Why all this Cars 2 hate?

Pixar's Feature Films Cars
#41

I hate how people keep using the whole “it’s the worst received Pixar film” and “critics hate it” speeches to talk about the original Cars. Critics are there to help you decide whether the film is any good to see, and provide their own opinions on the movie. You are than expected to see the film and make up your own opinion regarding the film’s quality. And, in general, Cars was rather well received by general audiences and this is proven by how many people across the globe went out to buy the film on DVD.

On a side note, I hope the sequel does have a better critical reception, but if it doesn’t, no worries. In fact, I’m hoping for negative reviews. That way, I can go and see the awesome movie, make my own opinion, and debate it with fans who disliked it.

That’s my two cents! :nerd:

#42

All my friends and family hate Cars 2, not because of the story or anything, (it may be genius, nobody knows,) it’s because it feels like Pixar’s cheap attempt to make money.

Cars merchandise has made BILLIONS of dollers. Do you think Pixar didn’t factor that in when they were thinking of making this?

I mean, kids go crazy for a McQueen car with a different facial expression. Now imagine the hundreds, possibly thousands of new cars that are going to be released with the sequel

#43

Halo,you haven’t even see the movie yet…

#44

Um, did you read my post at all?

#45

Yeah I did,you know something even when I’m trying to be nice with you you’re still rude,but that’s really your problem though…

#46

There’s no doubt in my mind that Pixar has taken the merchandise into consideration, however I do feel they’ll still please us with a nice family film. :slight_smile: I don’t think it’s all about merchandise, but I’m sure it plays a part.

#47

If you read my post, you would have seen that I said “for all I know, the story could be genious”

I was saying that my friends and family all agree that Cars 2 is Pixar’s move for more money through merchandise

#48

One thing we have to remember, though, is that Disney is the one largely responsible for merchandising. A lot of people brought up an argument about Wall-E’s anti-consumerist themes and how that doesn’t match the amount of merchandise the movie generated. The Pixar artists and writers have nothing to do with the movie marketers and merchandise producers. Well, okay, maybe something in the sense that they have to design appealing characters that can ‘sell’ well, but other than that, they don’t really have much of a say in the amount of merchandise produced.

Cars lends itself to merchandising because of its sheer amount of side characters, which evolved into a sort of collector’s hobby like Toy Story. But whereas Toy Story was limited in terms of ‘scaling’, Cars merchandise could go anywhere from 1:50 miniatures to baby scooters, diapers to poster beds.

And because of Lasseter and the production team’s decision to go on a world scale, whether by their own compulsion or if they were ‘influenced’ by the marketing goons, this resulted in an even bigger potential for character-branding and selling.

This is why I’m not particularly impressed with Pixar nowadays, in the sense they are ‘selling out’. There’s hope at the end of the tunnel with Brave, but I’m not really confident about Monsters University, which I predict will have another ‘Character a day’ campaign and countless toys and collectibles for an eager audience.

Look at Rango, which only had a Rango and Priscilla scale model to my knowledge. Or Rio, which only had McDonalds tie-ins and plushies. Kung Fu Panda 2 has zilch merchandising even though they’ve got tons of new characters.

It kinda shames me to see Pixar go down this path, if only for 2011.

This is not a criticism of the movie, which I am not sure of its quality. This is a criticism of the commercialisation and consumerist culture that is encouraged by Disney on behalf of Pixar (the former wants ancillary income, the latter just wants to make a good movie and a box-office profit).

#49

Money motivates most things in our society, something you need to accept! :wink:

I DOUBT that money was the ONLY reason this movie is being done. Pixar’s philosophy lies with story, they wouldn’t make this movie if they didn’t feel they were doing the original respect with a great follow up. I can’t imagine the Brain Trust sitting there going “Hey, Cars related merchandise sells, let’s make a second movie, spend over four years of production on a a second film about Cars, we’ll figure out a story or something, let’s just sell more toys!”

They could easily continue selling Cars merchandise without a sequel. The Disney Princess Francise has for the past decade and half been strong for Disney, there’s no doubt the Cars francise would also with out a sequel.

#50

I think everyone needs to realise this:

Pixar WANTS YOUR MONEY.

Every studio does. If they didn’t want your money, they would be doing this for free, and then we would just be going into the cinemas without paying a dime, or having to pay more for the ridiculous 3D glasses.

Dreamworks Animation wants your money. Blue Sky wants your money. Animal Logic wants your money. Disney wants your money. Studio Ghibli wants your money. Aardman Studios wants your money. Sony Pictures Animation wants your money. Industrial Light and Magic wants your money.

This is the beauty of a capitalist system. Everyone wants your money.

But YOU as the consumer, have the choice. Do you like the story? Do you love the characters? Can you identify with the themes? Are you passionate about the visuals, or the character animation? Do you respect the creators, or are even fans of them? Do you respect the studio’s creative and financial decisions? And their distributors (like Disney, Fox, Paramount, etc.)? Will you buy their merchandise? Will you rave about it on fan forums such as this?

Pixar is not immune to market forces. It does not run on altruistic motives, or samaritan values. Yes, they are sticklers for stories more than other studios. Yes, they pay attention to details more than other studios. Yes, they have a great working environment.

This is why there are so hugely successful, and people respect them.

But they have always been after our money. Some are inclined to think they are after our money more than ever, with the merchandising done by Disney and its propensity towards sequel lately. But think of it this way: their bottom line has to be a profit, otherwise they can’t keep making awesome movies or improve their infrastructure and R&D. If we think they are losing their ‘mojo’, then we can always go support other studios. If we still think they’ve got it, then by all means, show them our support by seeing Cars 2 in cinemas. :wink:

#51

Love that line, so very true. Merchandising and all that doesn’t really bother me, if the movie is decent then let them go to town on trying to make a profit off that stuff. No one is making you buy it. Let them be greedy about money if they want, it’s how the world works. You can choose how to spend your own money so if you don’t think it’s worth it to pay extra to see the movie in 3D cause it costs more then don’t, but don’t go complaining about it later!

#52

As fans of the studio, we should support them even if they’re losing it.

#53

I sure don’t believe they are losing their mojo! Pixar is the best in the bizz! :stuck_out_tongue:

#54

Well of course. The folks in the animation industry need money to make more movies and feed their families. They need money to continue doing what they love.

Animated films in the past year have made more money then ever, and are more successful ever from a box office standpoint. I’m sure if Pixar made an original film they’d be making money as well.

As I said before, money isn’t the ONLY reason this movie’s being made.

#55

EJE: Yeah, I was just trying to drive home the fact that Pixar is susceptible to market forces as any other studio, and that they are not ‘holier’ or ‘immune’ to commercialisation, even though they’re better at story-telling (because of their ‘cream of the crop’ talent pool).

Of course, there are other reasons to make movies. Some really are passionate about the film’s themes (like John Lasseter for Cars and Carlos Saldanha for Rio). Others do it as a labour of love to push the industry benchmark (James Cameron with any of his movies). Yet others do it simply because they can (Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer). And a few do it because they just love movies (Quentin Tarantino, John Woo).

Like you said, there are many reasons why people and studios make movies besides money. :slight_smile:

#56

the main purpose of a studio film is to make money and be recognized among audiences, however we cannot compare pixar wanting OUR money with the desperation of dreamworks in wanting OUR money, I mean, since now they are planning to give us 4 more sequels of kung fu panda, WTH???, pixar does not act like them, as far as we know, though they will probably make a cars 3 in 6 or 7 years

#57

Based on how Pixar constantly acknowledged that there are no good “3 movies” when talking about Toy Story 3, I doubt they would take the risk by trying again with Cars.

#58

That would be the mindless boardroom executives speaking, not the hardworking creative talents in the studio. I have since learnt to differentiate the two in my mind. The same thing happens with Pixar, you’ve got the marketing cronies in Disney trying to sell all the merchandise and toys and tie-in products (which a lot of critics like to complain about with regards to Cars and Toy Story), while the hardworking animators and writers and directors have little to do with whatever decisions the former makes.

So when I hear that ‘Dreamworks’ announced that they’re making 50 or so sequels to HTTYD, I get mad at the executive board and the PR department for coming up with such a ridiculous and flippant promise, not the studio itself.

Like you said. Pixar does not act like them. As far as we know. They could probably make a couple more sequels in a decade’s times, and with the setting up of Pixar Canada to produce shorts and TV shows, I see that as a very real possibility. :slight_smile:

#59

And you know, I think a lot of people would be okay with that as long as the quality stays consistent. I think Toy Story 2 and 3 are the perfect example that, with the right story, it is possible to have a sequel that is just as good if not better than the original. Which is why I’m much more confident in Cars 2 than in the Puss in Boots movie for example. I don’t want to get my hopes up for that on, only for it to be the next Shrek 3, so I’m waiting to judge on the upcoming Dreamworks sequels.

And six Kung-Fu pandas, its just never going to happen. It couldn’t possibly work. I mean, can you imagine a company spending 24 years making sequels to the same movie? And not be sick of it?

#60

LOL how would you even continue on the story of Kung Fu Panda in 6 movies?! That would really be stretching it!