I do think Cars is one of the weaker pixar films, but i still love it to death.
Hahahaha! I like both Shark Tale and Bee Movie! 
They aren’t my favourites or anything but I don’t mind watching them for fun once in a while. Come on, who doesn’t like Jerry Seinfeld?! 
I raise my hand to your question
That movie is weaaaaaak. But compared with Shark Tale, it’s a masterpiece.
Cars and Cars 2 are my least favorite Pixar films, and I’d say they probably have the weakest storylines out of all Pixar’s movies. But don’t get me wrong, I really love both of them. And I do think thy both have pretty strong storylines, but when I compare them to Pixar’s other films I think they are the weakest of the bunch. And honestly, the basic concept just never appealed to me personally as much as say, Toy Story or WALL-E.
You don’t like Jerry Spirit? Hahaha, yes I know it’s a weak film but it makes me laugh.
Not really.
Never watched his show, to be honest, but the few times I’ve seen him, I haven’t liked his humor.
I’ve also heard he went into a misunderstanding with John Lasseter. Do you know if it’s true?
No I never heard that at all! If you find out any details on it I’d love to know.
Oooh, didn’t he tell Jerry not to trust Jeffery Katzenberg, and then he subsequently went and took the micky out of him in Bee Movie or something:? Y’know, coz of the whole Bug war drama?
Something like that. But I’ve never read it in an official source.
Me neither, but it’s an interesting piece of gossip nontheless 
I think both Lasseter and Katzenberg have their flaws to be fair([size=85]runs and hides from JL-sessives[/size]).They’re both talented at their craft though, it’s just that Lasseter seems to be a lot friendlier and laidback in his approach, and thats earnt him more respect. Maybe warning Jerry wasn’t tactful, but taking the micky wasn’t very nice either.
I also think JL has flaws. As a director that’s it.
He’s an awesome producer and business man.
I absolutley admire and adore his passion and enthusiasm, but sometimes it feels like he’s so occupied in what makes him happy that the audience is let down as a result. I feel Cars is a prime example of that. It’s no secret that this film comes from his love of cars and NASCAR, but let’s face it, different things float our boat. A huge chunk of society couldn’t care less about vehicles, myself included. It could’ve been way up with Pixar’s best anyways with a stronger story, but his stories also seem to be very…simple. Which there’s nothing wrong with, but morals like being yourself and acceptance have been done to death, especially in Disney films. One of many reasons as to why I think Pixar are so appealing to a broad audience is that they’re not afraid to touch on darker issues, such as abandonment, loneliness and death. Cars is just so cheery compared to other Pixar films. I mean, even the other “child orientated and weak” Pixar film, A Bug’s Life, has some pretty dark themes in it, and the scene where Flik get beats up at the end is prety disturbing. Cars hasn’t really got that.
I have to agree, John really did seem to make Cars to suit himself. I really liked your point…
. That is so true, one of the biggest reasons I tend to enjoy a Pixar film.
I thought the same thing with Ratatouille in regards to the promotion and trailers of the movie. After watching the first trailer, the one with “Once in a Lifetime” song, it portrayed Ratatouille as slapstick and with lots of action, and while it DID have some active scenes and slapstick moments (like Linguini being controlled by Remy), generally speaking, it was more about savouring experiences, much like the French do, taking your time, like a rat would do. I can understand why Disney/Pixar promoted it that way, because would you really take your kids to see Ratatouille if you knew it was as slow paced as it was, and with a title you couldn’t even pronounce?
So Ratatouille was different than what I was expecting, but all Pixar films have been that way for me. The trailer can only show you the parts that are most likely to get you into the cinema, but most of the time they can’t set the tone or feel for the movie, like seeing the whole movie could. So it’s not as if marketing did anything wrong, but they advertised Ratatouille as a different movie than it actually was, especially with that particular trailer. But I still enjoyed the film anyway, even though it was different than what I was expecting, and I have liked it more as the years have gone on (like wine, eh?)
As for Cars 2, I didn’t watch any of the teaser trailers or anything apart from what I saw on TV since I wanted to be surprised and I already had a rough idea of what to expect anyway.
Personally, I think that Cars 2 is now Pixar’s weakest film, along with Cars and A Bug’s Life.
I really really really agree with this.
In one of my other posts (the Cars 2 review thread), I touched on the fact that one of the reasons why Cars 2 even got the go ahead AND was allowed to continue through the stages of production is because of the billions, with a b, of dollars that was to be gained in refreshing the Cars franchise, and also the fact that Cars was Lasseter’s pet project AND it’s about one of his passions along with animation: cars.
Would Newt have continued on if John Lasseter’s favourite animal were newts, and if HE was the director instead of Gary Rydstrom, and if there were guaranteed billions to be earned from merch? I very much think so. But it seems as if there is one standard for Lasseter, and he can get away with a sub-par story, but other Pixarians cannot.
Personally, I don’t care about fish or rats, but I FELT for the characters in Finding Nemo and Ratatouille. So even though cars are not my thing, I would like to say that it’s because of the choice of the type of character that makes me not connect with them, but I think it’s the personalities. On the other hand, I’ve read that people have said they find it hard to relate to cars, and speaking for myself, I don’t know what it is, but the whole Cars universe and how that all came about is just a tad creepy.
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.