I posted that in the Cars 2 thread. Honestly, there isn’t much in that article makes me feel any better.
Yeah, I’m sorry John. There just wasn’t that much emotion in Cars 2, and especially not nearly as much as the first. I know how much you love the world and characters but you can’t turn a blind eye to criticism like this. That’s one way a writer’s pet character becomes The Wesley.
I get what he’s saying, that the little boys liked it and that’s what matters, but I don’t think he should consider it okay to aim a movie at young boys (not a difficult audience to impress). When you put to much focus on the world of Cars and not the characters, we can’t get attached to them or like them (which is my main problem with Cars 2, that and Mater. And John loves Mater too) and thus the rest of your audience feels cheated.
A really great interview. It covers excellent points, and perhaps even concern, that we might have for Pixar (I know I do), in regards to the reaction to Cars 2 (no matter what side of the fence you’re on), and Pixar’s seemingly changing stance on sequels, as well as colleagues holding back in their opinions of JL’s work.
I understand that there is a need to ‘save face’ when the reaction to something that you’ve made isn’t quite what you were expecting, but John Lasseter is coming across as a bit, I don’t want to say deluded, but like he doesn’t want to face up to the truth that something went wrong. I know that some Pixar fans liked it, and some of the general audience might have, and little boys wouldn’t have had too many complaints either, but generally speaking, this isn’t a real Pixar film.
I just hope that behind the scenes people are asking what went wrong and are being reeeeeally honest with themselves. It might be a bit hard though. It’s like when a friend of yours thinks that their child is a genius, when they are really only average - very average. Should you let things go, or should you burst their bubble and let your friend know, but risk losing them? Only in this case it would be your job at the best studio in the world.
JL is saying all the right things, but it doesn’t reflect on what has happened. It’s no use saying that no amount of bad animation will save a bad story, when that is exactly what has taken place.
Five years from now those “young boys” will no longer be so young and easy to fool for the next sequel. Plz, plz, no more Cars sequels, there should never have been a Cars2. I was never much of a Cars fan anyways, it was by far my least favorite Pixar movie and I refused to see it when it first came out, the promotion was over-the-top.
I just hope we don’t see another Cars sequel down the road. I probably would of liked Cars 2 better if it was still for the 2012 release it was originally supposed to have. I mean, if it would of gave them more time to fix the story and the entire film then I’m all for that. The story just felt like an absolute mess to me which felt like a rushed effort.
I personally wouldn’t mind one more sequel to Cars to round it off as a trilogy, but I would like a different director, and just for kicks, a female one, for a change. The article brought up an interesting point about the absence of a female director in Pixar’s pantheon, while Dreamworks has already had several. The last thing I want for Pixar is for it to be a one-man dynasty like Blue Sky (Carlos Saldanha) or Studio Ghibli (Miyazaki). The Brain Trust prevents this, of course, but that results in an oligarchy. It’s interesting to see newbies like Lee, Bob, Peter, and of course, Mark starting to enter the limelight, and old-timers like Brad and Andrew doing some live-action projects I’m looking forward to. Hopefully Pixar continues in this vein and like Old Man Walt says, “Keep moving forward.”
I agree with Rachel and Rac that John’s gotta do some introspection and realise that he made… well, I wouldn’t call it a stinker, since I enjoyed it, but an average Pixar movie which “couldn’t done better.” I wonder whether it is because it was rushed, or the last-minute directorial change (with Brad Lewis unceremoniously credited as ‘co-director’), or John being enamoured with his creations, or as the article speculated, the higher-ups at the Mouse House pulling the strings. Maybe it’s a combination of all.
It would’ve been more humble if John simply admits that the story needed a few tweaks instead of saying he doesn’t read the reviews and just does it how he likes it. Yes, it shows strong personal integrity, but at the cost of listening to your critics for future improvement.
Are you suggesting that Brave should have been released before Cars 2? Believe me, Brave will not turn out to be the Gift from God it’s being made out to be.
I don’t know. I’m just saying Cars 2 would of been better for the 2012 release. You know, only if Newt was still in production. I wonder what Brad Lewis’ version of Cars 2 would of been like.
I think that Cars 2, in the state that it was released in, was no where near ready. So I would like to know who made the decision that it was good enough to be brought forward. I think that Pixar should have worked on it for an extra year, even if it meant no Pixar movie for 2011, but then two in 2012. An even better decision would have been to scrap Cars 2 in the early stages when it was apparent that the story wasn’t working, and that it wasn’t to the standard of usual Pixar films.
I, for one, think Brave looks amazing so far and I have hopes that it will be just as great as Up. Just the concept is rock solid and the story must be good since they aren’t just making it because it already has a fanbase or because it is guaranteed to make a heck load of money from DVDs and merch, because it isn’t. But I think that, plus other mixtures of reasons, is the reason why Cars 2 was allowed to continue, when another Pixar film whose story wasn’t working, such as Newt, was canned.
I completely agree with you right there. Newt could of been something amazing if they hadn’t canned it. Looking at the concept art for that film, you could of told that it was going to be more of an artsy kind of film. They also canned it because it sounded simular to Rio and another film I can’t remember.
Just curious, what compelled you to come to such a sure and confident assurance? I, for one, hope that Brave will be awesome, but I wouldn’t trust anyone who says it will most definitely be (or not be), even if they’re from Pixar (especially if, seeing how Pixarians have a vested interest in generating hype for the movie).
That would be Alpha and Omega, which I intend to see one day because it’s made by Crest, an independent animation studio in India. I, for one, would’ve loved to see Pixar go up against Blue Sky, and I think both films have their merits. I’ve discussed this at length before, but basically Newt might have better characterisations and attention to detail, whereas Rio might have the more exotic setting and story. I say story because there is a reason for the two protagonists to be together (they are chained, unlike the newts in Newt) and a greater obstacle for the male to win the heart of the female (he has to learn to fly to save his species, Newt has to… do a mating dance, I guess?). This is all speculation based on the official synopsis, of course, but I would’ve dearly loved to see Newt, even if I don’t get to see Rio instead. The premise is enticing enough to grab your attention, rather than a conventional crossover movie (A spy movie… but with cars!). I mean, yeah, one can say Newt is “A love story… but with newts!”, but I have a gut feeling it would’ve, could’ve, been something more than that.
Did Pixar scrap Newt simply because it had a competitor releasing a film with similar themes that year? I don’t think Pixar would’ve been that lily-livered, especially with Shark Tale/Finding Nemo, Madagascar/The Wild, Happy Feet/Surf’s Up coincidences which have happened in the industry before. I’m more inclined to think they picked the easy way out and settled for a ‘safe bet’ with a sequel. Is this wrong? No. Could they have done better? Yes.
Looking at Newt’s concept art, with the two-headed snake, and the owl, and the curious assortment of people (compared to Blue Sky’s generiman-characters), it excites and thrills me more than seeing the further adventures of Lightning McQueen and friends, as much as I love them.
Probably that AICN reaction. That Cars 2 had a fairly accurate early review is reason to be a little worried.
Not sure about this. My theory is that Disney wanted to make Cars 2. Then, seeing that Cars was his personal film, Lasseter went along with it. Either that or just Lasseter wanting to expand the universe of Cars.
I’m actually glad Newt got canceled; it’s a story about animal mating! Not exactly standard kiddie fare. And I hate to be the guy that has a ‘bandwagon’ opinion, but Up is not worth watching past the ‘Married Life’ sequence, which is why I’m hoping Brave will have more strings to its bow than Up. But if you want to pay $15 to see a movie with only ten minutes of good material, I won’t stop you.
Well, basically every Pixar movie has been done before (either from coincidence, or theft - such as with Dreamworks stealing the ants concept from A Bug’s Life, or with Pixar borrowing “inspiration” from other works, or a mixture of all three) so I don’t think that should have been any reason for Pixar to halt Newt. I’m still bummed out that Newt is no more since the story sounded really quirky, and Lifted was one of my favourite shorts, so I was looking forward to Gary Rydstroms feature.
What really grinds my gears is that Cars 2 was allowed to be released, with it being quite awful, but Newt wasn’t. The double-standard is what gets me. Surely, Newt’s story couldn’t have been as bad as Cars 2’s story?
It’s always hard to take and absorb criticism when it involves something close to your heart, or you may not even really hear it in the first place, and especially hard to do the right thing and stop a film when it’s apparent that it’s not working, and especially hard when it’s a sequel that is guarenteed to make a profit many times over. It would have been hard for John to stop Cars 2 from being released, but it would have been the right thing to do.
Yes, it’s not standard kiddie fare. But that’s what is great about Pixar - they go where other studios won’t. I’m sure that Pixar would have approached the concept of mating in a tasteful way, don’t you? Pixar’s films are not just for children. Personally, I think that Ratatouille’s pacing and theme makes it not really suitable for children under 10 years old or so, depending on their attention span and ability to put themselves in someone else’s mind (younger children cannot developmentally do this yet).
But that’s just fine. The world doesn’t revolve around children, and that’s something that I think you need to grasp a bit better. Animation isn’t just for children. I feel that Pixar would have focused on the “love” and partnership between the two newts, and the adults would have cottoned-on what it meant for the species, anyway.
I can kind of understand what you mean about the first 10 minutes of Up, in that I feel that the first 1/3 of WALL-E is superior to the rest of the film. However, the difference between Up and Cars 2 is that many, many people feel that Cars 2 is a average at best effort from Pixar, but Up has generally been received as not only good animation, but a good film.
I think Cars is a franchise that will pick up fans who are little boys for years to come. Not a day goes by at my job where I don’t see little boys with Cars toys, clothes or backpacks. And they look like their to young to have been able to enjoy the first movie when it came out. When John says he made the movie for the little boys with the Cars merchandise, people can look at that as him saying he made it to sell more merchandise. He said that he makes what he wants. How many people besides Steven Spielberg and James Cameron can say that in Hollywood? I wonder if he has gotten to powerful. I have a feeling that ten years ago John wouldn’t have said something like that.
Edit: I don’t believe John when he says that he doesn’t read reviews. 
Pixar has gotten to much praise over the years for him not to have read the reviews. And I remember when he talked about how nervous everybody at the studio was about what the reaction to Up was going to be like more than any other film they had released. I’m sure he was looking at the reviews as they started to come in.
I see some people becoming worried about Pixar’s future after Cars 2’s failure. Technically, it’s Pixar’s first failure in everything. Anyway, I’m not going to worry about their future after one film. We need to see how Brave and Monsters University are like before we can make some more judgment about that.
I completely understand about animation not being just for children. But when a parent sees an ad for a Disney or Pixar movie, oftentimes they won’t research it and assume that it will be for kids. It’s because of situaions like this that make me think that parents would have an issue with Newt. And I think what you said about Ratatouille is very interesting; I would also add Wall-E and Up as films that would appeal more to older kids. Although I’ve been proven wrong about Up; I know a three year old who can watch Up over and over again and never gets bored.
That article could have been written for André & Wally B. (1984) from the Graphics Group in Lucasfilm. After George Lucas saw the one minute and forty seconds short film of the five year study of André & Wally B., Lucas was upset with the “content”. Afterwards, George Lucas asked the Graphics Group to be independent of Lucasfilm.* There’s no mention for raising money for George Lucas’s divorce BTW.
JL had gotten awards for Lady and the Lamp (1979) and Nitemare (1980), which both won the student Academy Award for Animation. He was on a roll.
Honestly, JL hasn’t changed at all. He upsets people every twenty-seven years.
*Disney Fan Magazine, April 2002 pg. 60 ISBN T1116583040759