# The Ecology of Cars (The Movie) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 7, 2007, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153 "2007-05-07T20:34:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/41 "2007-05-08T20:14:23Z")
[QUOTE=anamnesis] I’m curious why the people who rake this film over the coals for being a logical fallacy feel the need to share the philosophical masturbation about how cars can’t exist in a world by themselves. Guess what? We get it. Yes, it’s a logical fallacy. I get it now, and I got it before I ever saw the first frame of the film. [/quote] You seem to be taking this awfully personally. It’s just a movie. Some people didn’t like it as much as you did. Some people were bothered by aspects of it that didn’t bother you. There’s no reason to get angry about it. > [@](#): > > I find it particularly ironic that ‘Cars’ was, by John Lasseter’s own admission, the one film he’d been working his way towards throughout his career at Pixar, and turned out to be one of their least popular films, probably due to overestimating the American public’s familiarity with car culture. That seems an unlikely reason for the film’s failure. Americans seem to be, in general, pretty well in tune with car culture. Far more so than they are with, say, marine biology. Yet that ignorance did not seem to harm _Finding Nemo_ at the box office or in the critic’s reviews. I think the problem with _Cars_ is more fundamental than that, as I explained above: it just wasn’t a very good movie. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure where all the claims of the film having no story, or a bad story, are coming from either. What was the plot of ‘Finding Nemo’? A lost and found story, with fish. What was the plot of ‘Toy Story’? A lost and found story, with toys. What was the plot of ‘Cars’? Why, a lost and found story, with cars. From my perspective, if ‘Cars’ had a bad story, then the others had bad stories as well. _Cars_ was by no measure a lost and found story. The protagonist does not lose something that he already had, quest to regain it, and in regaining it, learn to value it anew. It was a “fish out of water” story: the protagonist is taken from an enviroment in which he is comfortable and familiar, placed into another enviroment in which he is treated as an outsider, and in learning to adapt to that enviroment, comes to find it equally or more valuable than the world he left behind. There’s nothing wrong with that story, of course. It’s been used a thousand times to wonderful effect. And it’s also been used a million times to indifferent or incompetent effect. _Cars_ is an example of the latter. Even if we grant your contention that _Toy Story_ and _Cars_ have essentially the same plot, where _Cars_ stumbles and _Toy Story_ excels is in the _execution_ of that plot. It’s difficult to describe exactly why one failed and the other succeeded without doing a detailed, side-by-side analysis of the two films: a lot of it is intangibles. I liked Woody and Buzz. I cared about them as characters, I felt bad when they has setbacks, and I was cheered when they succeeded. I had no such connection with Lightning McQueen. I didn’t care for him as a character, and I had no emotional investment in his adventures. The writers failed to involve me in the story they were creating. > [@](#): > > Anyone who knows anything about Pixar knows that Lasseter is a consummate car enthusiast. His office wall is filled with dozens of model cars. Virtually every frame of the movie was a tribute to all corners of car culture, past and present. The film is positively brimming with inside references and faithful homages to car culture and automotive history. Which is great, but it’s not enough to hang a movie on. A good movie needs, more than anything else, interesting characters. Then it needs something interesting for them to do. If Lasseter had spent less time on the automotive in-jokes, and more time on tightening up the script and bringing the characters to life, the end result would not have seemed so (if you’ll pardon the pun) pedestrian. > [@](#): > > It’s a bit sad that the fixation on “cars needing people to do things” prevents some from enjoying what was truly a labor of love for the folks at Pixar, and for Lasseter in particular, a dream come true. Yes, _Cars_ was a labor of love. So was _Plan 9 from Outer Space._ The dedication of the creators does not automatically equate to excellence in the final product. _Cars_ was not a good movie, for reasons wholly apart from the implausabilities of its central concept. Had Lasseter been able to deliver a screenplay as excellent as the ones that gave us _Finding Nemo_ or _The Incredibles_, these implausibilities would have been gladly ignored by the audience. Absent that, the implausibilities become all the more glaring, and become the main topic of criticism of the film because it’s easier to say, “Why do the cars have seats in them,” than it is to articulate why Lightning McQueen failed to engage the audience the way Buzz Lightyear did. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/42 "2007-05-08T20:32:01Z")
Also, my closer for that article was going to be a realization of what happens after the credits roll; Radiator Springs builds itself back up from obscurity, becomes a popular place to live, and then Boom - Wal Mart moves in and all the lovely little mom & pop shops are priced out of business. ---
**Author:** ![Ellen\_Cherry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellen_cherry/32/3600_2.png) [@Ellen\_Cherry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellen_Cherry)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/43 "2007-05-08T20:36:44Z")
I enjoy the movie quite a bit – and like Maus Magill, I’ve seen it a bazillion times. I think I haven’t begun fixating on the logic of it too much (give me another 10,000 viewings, I guess), although my 9-year-old not long ago wondered why the minivan that passed Mack had a mattress strapped to the top. For what? I also wondered how Hendrix got into the car world, and decided it must be Hemi Hendrix. 😉 For us, the pleasure of the movie has been imagining all the real people behind the voices – Bob Cutlass doing TV commentary, Darrell Cartrip exclaiming his “ul pressure” is going through the roof – the wizened old Paul Newman is under the hood of that Hudson Hornet. It’s a _merging_ of our two worlds. It’s what would happen if WE were cars! And I have to say, I just love cars anyway, and we have just about every little diecast car they’ve made from the characters of this movie. … I mean, my 2-year-old son does. And I \* don’t \*have Flo and Ramone here on my desk at work. Nope. Not Flo and her gorgeous fins. Nuh-uh. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/44 "2007-05-08T20:50:15Z")
_MAD_ magazine joked that the film originally opened with a scene of humanity being wiped out by a nuclear attack which was cut because it was too depressing. But that joke- along with **Maus** ’s comment about _Cars_ being the only Pixar film (with the exception of _A Bug’s Life_) without humans in it makes me wonder- in the film, there are a few gags in which cars take the place of familiar personalities- Jay Limo is the talk-show host, and the governor of California is a Hummer who talks like Arnold Schwarzenegger. So this means that there are _no humans whatsover_ in the world of _Cars_- everyone is a car. Does that mean that all the humans really _did_ die out, or cars became sentient and killed all the humans, or that the film takes place on an alternate earth in which cars are the only sentient life form? This film brings up more questions than it answers. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/45 "2007-05-08T22:10:59Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] All this is cornflakes compared to the mental gymnastics I performed trying to unravel the details of the secret history behind **Who Framed Roger Rabbit?** I still don’t have that one totally worked out to my satisfaction… [/QUOTE] So? Read the novel it’s based on. And, if you want to find Humans, in the _Cars_ world…I’d start by looking in their Church. Who’d be there? A Sainted Dale Earnhart? :dubious: A vast idol of Henry Ford? :rolleyes: Tucker, on the Cross? :eek: I’m **so** going to Gridlock Hell for this one… ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/46 "2007-05-08T22:14:10Z")
I’m glad I’m not the only person who wondered what the tractors were doing there 😃 As for “racism” (modelism?) how about the forklifts? They get all the menial, servant-type jobs, which is what they are designed for. If they’re like real-life forklifts, then they can’t move fast enough to use the roadways themselves, and don’t have much of a range anyway. I imagine that forklifts were probably slaves at some point in the past. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/47 "2007-05-08T22:14:47Z")
Damn it, where is **scissorjack** [when you need him?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305728) ---
**Author:** ![anamnesis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@anamnesis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anamnesis)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/48 "2007-05-08T22:36:29Z")
To Raygun & Miller: I understood your point: you didn’t like ‘Cars’. I didn’t come here to selectively praise the few Pixar films I like and piss on the ones I don’t, though. I love them all. They all follow very similar formulas, and just because the facts about the film don’t jive with someone’s _opinion_ about the film doesn’t mean there an inherent disconnect with the film or that the film needs details added to make it better. If Miller wants to thrust his opinions rather than discussing points, fine, but his preoccupation with nitpicking explains why he thinks it isn’t a lost and found story. A piece of cultural history is rediscovered after a protagonist, lost in his rush towards the finish line, is forced to slow down and discover that there’s more to life than rushing through it. Not a lost and found story when taken in the literal sense (e.g. Finding Nemo & Toy Story), but most everyone I know understood this figurative aspect of the story and loved it because they weren’t fruitlessly milling over the ramifications of a world run by cars without humans. The few I’ve known to criticize the film were humorless to begin with, so no love lost. While I’d rather not waste my time debating negative opinion which will never change, I felt the need to share a few positive facts to counter Miller’s sentiments, and despite my curiosity about which “details” would’ve improved such a horribly flawed creative vision, I won’t ask what those details are because it doesn’t matter since the film is already made. I think the film is positively brimming with details, but I guess the biggest detail it’s really missing are possessed toys and talking animals … because Disney hasn’t done nearly enough of those. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/49 "2007-05-08T22:41:04Z")
[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor] So? Read the novel it’s based on. [/QUOTE] I have, years ago, but I don’t recall it being much help. For one thing, the plot is entirely different; for another, the premise of the novel is that syndicated newspaper comic strip characters really exist, not animated cartoon characters. But if I recall correctly, **Who Censored Roger Rabbit?** glosses over many of the same key elements that the movie does: what exactly are the Toons? Where did they come from? Have they always existed alongside humanity? Were there any famous historical Toons before photography (or motion picture technology) was invented? That sort of thing. You’d think that a virtually indestructible creature that can defy conventional physics would have a rather significant impact on global history. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/50 "2007-05-08T22:58:04Z")
[QUOTE=Terrifel] I have, years ago, but I don’t recall it being much help. For one thing, the plot is entirely different; for another, the premise of the novel is that syndicated newspaper comic strip characters really exist, not animated cartoon characters. But if I recall correctly, **Who Censored Roger Rabbit?** glosses over many of the same key elements that the movie does: what exactly are the Toons? Where did they come from? Have they always existed alongside humanity? Were there any famous historical Toons before photography (or motion picture technology) was invented? That sort of thing. You’d think that a virtually indestructible creature that can defy conventional physics would have a rather significant impact on global history. [/QUOTE] Uuummm…no. The Novel makes it clear: the Toons were living in North America when Euros arrived. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2007, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/51 "2007-05-08T23:08:58Z")
[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor] Uuummm…no. The Novel makes it clear: the Toons were living in North America when Euros arrived. [/QUOTE] Ah, well I don’t recall correctly then. Honestly, about the only things I distinctly recall about the book was the ending, the dark secret of the (I think??) DeGreasy brothers’ ancestry, and the fact that Li’l Abner’s hometown of Dogpatch had a booming industry supplying bootleg Toon liquor. It didn’t seem to me at the time that the novel really worked as well as the film did-- even though I was and am a fan of classic newspaper comics as well as animation, I thought the cartoon character/50’s-era Hollywood/private eye elements just fitted together naturally. Although I would certainly treasure a genuine autographed picture of Snoopy. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/52 "2007-05-09T00:18:16Z")
[QUOTE=anamnesis] To Raygun & Miller: I understood your point: you didn’t like ‘Cars’. I didn’t come here to selectively praise the few Pixar films I like and piss on the ones I don’t, though. I love them all. They all follow very similar formulas, and just because the facts about the film don’t jive with someone’s _opinion_ about the film doesn’t mean there an inherent disconnect with the film or that the film needs details added to make it better. [/quote] I’d really like to see you detail what the “Pixar formula” is, as I don’t think their movies are really all that similar. I probably wouldn’t be as big a fan of their movies if they were. I’m not at all certain what you’re trying to say about “facts of the film jiv[ing] with someone’s opinion,” or why you felt opinion needed special emphasis. Of course what I’ve said here is my opinion. So is what you’ve said here. I felt that was sufficiently obvious enough on its own that it didn’t need to be specifically stated. We’re discussing wether or not we liked a particular work of art. What can our answers be on this subject, except opinion? Did the film need “details” to make it better? Since I didn’t like the film, my answer is obviously “Yes.” Since you did, I suppose your answer would be “No.” Which is great. If we all felt exactly the same way about the movie, there wouldn’t be much to discuss about it, would there? > [@](#): > > If Miller wants to thrust his opinions… If I want to _what_ my opinions? > [@](#): > > …rather than discussing points, fine, but his preoccupation with nitpicking explains why he thinks it isn’t a lost and found story. I rather take exception to this. I explained exactly why I didn’t think it was a “lost and found” movie, and it had nothing to do with nitpicking the film. I explained why I disagreed with your categorization in the broadest terms I could. There was absolutely nothing nitpicky about that part of my post. It also bothers me that you say I don’t want to discuss “points,” only nitpicks. I wonder what you view as the difference between the two. Is it, perhaps, a valid point if it’s something you agree with, and a nitpick if it is not? In a larger sense, I’m bothered that you keep insisting that I didn’t like the film _because_ I nitpicked it, despite my explaining twice that I didn’t like the film for fairly substantial reasons: I didn’t care for the characters, and I was not interested in the plot. That’s not a nitpick. That’s a fundamental dissatisfaction with the two most important elements of any narrative artform. And, as I’ve explained twice, the nitpicking came _after_ the dislike. I didn’t nitpick, and then dislike. I disliked, so I nitpicked. And I saved my nitpicks for a thread _specifically dedicated to pointing out nitpicks in this film._ I am entirely unable to comprehend why this bothers you so much. > [@](#): > > A piece of cultural history is rediscovered after a protagonist, lost in his rush towards the finish line, is forced to slow down and discover that there’s more to life than rushing through it. Not a lost and found story when taken in the literal sense (e.g. Finding Nemo & Toy Story), but most everyone I know understood this figurative aspect of the story and loved it because they weren’t fruitlessly milling over the ramifications of a world run by cars without humans. This is rather rich. You originally brought up the “lost and found” claptrap as a way of saying that _Cars_ had exactly the same story as _Toy Story_ and _Finding Nemo_, and therefore if one didn’t like one, they were in some wise required not to like the other two. Now you’re saying they were only “figuratively” the same story. Which is another way of saying, “Not the same story at all.” What the hell do you even mean by “lost and found” story, anyway? Are there any movies that _aren’t_ “lost and found” stories? Because you seem to be defining the term so broadly that it could easily encompass the entirety of cinematic history. > [@](#): > > The few I’ve known to criticize the film were humorless to begin with, so no love lost. So, because I didn’t like this one particular film, I’m humorless? I guess that makes _ever other film Pixar has ever made_ humorless as well, because I’ve liked all of them, and thought they were all pretty funny. > [@](#): > > While I’d rather not waste my time debating negative opinion which will never change, I felt the need to share a few positive facts to counter Miller’s sentiments, and despite my curiosity about which “details” would’ve improved such a horribly flawed creative vision, I won’t ask what those details are because it doesn’t matter since the film is already made. You do understand that you’re on a _debate_ board, right? Maybe you’ve had a different experience, but I’ve always found it difficult (to say nothing of boring) to debate people who already agree with me. Really, what is there to say? “_Cars_ was great!” “No, you’re wrong, _Cars_ was _amazing_!” No, of course you’re not going to convince me that _Cars_ was a great movie. And I’m not going to convince you that it was a bad movie. That’s hardly the point of these sorts of discussions. I am, however, interested in knowing _why_ you thought it was a good movie, because I’m interested in opinions that are different from mine. We both saw exactly the same movie, and we both walked away with vastly different impressions of it. Doesn’t that fascinate you? It does me. I love finding out how other people interpret a given work of art in radically different ways than I have. I like to think it gives me an insight, in some small degree, into how that person views the world. It is, I think, the entire purpose of art: to communicate, to learn about each other, to find different subjective ways of viewing the objective world. Unfortunetly… > [@](#): > > I think the film is positively brimming with details, but I guess the biggest detail it’s really missing are possessed toys and talking animals … because Disney hasn’t done nearly enough of those. …you don’t seem to have that same fascination, as what you’ve taken from this conversation bears absolutely no resemblence to what anyone in this thread has said, which makes me question if you’ve bothered to read any of the posts you’ve railed against, or just glanced at them and substituted your own preconceptions of why you think people didn’t like this movie. It’s a big world out there, **anamnesis**. There’s room enough in it for more than one opinion. You don’t have to be frightened of that. It’s actually very, very cool. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/53 "2007-05-09T14:59:00Z")
I’ve actually found myself looking at real world cars and trying to decide if it’s smiling or has a mustache or wears glasses. The special features of the _Cars_ DVD has a deleted scene where they do an “engine transplant”… basically turning McQueen into a steam roller and, later, Mater into a race car. A plotline abandoned for being really, really, really, really creepy. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/54 "2007-05-09T15:56:32Z")
[QUOTE=Ellen Cherry] …although my 9-year-old not long ago wondered why the minivan that passed Mack had a mattress strapped to the top. For what? … [/QUOTE] Your kid is my new hero. That scene always makes me chuckle and I hadn’t noticed that detail. Bravo! * * * At any rate, I liked the movie. It is because I liked it that I bother to nitpick the little details. I don’t think that any of the posters who have come here to note a minor detail on the movie is planning to sue Pixar for it, or scratching his goatee at home wondering what to do about it. Picking things apart is what people do with movies and books they liked. It is not normally meant to diminish the work, just as a way to get even more time with it. Relax As for the movie being a lost and found story… well, I have a friend who says that all movies are cowboys and indians. I really don’t see how ANY of the Pixar movies is a lost and found. Only Nemo in its most literal interpretation. Certainly not Cars. Is it just me or is Cars a clone of “Doc Hollywood”? ---
**Author:** ![a35362](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@a35362](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/a35362)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/55 "2007-05-09T18:56:19Z")
I think the VW Bugs _as_ “bugs” joke doesn’t work because it’s a verbal joke that has to work physically, and it doesn’t. I wondered about Harv the agent being Jewish. In addition to the cowlike tractors there are Bessie and Frank as examples of apparently non-sentient machines that serve the other machines. Notice the cars maintain awareness even when their engines are off or they’re out of gas. Doc turns his engine on at Willy’s Butte; Sally and Lightning cruise around The Wheel Well with their engines off. And why do cars need to sleep? In a motel? Lightning sleeps (and has nightmares!), daydreams, and fantasizes. He passes out somewhere between getting snagged in the telephone wires and waking up in the impound lot. But he can stay up half the night and then “work out” on the dirt track when he needs to. Somebody mentioned how sheltered Lightning is. He is portrayed as a young male adult at the peak of his strength and ability. Yet he has no headlights, rear view mirrors, or a horn because he is a racecar. So he’s not road worthy and has to be ferried around everywhere inside Mack. He startles easily and panics as would a young child. He doesn’t like to be touched unexpectedly (by Guido, by Red, by Mater). He is frightened by Sherriff and by Stanley’s statue appearing suddenly and nearly melts his tires trying to get away. Sally says hello to him at The Cozy Cone and startles him. But then when the outside world catches up with him in Radiator Springs, he is obliged to give up his freedom and get back in the big red box, where he is a captive, a thing to be driven around, which somehow feels like some weird bondage thing to me. :eek: Saddest line: when Harv is telling him: “You’re a big, shining star. A superstar! You don’t belong there anyway.” And the ramp/door closes in Lightning’s face, over his weak protests. ☹ Small, blink-and-you-miss-it touch that I love: when Harv asks him for the names of 20 friends to send tickets to, of course Lightning doesn’t _have_ any friends and can’t provide any names. Watch the way he wiggles his front tires as he struggles to answer. It’s so cute! I can’t believe I wrote any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Jelymag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d2c977/32.png) [@Jelymag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jelymag)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/56 "2007-05-09T19:10:18Z")
Does anyone think that any of the deeper “meanings” (metaphors, symbolism, or what-have-you) we’ve proposed are there by design? Like somebody at Pixar is really trying to lace their stories with hidden meanings? I tend to take movies that are primarily for children at face value, the way they expect a child to see them. “Oh, how cute, little flying BUGS…” or “Shhhh… the cars are SLEEPING now.” ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/57 "2007-05-09T19:47:14Z")
One more thing to ponder: Did anyone else think that Fillmore and Sarge were a couple? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/58 "2007-05-09T19:57:07Z")
[QUOTE=anamnesis] To Raygun & Miller: I understood your point: you didn’t like ‘Cars’. I didn’t come here to selectively praise the few Pixar films I like and piss on the ones I don’t, though. I love them all. They all follow very similar formulas, and just because the facts about the film don’t jive with someone’s _opinion_ about the film doesn’t mean there an inherent disconnect with the film or that the film needs details added to make it better. If Miller wants to thrust his opinions rather than discussing points, fine, but his preoccupation with nitpicking explains why he thinks it isn’t a lost and found story. A piece of cultural history is rediscovered after a protagonist, lost in his rush towards the finish line, is forced to slow down and discover that there’s more to life than rushing through it. Not a lost and found story when taken in the literal sense (e.g. Finding Nemo & Toy Story), but most everyone I know understood this figurative aspect of the story and loved it because they weren’t fruitlessly milling over the ramifications of a world run by cars without humans. The few I’ve known to criticize the film were humorless to begin with, so no love lost. [/QUOTE] I kept on wondering why those cars in that small town on Route 66 didn’t give a rats ass about all those 19th-century train depot towns that dried up after the US Route system was built in the 30’s. Whining about what happened to their town while completely ignoring the fact that they, too, had to wipe out a couple of smaller towns in order to have _its_ glory day… damn hypocrites. Makes you wonder what happened to all the Pullmans… :eek: _What???_ ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/59 "2007-05-09T20:11:00Z")
I think y’all are thinkin’ too much. (Not that, around here, there’s anything wrong with that.) I am a top flight, certifyable, Car nut. While you’re wondering about where they take a crap (\*), I’m looking at the physics of the powerslide Doc does and am thinking “They _nailed_ that…right up to the point the front tire goes _backwards_ at the end.” But I have a really overdeveloped suspension-of-disbelief gland (heck, I liked Matrix 2-3), and figure what they delivered was kid entertainment first, car enthusiast orgasm a close second, and ‘but how plausible could it be?’ a distant fifty-fourth on the list. \*= You know, like on the TOS Enterprise ---
**Author:** ![anamnesis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@anamnesis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anamnesis)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153/60 "2007-05-09T20:19:09Z")
**Unintentionally Blank:** Seconded. Well said. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ecology-of-cars-the-movie/403153.md?page=4)