Why all the hate for Cars?

As opposed to a functioning society of aware toys? That have held their existence secret for thousands of years? Or a talking rat that cooks at a four-star level? To claim Cars pegs the suspension of disbelief meter shows some narrow-gauge thinking.

And I know I bring this up every time Cars pops up but those who continually get hung up on the fact that it follows (more or less) the plot of Doc Hollywood would grow some western cultural awareness. The plot of ‘sophisticated outsider finds truth while helping rubes’ goes back, literally, hundreds of years. Possibly thousands. It’s most famous, or should be, as the basis of Brigadoon with Gene Kelly. Really, people, at least try, will you?

For Cars, I was initially skeptical but it’s a good movie. Well made with beautiful animation. The initial scene during the credits was almost photorealistic. It’s also clear that there’s a LOT of car worship going on by the production team. I’m not a car guy by any means but I know loving kindness when I see it.

That and the soundtrack, especially the intro song by Sheryl Crowe, make it all worthwhile. It also has underlying themes of those things lost for efficiency (which could be caused by interstates, media, Wal-Mart or whatever) and an old/young dichotomy between the two race cars (Paul Newman and Owen Wilson) and you’ve got a good movie.

Then again…some people only watched this movie for the crashes! :wink:

:nodding: I love Pixar movies, but you just nailed it as to why Cars is my least favorite. Heck, I couldn’t even sit through most of it.

Besides I’ve never liked NASCAR.

It’s not my favorite Pixar movie, but I liked it waaay better than I thought I would. It was completely different to what I expected (I thought it would consist mostly of car races, which I dislike).

The scenery was beautiful, as others have said. The story was so-so, but again, better than my expectations. And I’m a sucker for animation, so that is always a plus.

Not like Finding Nemo or Monsters Inc.

Yes, yes, yes. This is why I love the movie. There is a real nostalgia there for the things that made places unique and special and sorrow about how these have been lost in the name of progress and efficiency. (And this is not just a Small Town/Big City difference, by the way. Every city in the US used to have its locally-owned downtown department store. How many are Macy’ses now - or just closed and gone?) Radiator Springs isn’t where I’d choose to live, but some people - erm, cars - refused to leave even as the town was dying around them. Why?

Combine that with gorgeous and lovingly-rendered landscapes and the best soundtrack of any Pixar film and I’m willing to excuse the stupid potty joke :stuck_out_tongue:

Hardly. Just because a seemingly majority of others here have trouble accepting the premise, and you don’t, doesn’t automatically mean it’s the result of “narrow-gauge” thinking. Instead, it’s distracting. The other Pixar movies work so well before we’re presented with fantastical elements within a real-world context. Cars, on the other hand, presents an entirely new universe that makes no damn sense, no matter how much they tried to demonstrate how the cars actually interact with their world.

The whole movie felt like an excuse to market toys.

I don’t think people have issues with the fact that they share a similar plot–many movies and other forms of media do as well. Instead, people take issue with the fact that it’s practically a scene for scene remake.

I don’t care about NASCAR or Larry the Cable Guy, but I love the American Southwest and Route 66 (“limited in it’s appeal”…?). Plus, it has Paul Newman’s last work-- doing voiceover on a subject near and dear to his heart. All reason enough for me to really like the movie.

I wish David Cronenberg had directed it.

So, what you’re saying is…

Rob Schneider should be in it?

Yeah. Especially internationally.

I enjoyed the film. I think it’s one of the better Pixar offerings myself.

It’s interesting that a lot of the reasons people don’t like it are for the class distinctions. They don’t approve of the fact that it appealed to a class that they can’t relate to.

OK, I am of mixed feeling about the movie. First off, I was editor of the newspaper of one of the two prime models for the town in the movie (Oil Can Springs?), Tucumcari and Santa Rosa, New Mexico. So every time I see the film on the television I get bit misty because I recognize many of the mesas around the town (even the Cadillac Ranch ridge right in back of the town), I recognize most of the buildings they feature and I definitely appreciate the sentiment created by the bypassed community when I-40 took over from Route 66. Maybe having cute cars face the situation trivializes it. I don’t know.

The reason I dislike the film is because when it came out I was working at another paper in another state and my publisher decided to give the staff a private showing of the film rather than pay us a bonus for a special promotional edition we had put out. So everytime it comes on, I have a bitter taste in my mouth.

That’s too bad. I definitely could relate to it. It’s interesting that they used Tucumcari and Santa Rosa. That makes a lot of sense. It being in New Mexico works quite well for that.

It’s a definite slice of Americana, and people seem to dislike that about it the most. It also is very clever in the way it chronicles the history of American car culture from Rte 66 to Talladega. I-40 really did a number on Rte 66 and I like that it recognizes that. It really teaches children the history of twentieth century America in a very clever way IMO.

My kids love this movie, and only The Incredibles ranks higher for them. The rat movie, on the other hand, they’ve only watched 2 or 3 times.

When it came out on video, my niece watched it every day for 6 months. I was her Christmas hero last year when I got her a Cars nightlight. When I would baby-sit her, I had to watch the video quite a bit. I thought it was OK; though I hated how they shoehorned in stereotypes to replace honest jokes. "Oh look! the hick car is Larry the Cable guy saying “Git 'er done!”

I mentioned my theory before.

Cars is set on a world full of what are essentially self-aware robots. They were clearly designed to serve human transportation needs but there are no humans (or other living creatures) around. Something must have built the original cars. And something must be building the cars now.

My theory is that this world used to be like our world, full of people. The cars and other machines served the people. Giant computer-run factories ran the economy and built all the products needed for human use.

But then some huge disaster killed off all of the biological life on the planet. The cars, whose function was to serve humans, now lost their sense of purpose. The computer factories, whose function was to build a society for humans, also were adrift. So they essentially reprogrammed themselves.

The factories keep building the cars and other robots to keep society running even if there are no longer any people to run it for. Lesser machines like the cars cannot handle this paradox so the knowledge of humanity has been deleted from their programming. They’ve been programmed to exist without questioning why they exist.

I don’t think it’s anything as deep as that.

Take, for intance, Disney’s Robin Hood (now there was an amazing classic kid’s movie. God, it’s probably the most appealing characterization of Robin Hood that’s ever been done, and it’s a damn Disney cartoon - a testament to Brian Bedford’s voice acting skills. Did you know that there is a huge cult following of women who actually found the fox Robin Hood sexy, not because they’re “furries” or anything but just because his voice was so smooth and confident sounding?) I digress. Anyway, Disney’s Robin Hood opens with a little visual of an old-time Medieval manuscript showing some illustrations of the Robin Hood story with human characters, and then Roger Miller’s rooster character appears at the top, saying, “There are lots of stories about Robin Hood. Well, here in the animal kingdom, we have our own version. And it goes something like this…”

And that’s the last you see of the human figures. From that point on, the viewer simply accepts that the movie is taking place in an animal world, and that’s all there is to it.

This concept, to me, works quite well with animals. But it does not work with cars, since cars are inherently a creation of humans. Forcing the viewer to envision some kind of scenario where cars live in their own world, with “car hotels” and car races attended by other cars, is just stupid. But again, I have nothing but utter contempt and hatred for that movie, so anything I say about it is going to be negative. I’m going to find faults with everything in it.

And, ugh, the Tow-Mater character was just so unbelievably stupid! Even if everything else in the movie was awesome, I would still dislike it just based on that character alone.

This has nothing to do with me not being able to appreciate “blue collar humor.” It’s that Tow-Mater is not blue collar humor. That kind of shit is a dumbed-down, artificial, pre-packaged version of what blue-collar humor is supposed to be. The blue collar world, in reality, is in some ways the last bastion of the true raconteurs. But this involves extremely vulgar language, explicit anecdotes about various crude and offensive topics, and a lot of other things that aren’t allowed in “mainstream” entertainment. So what we get is the filtered, antiseptic, Disney-fied version of “blue collar humor” and that I simply can’t fuckin’ abide.

Ok, there’s like 10 Pixar films. Of them, one has to be the “least favorite.” Now, note that few here HATE it as per the OP’s incorrect assumption, it just seems to be the least popular of a group of otherwise great films.

I like it, but compared to The Incredibles or others, it just isn’t as good. The list of Oscars it was nominated for, as compared to the other Pixar films (6 of which won), bears this out. Admittedly Toy Story 2 was also weak in comparison.

Apparently there are plans for a Cars 2, and a Toy Story 3.

You mean like sticking Pat Buttram into any voice role, even when it doesn’t fit the location?

If you didn’t like that element of Robin Hood - the fact that it was a bizarre mash-up of English and rural American accents - fine. To me, it’s one of the things that makes the movie more charming, but I can get behind a legitimate distaste for that element of the film. But Pat Buttram is infinitely more tolerable to me than Larry the fucking Cable Guy.