Rachel: I’m really glad you could relate with me on that. You’re right though, the trailers always just show the good parts and what will get you in the theatre so you can never truly tell what the movie is like until you watch it.
Curiously, I think the Ratatouille trailers didn’t show the best parts, but the slapstick, instead, which is good, but not what makes the movie great.
I think most trailers make films look better than they are. But Pixar trailers aren’t capable of that. They show a much worse movie than what the final product really is.
That’s pretty much exactly what I think. Most trailers make movies look epic, but when you get to finally see them they’re just running average. But I can never tell from a Pixar trailer the emotion behind it, or exactly how great it’s going to be. I like it like that 
I’d argue that Disney’s trailers in general can undermine the films. Exhibit A: Meet the Robinsons
I’m more apt to think the first point about people just not caring about NASCAR and stuff is what draws people away from the films than the second point. I don’t think simplicity alone or a point that Disney had made many times is the problem with why Cars doesn’t have more appeal. I mean, WALL-E has an extremely simple base plot and the oldest Disney-cliche in the book: True love conquers all. But both the critics and the general audiences ate it up like nobody’s business.
For me personally, though, I found Lasseter’s enthusiasm contagious. He honestly made me give two cents about cars and racing with these movies, but I haven’t talked to anybody else who was swayed like that.
I think the most likely culprit though is that Cars has strange pacing; Lasseter as a director has a trait that you don’t see in many higher-end film studios that greatly affects his films: He’s a fan of Japanese film. And old friend of Miyazaki-san’s work.
Lasseter’s films play like segments of shorts with an overarching theme. Granted, all films are technically collections of scene,s but IMO Lasseter’s segmentation in film is more noticeable than average. His style REALLLLY reminds me of a slice of life anime. We have our main characters, but there is a large cast and attention is given to their stories and simple background events that, while not necessary, are entertaining.
I think this is probably where Cars fails for a lot of people: The things that are not necessary part. While these side stories and events that don’t effect the main story enrich the world a good deal, in western film making and writing practices, a loose end like that is seen as a bad thing. I honestly think that if we took a poll of who on the forum is a fan of anime and who liked Cars, there would be a correlation. This isn’t too insult people who didn’t like the film as being “too western” or anything. But I think what films we’ve seen affect what films we like in the future, and cultural differences affect film.
Now mind you, I’m not claiming this as an excuse to sloppy writing. Loose ends and characters that have no consequence or losing complete focus on your main story? Bad. Badbadbad. I’m just saying…
Ugh, does anybody get what I’m trying to say here? It’s kind of a cultural thing but kind of not? 
My point is, I think the pacing threw a lot of people off.
Me! I feel the exact same! If it wasn’t for Cars I still wouldn’t give a care about either of those. My overall opinion on this topic is this; there has to be an under-dog. One of Pixar’s movies had to be given the title of “Pixar’s weakest” and here we are. One of their films had to take it, and most people think it is Cars. Just as there has to be a strongest, there has to be a weakest. Sadly, Cars is the one who has to suffer with the bad rap but that’s life. I personally believe that A Bug’s Life is their weakest but I won’t get into it because I know what it feels like to hear negative things about your favourite movie.
A Bug’s Life is also somewhat weak, you’re right. The reason I don’t think it qualifies bellow Cars is because of it being a very early movie, and a very ambitious one for that time. And I think the writing is a tiny bit better, which isn’t surprising, since Andrew Stanton was on board.
I personally can’t see why anyone sees Cars as being the weakest film. 
I think it’s the whole “living cars” thing that acts as a big obstacle for most people to mentally overcome. But I don’t find anything lacking in the story itself.
Ahhhhh Mr. Stanton’s writing! I rank Cars above ABL, but I personally really enjoyed ABL too. I love how emotionally-centric Mr. Stanton’s writing is.
I don’t know if people understand how much work went into Cars. It’s not just cars with faces. Watch the bonus disc of the bluray edition and you can see all kinds of research and such… It’s just amazing. I wasn’t a racing fan prior to the film, but I have to say that movie just grows on you after awhile.
Cars 2 I can understand as being a bit weaker. The only problem I have with Cars 2 is how blown-up it is compared to the first. The first one was about small-towns and slowing down, and the second was a huge spy epic thriller. And to be honest, the second one was fantastic. It was fun, interesting, and had even better visuals than the first. But it’s just so different that if you watch them back-to-back, it’s kinda like… WTF??
And I think the Cars Toons are partially responsible for that. They were really out there. Which is OK, given the format and such. But I think the transition from Cars to Cars Toons to Cars 2 made Cars 2 a completely different film from what it would be from Cars to Cars 2. Both would be traveling movies, just set in America and then Europe. I almost would have preferred that.
Almost. Because one thing that made Cars 2 great was the adventure that Mater has. After all his questionable accomplishments in the shorts, it was great to see him and Lightning on the same level, if that makes sense. They both have their love interests and their separate worlds but can still be best friends. I think that was cool.
The other thing that made Cars 2 more than forgivable is the new characters. Finn McMissle and Holley Shiftwell were so cool and well-rounded characters that it was definitely worth having them in the movie. Not only the new characters, but the development of the old ones too. After Cars, there was some complaint about single-sided, stereotypical characters. Obviously the fact that there were personalities that went with the car model was very humorous. But in Cars 2, there are different sides of Guido, Luigi, Sarge and obviously Mater. That was hugely important in improving Cars.
Finally, I will say that the film was not perfect. But it deserves a LOT of credit considering what it’s been through with the rocky change of directors and other production issues. And additionally, I will defend that this film was not made to cash in on merchandising. I will tell you why. John Lasseter, long before Cars 2 was given the greenlight (no pun intended xD), was talking about a sequel where Mater travels around the world.
Before I saw the film, I thought that even though it may not have been intended to cash in on merch, they obviously will go overboard in it by putting millions of cars in the second one. I was pleasantly surprised that they didn’t seem to do that really at all. Many of the characters did not change from the first Cars and additionally, there were only about as many characters at the original (the only exceptions being Lightning’s wheel/paint variations [but not more than the original for sure], Mater’s disguises and the race decals on the RS crew). Even despite all those exceptions, I think there was still less tomfoolery xD
Speaking as someone who reasons behind games about an ape wearing a tie, I can definitely see some believability in that ‘biological cars’ argument, even if it sounds a bit far-fetched.
But I don’t like Cars for a whole different reason; Pixar had before made films that could somehow exist in real life, taken in consideration a bit of anthropomorphization. Well, except for Toy Story of course. But Cars? They’re… talking cars… and it’s never explained where they came from and why they’re sentient.
WELL the last time I saw it was when it first came out
maybe I should give it a re-watch, I’m sure my opinion has changed.
NetBug009…If I came across as a little bit arrogant on JL’s choices (I do think the guy is a genius) then I apologise, and I totally agree, his enthusiasm is infectious.
Oh, and Andrew Stanton did A Bug’s Life a lot of favours! His writing has such emotional heart to it, seriously, he needs to write novels! 
Oh nonono, you didn’t sound that way. I guess I just don’t get it is all. Everybody is saying that Cars is for automobile enthusiasts and I never really cared much before Cars. I guess I’m just strange! 
^Nah, I’m the same way! 
Although when I took a few of my car enthusiast friends along with me to see Cars 2, I think they were pointing out all the car makes and jokes more than paying attention to the actual movie!
To be fair aswell, I don’t really care for cars, but I come across as a hypocrite somewhat as I loved Cars and Cars 2 and watch Top Gear every weekend and care rather a lot for my little car that I can barely afford to run 
Good analysis about the pacing, Netbug. Most of Lasseter’s movies have little vignettes and ‘things happening in the background’ for viewers to notice. Well, most Pixar films do, but it is especially pronounced with Cars and Cars 2, which is why for me, I find it a very ‘rewatchable’ film, just to pick up on all the little world details. The pacing is more scattered and not as focused as classic Western filmmaking of one (male) protagonist+one (female) love interest+one antagonist=Whole plot is about them. It is more rich and detailed, but it might be frustrating for those who are expecting a straightforward story.
Did I get your gist here, or am I deviating too much? Anyway, the stuff I didn’t like about Cars 2 was the pacing, but not because it was segmented, but because it was too. Darn. Fast. For a guy who watches cop shows and spy flicks, even I struggled to keep up with what’s going on and who’s doing what. Maybe more astute viewers with quicker attention spans might be able to ‘get it’ and I’m just an old dinosaur, but it was as confusing watching it the first time as the Bourne trilogy or Christopher Nolan films. And this is for an animated film for all-ages! Maybe it’s because it’s more complex that Pixar should be admired for it, but darn it, too much exposition, not enough character development!
There were so many wasted opportunities; we could’ve seen more of Mater and Holley, or Lightning and Sally. Or Finn and Holley. Whatever. But all these little ‘character moments’ were drowned out by the whole international espionage plot. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about the spy story; I was more interested in the ‘shipping’ and character interactions. Yes, there were some good moments, like Lightning’s “I don’t want your help!” outburst and Tortellini’s backstory of Luigi and Guido. But these were overshadowed by the complicated conspiracy plots involving lemons, and video cameras which were not video cameras, and what’s this engine in the picture… yadayadayada. And Mater acting like a goof half the time. 
…
Just gonna drop a little plug here. So most of you would know I’m extremely discontented with the story in Cars 2. So I’ve written a trilogy of one-shots which I’m planning to post up over the weekend (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) with my own take on events from the movie. Some of you might remember I lamented about how I would do a post-Tokyo-race scene between Lightning and Sally, or how I would write a moment where Holley pleads Mater not to risk his life, etc. So just keep a lookout on deviantART and fanfiction, and I’ll post the links on the Fanfiction board when I upload them.
End soapbox
This, this, this! Summed up my feelings perfectly there! Hahaha and I love how you drop that mention of your one-shots everywhere. 
It’s totally cool though man, I highly suggest people read them!
Well, Cars is no longer Pixar’s black sheep. Cars 2 is. 
Just kidding. I like Cars 2 much better.
[quote="MissCarrera":3grtjhmb][quote="thedriveintheatre":3grtjhmb]
There were so many wasted opportunities; we could’ve seen more of Mater and Holley, or Lightning and Sally. Or Finn and Holley. Whatever. But all these little ‘character moments’ were drowned out by the whole international espionage plot. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about the spy story; I was more interested in the ‘shipping’ and character interactions.
[/quote:3grtjhmb]
[i:3grtjhmb]This, this, this![/i:3grtjhmb] Summed up my feelings perfectly there![/quote:3grtjhmb]
Yeah,A lot of people have been saying the same thing…they could’ve done a lot better…I don’t know what mess Cars 2 was…
Unfortunalty your probably right! Especially if Brave turns out to be brilliant, because then it’ll be in between that and TS3.
I like Cars 2, but I like it less and less the more I think about it which is a shame. At least Cars got me a bit teary eyed, and I rooted for the characters. The animation in Cars 2 was stunning, and I liked the new characters, but it was all a bit emotionless.
But you could argue that it was meant to be a bit of fun, I guess. I don’t think Pixars reputation has been “ruined”, which is what a lot of people are elaborating.
I don’t think Cars 2 is the “weakest” Pixar film to date. Those RT critics I felt were a little harsh torwards this movie. Definedancing made a pretty good point. If Brave next summer is really good, then Cars 2 would probably get the same feelings that A Bug’s Life got since there sandwiched between two really good movies. Like I said, it depends on how you look at Cars 2 to see if it’s a good film to you or not.