder for traditional voice actors (guys like him or Frank Welker, who has done parts in more than 500 movies and TV series) to get parts ever since casting big-name actors to do voice work took off. (I sorta get the feeling that the first time it happened was with Disney advertising that Robin Williams was the voice of Genie in Aladdin.) That said, I agree that Pixar is less likely to cast someone simply because the actor is popular or a big name. I mean, looking at the leads for each movie:
Toy Story/Toy Story 2: Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. GuanoLad has covered Tom Hanks, and when I think Tim Allen I think former stand-up comic with an old ABC sitcom. I knew who they were when the movie came out but I didn’t think of them as big name stars.
A Bug’s Life: Dave Foley and Kevin Spacey (have I got that right? I’ve never seen A Bug’s Life.) Nobody on the cast is exactly a big name star, even though I recognize several names.
Monsters, Inc.: Billy Crystal and John Goodman. GuanoLad covered Billy Crystal, and John Goodman I knew of mostly because of Rosanne. Recognizable, a solid actor, but not a huge star.
Finding Nemo: Albert Brooks I didn’t really know about, though I knew he did the voice of Hank Scorpio in the Simpsons episode “You Only Move Twice.” I’ve never been a big fan of Ellen DeGeneres.
The Incredibles: See above about Craig T. Nelson. I don’t think I’d ever even heard of Holly Hunter or most of the movies she’d been in (not a surprise there. I don’t watch a lot of movies and generally exclude entire genres when I’m looking for entertainment.)
Cars: I recognize lots of names, but I can see the reasoning behind a lot of the casting and most of them aren’t actors. Well, Owen Wilson and Larry the Cable Guy, not so much (as I haven’t seen the movie yet and don’t know how the actors work with the characters), and a lot of the other cars are being voiced either by drivers or former drivers from NASCAR, the IRL (or before the open-wheel split I guess either CART or USAC), and Formula One, or in Mario Andretti’s case, all three. Then you’ve got guys, presumably with bit parts, like Jay Leno–who loves cars and motorcycles and has one heck of a collection–or the Magliozzi brothers who I bet many, many people will miss. I mean, how many people listen to Car Talk?
I don’t want to pile on, LOUNE, but it sounds like you have seen the original “Toy Story”. Could you please tell me what some of these “adult jokes” are?
See, I can think of a few bits that could work that way, but also work for kids. For instance, the Green Army Men talk like characters out of any random World War II movie you’d care to name - but so do the characters in, say, G.I. Joe commercials, and I think the cartoons as well, so this isn’t the first time kids would be exposed to it. Soldiers are “supposed” to talk like that. Soon after, Mr Potato Head hopes Andy gets a Mrs Potato Head for his birthday. Okay, adults can see that as a wish for some Hot Spud Lovin’ if they wish, but for kids he just wants a wife or a girlfriend or even just a friend that looks like him, no wink-wink nudge-nudge required.
What do you see as “adult jokes” that I don’t?
(Totnak, like many preschool-aged boys, went through an intense Toy Story phase for a while there. However, that’s been over for about a year now, and I have been able to purge at least part of the script from my memory…)
[QUOTE=flodnak]
I don’t want to pile on, LOUNE, but it sounds like you have seen the original “Toy Story”. Could you please tell me what some of these “adult jokes” are?)
[/QUOTE]
There’s quite a few, actually. However, there’s really two types of “adult” jokes: There’s the “kids wouldn’t understand it” variety, as well as the truly adult jokes that could be a bit dirty.
In Toy Story 1, Etch-a-sketch draws a noose on his screen, implying a lynching. Mr. Potato head calls the hockey puck a “hockeypuck.” There’s other’s as well, but they evade me at the moment.
In Toy Story 2 Buzz Lighter’s wings pop out after being complimented by Bo Peep, implying an erection.
[QUOTE=Rodgers01]
Not having seen it, I’ll preemptively say that this is by far the worst part of the movie. The American obsession with cars has (IMHO) already been so detrimental in so many ways; did they really have to fan the flames? Couldn’t they have made a movie glorifying forms of public transportation instead? :mad:
[/QUOTE]
I bet this is why so many are so quick to dismiss this movie – they refuse to understand how anyone could develop an interest in cars. Take one of my cousins, for example, who can’t understand why I want to keep my grandfather’s 1964 Ford. To her, any vehicle over five years old needs to be sold and replaced with a new one; she makes no distinction between an antique vehicle and a late-model modern car.