Ok I’ve just got back from seeing Cars 2, here goes…
I hate to say this but Cars 2 is Pixar’s worst effort by a considerable distance. I’ve always anticipated at some point Pixar would have a missfire, it was bound to happen at some point, but the problem here is that the reason why it’s so poor is because Pixar have seemingly abandoned all of their principles in making this movie. I’ve talked about this elsewhere on the forum but I’ve always maintained that as long as Pixar stick to it’s core beliefs and ideology, audiences would forgive any shortcomings in their films and remain as loyal as ever. People aren’t stupid and they can see when true heart and dedication has gone into something. But Cars 2 is cynical and lacks the integrity associated with the studio thus far and with Monsters Inc 2 on the way and rumours of Toy Story 4 you have to fear that the golden days are well and truly over. I fear the worst. This just won’t do and Pixar risk damaging their own legacy if they continue down this path.
My son is a Cars nut. We’ve been talking about this film for over a year and when the day finally came he wanted to come home after less than an hour of the film. This speaks volumes. As does the fact that there were only about a dozen other people at the screening today. I’ve never been to a Pixar movie with anything less than a packed out theater and this was the opening weekend here!
Believe me, writing this brings me even less pleasure than the film itself.
I don’t think its fair to point out lack of people at the theater at the theater as a reason for why Cars 2 is bad. HP7p2 came out just a week ago and Winnie the Pooh is also in theaters fighting for young kids, nostalgic adults, and animation buffs.
I also think worrying that Pixar is ruined forever because they made a film a fair amount of people disliked is overreacting, which the fandom does every. single. time Pixar seems to be doing something different.
I didn’t say that was a reason, I said it was a damning verdict on the film.
It’s the first time I’ve ever felt let down by a Pixar film, so clearly they deserve the benefit of the doubt but if you’ve seen John Lasseter’s interviews he talks about the integrity of Pixar and not making sequels for the sake of it and he seems happy with the film. Well I’m sorry having seen it I cannot take either of those sentiments seriously. And remember, Cars is John’s personal baby. Was this really the best he could do? The alarm bells are ringing here. If Pixar are going to churn out sequels like this then they will become no better than the dreadful Dreamworks.
There was absolutely none of the Pixar magic we’ve become accustomed to and nothing to love about Cars 2 (aside from some moments of breathtakingly good animation but that’s a given anyway). And I say that as someone who really loves Cars. In fact I’ve cherished all of Pixar’s films up to this point. The only time I’ve even had doubts was before Ratatouille and before Up and they both proved my fears wrong in spectacular fashion but this time it was a depressingly different story. This is not an overreaction but simply the truth. I’m not going to say something is great just because I’m a devoted Pixar fanboy (which I am). Cars 2 is uninspired, unoriginal and the biggest crime of all, cynical. I’m afraid really positive reviews about Cars 2 or claims that it is worthy of the output were used to are going to be few and far between and really in the minority.
And I’ll say it again, it really hurts me to say all of this.
Thanks for your honesty, Deszo. It really is refreshing to read a different perspective here, and I agree with you for the most part (about this project being “Lasseter’s baby”, especially in the light of Brad Lewis being unceremoniously relegated to ‘Co-Director’ position). The lack of a theatrical turnout could probably be due to competition from HP and WTP, as well as the movie being in release for a few weeks already (so the initial crowd would’ve gone by the time you saw it), but your kid’s behaviour is certainly great evidence of the film’s lacklusterness - if there is no greater proof of whether Pixar succeeds, it’s from a child’s reaction.
I, personally, enjoyed it because I’m a Cars and spy movies fan (Pixar managed to score a double wish-fulfillment for me by doing a sequel to one of my favourite movies and including the espionage theme), but I agree with you that it lacked the certain spark that elevates it to cinematic greatness.
If I may ask you, though, what did you find cynical about the movie? I found it was actually quite sentimental, about acceptance of less-sophisticated individuals, and how friendship can still survive even when life gets too busy. If it’s in reference to the [spoil]lemons dismissing Mater’s plea on forgivness in the climax[/spoil], that’s the only cynical bit I can think of.
Right. I understand that the main point of WALL-E was about love, since it is a love story, and the environmental message is secondary. But whether or not the message was intentional (it really isn’t all that important in relation to Cars 2), if you are going to make an environmental message, which again, is fine by me, then at least make the message as strong as your previous effort. Yes, it should be clever the idea they had with [spoil]the ol’ switcharoo at the end of the whodunit[/spoil]. It works on paper, but it just feels cluttered to me.
I don’t want to agree with you, but unfortunately, with the release of Cars 2, here we are and I am agreeing with you. I, too, feel that something was compromised so that this film could be released. Whether it was the all-important process that Pixar used to abide by and follow, or gulp the story and charm that this film lacks was sacrificed because a) Cars is John Lasseter’s pet, b) John likes cars, and c) there was a lot, and I mean, A LOT of money to be gained from releasing Cars 2. It was a sure-fire way of increasing cash-flow.
I’m not saying that Pixar are now like Dreamworks and Scrooge McDuck rolling around in it and that is all they care about, but certainly the enticement of money (security) and pressure from Disney would have added to the decision to release this sequel, whether or not it should have been labelled a Pixar film is another story (I don’t believe so). Yes, Pixar are probably, financially more secure than they have ever been. Cars 2 was a safe and very dependable choice.
However, I’m wondering whether or not it was really worth it in the end. Could they have scrapped Cars 2 if they story wasn’t working as well as it should have, even if it meant that they would have lost a lot in franchising, or at least, put it on the shelf for a while, and given the production time and effort to more original movies? IMO, yes, that is what SHOULD have happened. However, with Lasseter the director (since Newt got the ax when that story “wasn’t working”, why not here?) and with so much money to be made from merchandising I can logically understand why, even though in my heart I’m disappointed that it had to turn out this way. Surely, there could have been a compromise than to release this film as is…
I can see what you are saying with Cars 2 as cynical. It felt muddled to me, but McQueen as a character was very sarcastic and Mater was just plain irritating.
With rumours of Toy Story 4 and with a Monsters, Inc. prequel on the way, I too, feel like Pixar may be drifting from their morals. I’m not the biggest fan of sequels in general, because rarely are they as good as the first, with Toy Story being an exception, and also personally, I much prefer to meet new characters than revisit old ones, and I felt that way even before Cars 2 was released. It also makes me ask WHY Cars was picked as the film, which, generally speaking, was Pixar’s worst or second-to-worst film (before Cars 2 came along and took the title). But I already know the answer to that one (JL as director, money, money, money, the process is borken etc etc).
Why was production focused on Cars 2 when The Incredibles 2 could have been made sooner rather than later (yes, I know Brad Bird is busy right now anyway), or ORIGINAL movies could have been created. I just think the ratio of original movies to sequels is tipping into territory that I don’t like, and it makes me nervous as to whether I can still believe in Pixar. If Cars 2 hadn’t been released, then I probably wouldn’t be worried, but still, it’s enough to make me concerned, and even a bit annoyed that we are losing out on new Pixar characters and situations at the expensive of revisiting the old ones.
I also agree about the lack of Pixar magic in Cars 2. I would even go as so far to say that I hadn’t ever come across a Pixar film that lacked magic, and even Cars had it, even if personally, the slow story wasn’t to my taste, even though the whole message is to stop and smell the roses. Yes, on paper the story should work, and I am glad that Cars fans are pleased with the outcome, but it didn’t have that special something.
I’ve been reading all your posts Rachel, and find myself nodding in agreement. You put in better words than I could. Remember what I told you during our meeting? About this being the best action movie since ‘The Incredibles’ with its heart in the right place, but poor thematic execution? Or Giachinno’s score, with that very catchy hook that you’ll know when you hear it? How much of my sentiments do you agree with?
Oh god, Mater’s deductive reasoning was horrible. Even after the rewatch, I still failed to see how he made those tenuous ‘connect-the-dots’; none of it even makes any sense and is specific enough to pinpoint [spoil]Axlerod as the villain[/spoil]!
I’ve written a lot about Pixar’s descent into mediocrity in my Tumblr blog, but I’ll just say that if I had to choose between Cars 2 and Newt, I’d choose the latter. As much as I love a sequel to one of my favourite Pixar movies, the prospect of seeing new characters (especially Newt and Brooke, and all the lovely supporting cast members in those beautiful Jason Deamer drawings) thrills me more than seeing Lightning and Co. again. Plus, I’m a sucker for reluctant-romance stories, and having liked Rio, I would’ve much loved to see if Pixar really had a better story than Blue Sky, but chickened out due to competitive reasons (which again, leads back to the whole ‘money vs integrity’ thing).
And I felt The Incredibles would’ve lent itself more to a spy theme, seeing how Brad Bird is now doing Ghost Protocol and I actually did a mash-up of Mission Impossible and T.I. before. Cars 2 would’ve been great if it had focused on the World Grand Prix without the spy sub-plot, and been the better for it because they can devote more screentime to character development and interaction.
I really admire John Lasseter’s childlike enthusiasm and passion for his craft, but he’s gotta really let go of his babies and let other people have a voice. It also angers me that he relegated Brad Lewis to co-directorial position (and I think Lewis might have felt the same way too, seeing how he’s leaving the studio).
When I say cynical I say that because it’s clear why they are continuing with the Cars franchise. Aside from it being Lasseter’s baby so to speak, it is to shift mountains of merchandise. And it’s true to say that my boy is far more interested in prizing money from my wallet for a new Cars toy as often as he can than he is in the actual film itself.
I mean it’s said all of the time that the one Pixar film that was truly open to a sequel is The Incredibles and yet here they are flogging Cars to death instead, a franchise in which the original film, even though a lot of us really like it, only ever had a lukewarm reception really. I gave John Lasseter the benefit of the doubt when Cars 2 was announced because we all know how much the subject matter means to him. So what happened? Was it all Brad Lewis’ fault? Or was Cars 2 always going to be what it is - marketing over content?
Why is everybody so convinced that Cars 2 was only made for the cash-cow aspect? We don’t have a single drop of evidence to support that besides theories from people who didn’t like the first Cars to begin with.
True! It’s very annoyingly said all the time to bash any other sequel Pixar announces including, at a time, the now universally beloved Toy Story 3.
A movie about superheroes has just as much, if not more, opportunity to be a big toy commercial as a film about automobiles does. And do people really want Pixar to go through with it while Mr. Bird is not even in house, much less available to direct it?
And even if Cars 2 is revealed to have been wanted by Disney for marketing - I will not deny that possibility. Cars is a franchise and DisneyPixar is a company - I’d hardly call Disney being willing to put down $200M on the film’s budget, Pixar’s insane attention to design detail, and the major overhaul of the film that happened a few years ago and threw out tons of plot and design aspects in favor of tightening the plot, not caring about its content.
You are being extremely rude, incredibly pigheaded and keep making assumptions based on your own biased viewpoint. I LOVE Cars.
No evidence huh? Apart from the fact that every store I walk into right now is bursting at the seams with Cars Merchandise. And the all the kids channels are currently wall to wall with Cars 2 toy adverts. My local Asda (Walmart) have dedicated half of an entire aisle to Cars 2 stuff. That is unprecedented, certainly where I live.
If the film was made purely for ethical reasons then where is the love? Where is the heart and soul? Where is the integrity? Where is the originality we’re all used to? Only the most hardcore, blinkered and obsessed Pixar nut would try and claim that Cars 2 meets Pixar’s usual standards. It is well below par. And considering that the original Cars was met with a lukewarm reception and that it is supposedly a labor of love for John Lasseter, I for one expected him and Pixar to pull out all the stops for this one in an attempt to prove all the Cars naysayers wrong. Sadly they just haven’t done that. You mention Toy Story 3 and that’s just the point, Pixar did do all of the above for that one.
I apoligize for the assumption then; you were continually pointing out the amount of people who didn’t like the first Cars as part of the reason you didn’t feel there should have been a sequel. It’s hard to mistake it from that. I wasn’t referring to just you specifically, though, as to be honest, you’re the first person I’ve talked to who liked the first Cars and has brought up the “When are we getting a TI sequel?” thing in the face of Cars 2.
However, I do not appreciate the growing number of personal attacks towards me and fans of the film in your comments.
This is the blanket statement I have been hearing over and over and the reason I’m having trouble putting up with the backlash against this film. Not liking Cars 2 doesn’t make you better than somebody who did.
Just because you didn’t see value in Cars 2 doesn’t mean people who did are blind fans. And you know what? I don’t have to think Cars 2 is Pixar’s greatest work to like it. You want me to say its their weakest film, speaking strictly as a film critic and not on a personal fun level? Yes. Yes it is. But is it a piece of garbage? I don’t think so at all. I think it is a fun film with laughs and, yes, heart.
Personally, I see a lot of heart in Mater’s subplot about dents and memories; I’ve dealt with depression for almost half of my life now. What Mater was talking about, the dents he got from spending time with his friends - the pain that comes with stepping out and enjoying life - really resonated with me and inspired me. Like one person not seeing value in a film doesn’t make it worthless, one person not seeing heart in a film does not make it cynical.
As for tons of marketing and toys, I see about the same amount as I saw for Toy Story 3 last year around where I live. Also, Disney does marketing. Pixar does the film. This is the same thing with people assuming all Pixar movies are strictly for kids because until recently, Disney didn’t bothering targeting an older audience with commercials for the films while Pixar kept making films everybody of all ages could enjoy. If Cars 2 is a cash-cow film for having a lot of advertising, Toy Story is a film only for 8 year old boys.
I will stop being “pigheaded” and bringing my bias to the table when people who hated the film stop acting like they are better for it and insulting the people who did. This is what I was talking about earlier with the insulting the intelligence of fans thing. It’s not cool and I think you need to step back, calm down, and check your own bias before calling other people on theirs’.
Ok, a fight hasn’t begun yet, but I recommend you both to cut it out before it does.
While I get that getting offended is something extremely personal, I, from an objective point of view, don’t think that Netbug was purposely being rude, and she wasn’t naming anyone in particular, just saying her general opinion.
Deszo is in turn pointing personally to a member, and calling her “Biased, extremely rude and a pigheaded”. That kind of personal offenses aren’t tolerated in this site, and I strongly advise you to not use them again. Also, please don’t use assumptions like this:
So you both have different opinions. One of you loved Cars 2 and the other one hated it. I’m not presenting my personal opinion, as the film hasn’t been released in my country yet, but whatever the outcome is, I don’t have to offend members who have a different view of it than me.
I advise you to continue your discussion in the more civil way possible, and help moderators to create a healthy environment in the site.
^Agreed Spirit! There’s no need to attack someone whose opinions differ than those of yours. I love talking with people who have the opposite viewpoints as me, but in a civilized, open debate sort of manner.
I for one, feel that Cars 2 is one of Pixar’s more superior films. I guess that discards all rational arguments I may have and automatically makes me a “hardcore, blinkered and obsessed Pixar nut”.
Remember kids, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy!
I agree with Spirit and Ding. By all means, feel free to express your opinion, but don’t get personal and call people names. Attack their opinions instead.
This, I agree with. Next to Toy Story, Cars is one of Pixar’s biggest moneymakers. I actually find it hilarious walking down the toy aisles in supermarkets over the past few weeks and seeing the sheer volume of Cars tie-in merchandise. But does a film’s commercial value compromise its integrity? Possibly. Maybe. Not almost always certainly.
I didn’t really see it that way, but I guess people can think away a lot of different meanings from the film. For me, I got the message that while life goes on, you can still be connected with your old friends, while finding new ones. This was very significant for me because I may be leaving Australia soon, and I have lived here for the four years of my entire tertiary life. I have made many friends here, some of them I cherish even as much as my childhood ones. I will be very sad when I leave them (or when they leave me, as some of them have already done), but we can always remain in contact and I am looking forward to meeting new ones in my new host country. Cars 2 gave me solace that friendships last forever and that we are always capable of forming new ones, so it really touched my heart in that aspect too. And I’m glad that you also found your own ‘takeaway message’ too, Netbug.
I personally think Cars is one of Pixar’s inferior films, but I still love it on it being a sequel to my favourite film and being a great homage to the spy genre. And of course, we have to realize all of us are biased to an extent. As long as we have an opinion, we are biased. And really, that’s a part of the human condition.
However, you must admit that the fact that Cars was going to generate the most merchandise sales, for years to come, unfathomable amounts to you and I, and the fact that Cars is a reliable and proven franchise, that would have made a studio, any studio probably, MORE likely to push a film through when it probably could have used more work (Cars 2), than if it were an unknown film.
It’s easy to pull the plug on a film when it’s a new director (Gary Rydstrom) who does not have as much weight or say as to what goes on, and with characters that kids don’t automatically go nuts over (newts vs cars), and with a sequel that is already popular, but it’s not so easy to pull the plug on a sequel when your parent/partner company is putting the pressure on you to produce the film, no matter what.
Was it the easy thing to do to release Cars 2, even though it could have done with some work? I suppose it was the path of least resistance and the one that would have causes less conflict with Disney and John Lasseter. But it doesn’t mean that in the long term, it was the right thing to do for Pixar to release Cars 2 in the state that it was released in, even though it would have been painful to delay or perhaps even cancel the amount of money that could have been generated by the film, again.
I’m disappointed that Newt was cancelled, but if Pixar thinks it’s the right thing to do, then I trusted them. But I don’t understand why there was such a double standard between Newt being cancelled because the story wasn’t working, but Cars 2 being allowed to continue on through. I think that there are many reasons, and one of them being that Cars 2 was a refresher for the kids too young to remember the first Cars film. But Newt didn’t have that luxury and support, and “good reasons” on paper, for a story that needed fine-tuning, to continue on through regardless of whether it lived up to the other Pixar films (IMO, Cars 2 didn’t.)
Oh, of course! I can admit that. The first one made 5$B in toy sales and, to be perfectly honest, with how the box office is going I’m rooting for those toy sales to come through again.
I don’t know how much executive meddling was back there and I think a good amount of guesses sound more like Fillmore than anything backed up, but there is the fact that the film was pushed up a year. Was Disney trying to push toys? Did Brave just need more time? I don’t know.
I guess… see, I come from the Transformers fandom which, let’s face it: exists to make money and sell toys. But time and time again, I come by directors and artists who work on the shows who put true effort into them, and one of the more recent animated Transformers series is one of my favorite tv shows.
I guess that’s part of why all the drama over this is confusing me because in the TF fandom we just laugh and laugh and laugh over it, because our franchise is big and we know it.
I just don’t think that heavy merchandising and heart/effort by studios are mutually exclusive. From my background, I don’t think less of something whether it’s a cash-in or whatever: All that matters to me is how it ends up. And, while I’m in the minority, I personally loved the film.
There’s a lot I don’t know about the process. I just know I liked the results.
Although, blaming it for Newt’s downfall? Again, we don’t have any evidence to back that up. Both films were announced at the same time and being planned side by side, and it has been said over and over that there were massive plot issues. I was looking forward to Newt as much, if not even more, than the next guy is a love story geek, but it’s a separate production and Cars 2 from what I can see had nothing to do with it. I think, if we’re going to be asking a question pertaining to why some movies have been jostled around, it’d be why Pixar’s plans to release 2 films a year got dumped. But because less films sounds more anti-commercial than sequels, I think it’s something we’re less likely to be looking at.
We compare every Pixar film to other Pixar films constantly.
Personally, I don’t think that’s fair, and I don’t want the next Pixar film to be like the last one.
I’m gonna post here the same thing I did in the other topic, because I think it applies nicely.
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
I really Liked Cars 2, I liked it ALOT more than the first one (Which is my 4th least favorite Pixar film). I’m not entirely sure why, but it was just my kind of thing: Spys, guns, disguises, rockets, explosions, spy jets, fight between best friends (which seems to be in alot of movies nowadays), villain is really the one guy you’d least suspect, case of mistaken identity, doomsday device, plot to take over the world. I think you get where I’m going with this. I mean, I liked it because, it was a great movie, heck, at some parts I was on the edge of my seat, chanting in my head “Go Mater Go!” Was I disappointed that there wasn’t that much of Lightning in this one? A little, but not much because I like Mater a little more (before this came out though, I liked Lightning more, but after I saw the movie, I was like: “Woah. Mater is awesome!”). Would I like to see a third one? I don’t know, if Pixar thinks they can do the second one justice, then… maybe, but I seriously doubt that we are gonna be getting a third one anytime soon (if at all). Again, this was a really fun movie, it was funny, serious (sometimes), and an all-around good movie. If you haven’t seen it yet, I recommend it, especially if you like spys, cars, action, and adventure!
I think it was a wrong decision to release Cars 2 ahead of schedule because out of all of the Pixar films so far that have ever been released in their end states, Cars 2 is the Pixar film that needed the most fine-tuning, even if it meant that because Newt was no longer a project, and for the first time in a while there would be a gap year between Pixar films, then that would be ok with me. But with these end results, where I think everyone here can at least agree that there could have been some improvements, Cars 2 needed that extra year more than anything.
So to even have the confidence that it is a good enough story to be released AND that it didn’t need the extra time, was very blind of Pixar - or something went wrong where the Pixarians that were usually there in the past, were not there to be frank with John Lasseter that it wasn’t working as well as it could. I would love to be a fly on the wall and understand why Cars 2 was released as it is and the decisions made for it to have gotten to this point, in front of schedule no less.
It doesn’t bother me either. What bothers me is if a Pixar film is released, that is not to the usual standard (IMO it isn’t), because then it makes me wonder why it was allowed to go ahead, and of course, you naturally think of merchandising as justification. Had Cars 2 been equal, or better that Cars, then it wouldn’t really bother me, because then I feel like Cars 2 had earned its right to be released of its own accord, and not just because of merchandise (which I don’t think is the whole reason why it was released in this state, but I think it had a strong influence).
There’s a lot that I don’t know about the process, even though I’d like to know. I just know that I did not like the results.
Nuh-uh. I didn’t blame Newt’s downfall on what happened with Cars 2. As I said, I am disappointed that Newt wasn’t able to go ahead, but I respect Pixar’s decision in that regard. Whether Newt went ahead or not has nothing really to do with Cars 2 and I believe that decision was made independently.
What I said was that if Newt story wasn’t able to continue because it wasn’t working, then why did Cars 2 get to go through? What I was pointing out was, because Cars 2 had certain aspects going in its favour (John Lasseter, the head of Pixar being its director, it’s a known, dependable franchise, a lot to be made in merchandising, as opposed to a story about lizards, which has more of the merchandising potential of Ratatouille or Up), therefore I feel that the process of letting Cars 2 go ahead (but not Newt) was compromised, when Disney-Pixar were taking into consideration those other factors.
Had Newt been directed by John Lasseter, instead of a new director, and if HE was really into amphibians as a passion, and if, for some reason, little boys were crazy about lizards, then I think that Newt would have stood a chance. But the decision to let a movie go ahead should be 90% about whether the story/film is good enough (it wasn’t). But I do understand that Pixar is a business at the end of the day, I just never thought that they would let something like this happen.
Neither do I. They all have their different feel, tone and message. However, I do expect for Pixar films to have a standard of quality in every aspect, a charm and with heart and soul, and that is all that I expect. I know that John Lasseter has passion, and I know he loves his films, however, for some reason that didn’t come through in Cars 2.
Personally, I’m sooo bitter that Pixar scrapped Newt in lieu of Cars 2. As much as I like Cars 2 (the reason I don’t love it is because of the terrible plot holes and characterisations), I would much prefer to see an original film like Newt. If only so I can compare it with its ‘sister from another studio’ Rio.
Seeing all the Jason Deamer concept art and realising it’ll never come to fruition fills me with tears (not literally, of course, I’m made of tougher stuff). But you get what I mean. SUCH a PITY.
Pixar really lost its mojo this year. Maybe that’s why their next film’s called ‘Brave’.
I haven’t seen the film, but I will admit that when I saw the teaser trailer for the first time I was a little skeptical but also optimistic at the same time. When the second trailer came out, I was interested, yes. I thought the concept of spy cars was quite cool, and it was a different approach to your usual car story.
I do feel that is is a very BIG step forward and rather out-of-character when compared to the previous film, however.
But like I said before, I haven’t seen it yet, so I’ll reserve all final judgements 'till then. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it to some degree.
I mean, I liked it because, it was a great movie, heck, at some parts I was on the edge of my seat, chanting in my head “Go Mater Go!” Was I disappointed that there wasn’t that much of Lightning in this one? A little, but not much because I like Mater a little more (before this came out though, I liked Lightning more, but after I saw the movie, I was like: “Woah. Mater is awesome!”). Would I like to see a third one? I don’t know, if Pixar thinks they can do the second one justice, then… maybe, but I seriously doubt that we are gonna be getting a third one anytime soon (if at all). Again, this was a really fun movie, it was funny, serious (sometimes), and an all-around good movie. If you haven’t seen it yet, I recommend it, especially if you like spys, cars, action, and adventure!