Given the power Lasseter was given after the buyout, I’d think a Pixar-fication of Disney is more likely than the reverse.
Even so, it’s hard to argue that the plot for A Bug’s Life was particularly original: it’s yet another reskin of The Seven Samurai. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but the complaint about Ratatouille was that it relied on formula, and that this made it distinctive among the Pixar library. Clearly, this is not the case: Pixar has done highly original work, and Pixar has done formulaic work, and this can be seen as far back as their second major movie.
No argument there.
Ok everyone seems to think this is the funniest thing ever, but racking my brain as hard as I can (ow) I can’t figure out the reference. Mind you, it’s been a long time since I saw either of the Toy Story movies.
In other news, I’m glad there is no sequel to “The Incredibles”… I’m apparently one of the three people on the planet who thought the first one was lame as hell.
I never bothered to see the first “Cars” because it looked stupid… is it worth it?
Normally I love Pixar movies, though. And I liked “A Bug’s Life”, despite Miller’s label as “their worst.”
Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase was “To infinity… and beyond!”
Which, in and of itself, cracks me up.
ETA: I didn’t bother to see Cars either because it looked stupid, but due to a confluence of events ended up with a copy of it in my possession. We watched it, it had its moments. I cracked up over the minor characters Luigi and one played by Tony Shalhoub. Otherwise? Meh. I liked it better than Ratatouille.
:smack: Ok I get it. I was totally trying to think of what Toy Story movie had anything about amphibians in it. Mind going down totally the wrong track there.
Yes, it is. Does it pale in comparison to some of the other Pixar movies? Maybe, but after all, those films did set a rather high standard.
No, it’s not. Dramatically inert, never particularly memorable, visually undistinctive, and way too long. There are plenty of other Pixar films that I think are vastly overrated (Nemo, TS2), but Cars is still easily the most sub-par production the comany has released.
I thought Finding Nemo was one of their best, actually.
I could watch Nemo over and over and over–largely for the art, though the story and voice acting are both great.
It’s OK: beautifully crafted, of course, but the most formulaic {and, dare I say it, “American”} of their movies. It feels weirdly dated: basically Thomas the Tank Engine with a gigantic budget. Cocky talking vehicles learning the True Meaning Of Friendship {TM} have been done to death, and “Cars” brings nothing new to the party.
I liked it, too. Just not as much as Toy Story. Or Finding Nemo. Or The Incredibles. Or… well, you get the picture. It’s one of the worst Pixar movies, but is still better than 90% of the other crap out there.
Cars, on the other hand, was just bad. Okay for a kids movie, I guess, but it doesn’t really bring anything for adults. The backgrounds are actually more interesting than the plot or the characters. (Actually, that’s not really that much of a slam: the film’s set in a Monument Valley-esque desert, and the backgrounds are really breathtaking. Probably not worth it if you can’t see it on the big screen, though.)
I just want to say that
[spoiler]seven-time Formula 1 world champ Michael Schumacher’s cameo in it made no sense! He shows up and he’s a Ferrari F430. Why isn’t he a Formula 1 car? How is a Ferrari F430 supposed to compete in F1? Or, alternatively but still not making sense, what kind of auto racing has Ferrari F430s in it?
Bugged the heck out of me, that did.[/spoiler]
Cars is about 25-30 minutes too long, and almost all its problems would be mitigated in trimming it down. It would still be formulaic but at least it would move faster. The abstract listed for the planned seequel indicate it will be more focused on racing, which was the best part of the movie.
Their slate looks good moving forward, I think. WALL·E looks amazing, and I just noticed Ben Burtt listed as a voice actor and sound designer. Sweet!
I’m so glad you brought this up. I drew a complete blank, but didn’t want to be the one who looked stupid.
I loved Cars when I saw it in the theater, but didn’t think much of it when I saw it on DVD, so I probably liked it for the visuals. I’d say it’s not worth seeing if you don’t have access to a nice tv to watch it on.
No problem, I’m happy to look stupid in your place. 
That was the plot Disney was going to use when they were going ahead with the sequel without Pixar. When they merged that story was scrapped, and instead they are going for the one Cervaise mentions, I believe.
I’ll agree that A Bug’s Life wasn’t great. It certainly wasn’t as good as Antz, which came out around the same time.
In my opinion, Pixar’s great movies are Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo. So A Bug’s Life represents an atypical dip in a record of overall excellent filmmaking. But Ratatouille represents the continuation of the trend that was started by The Incredibles and Cars. Which is the kind of pattern you can only observe via my five year method.
For real? I thought Antz was awful, but I really liked A Bug’s Life.
If that’s their real subtitle, then I can’t help but admire Pixar’s committment to truth in advertising.
(Wasn’t it the Onion who proposed the title Shrek 3: We’ll Keep Making These As Long As You Keep Buying Tickets, or somesuch?)