x3haijessiex3: I think you’ve brought up a lot of interesting points. Cars has a larger fanbase of a younger audience who has seen the first movie, as opposed to the older generation who grew up watching the first and second in cinemas. Common economic theory dictates that young adults have the greatest tendency for discretionary spending (that’s just fancy talk for saying “Usually kids spend more pocket money”) because they have a weaker concept of saving or future-investing.
So I think all these kids will convince their parents to go and watch the sequel to the film they enjoyed in '06. Not saying that all Cars fans are below 18, but it is a higher tendency than those who went to see Toy Story 3, and as you know, kids can be very persuasive! And when they drag their parents along, that’s another two tickets in the bag for Pixar!
Whereas for Toy Story 3, or grown-up fare like Rango, it tends to attract the ‘hipster’ college crowd, who will usually go alone or with their friends without their parents tagging along. For Cars 2, it’s the kids, their friends and their reluctant parents (unless these parents also happen to be Pixar fans!).
You couple that with the extra 3D surcharge, and you’ve got the recipe for box-office success. This is a ‘four-quadrant’ pic, kids are gonna dig the toilet humour, teens will love the action sequences and the romance between the characters, and the adults will enjoy the spy movie and Sean Connery references.
And of course, I agree with you that I get extremely annoyed when people say Dreamworks or other studios aren’t “as good as Pixar” instead of objectively judging the film on its own merits. That’s like going to Popeyes, and saying that the chicken there doesn’t taste as good as Nandos.
And, I agree with you that I also get annoyed when people go into an animated film expecting to be moved to tears as much as they did for the ‘Big Three’ (Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up) or ‘Four’ if you count Toy Story 3. I think Pixar kind of set the benchmark high and shot its foot in the process, because now people will have the expectation for not only its future films, but for films of other studios to have a ‘weepy scene’ or something which will emotionally tear them apart. That doesn’t have to be the case with every movie, and I certainly wouldn’t want that. I think Pixar is taking a break and just cutting loose and doing something fun with Cars 2, although I would be pleasantly surprise if I do weep or was moved to tears eventually.
Films such as Spirited Away simply aim to amaze and enchant, while others like Rio just fill you with joy and hope. A movie doesn’t have to be a ‘weepie’ or make you cry in order to be a storytelling success. As long as it elicits an emotional reaction, be it fear, suspense, happiness, anger or disgust, it has managed to move you. Of course, we all would prefer the ‘fear’ and ‘happiness’ responses rather than ‘disgust’ or ‘anger’, but you get what I mean.
Anyway, long story short, I agree with your points, and that we should really give Cars 2 a chance. But that doesn’t mean that we aren’t allowed to make criticisms, as long as they’re constructive (“I think that it would’ve been better if they hadn’t used that bidet gag”) instead of destructive (“Ew… Cars 2 sucks. It’s for babies.”). There is a difference!