Cars 2 in 2011 and series of Cars shorts

[PixarFan2006]

Finally saw Cars 2 today and my feelings about it are mixed so far: I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it either. It is definitely the weakest film in Pixar's library. The problem, I think was making Mater the star. A few of the jokes were amusing, and I enjoyed a few of the sight gags and inside jokes (I will not spoil them), but some were just groan inducing (such as the State Farm reference). The Toy Story short wasn't any better either. All in all it felt weak compared to Pixar's other works, but it was not by any means awful.

3.5/5

[DisneyAnimation88]

Pixar's help to Disney is only in money, because the other things Pixar does is two bad things: One, is confuse people to make them think that Pixar is the same as Disney, all made by the same thing, even to the stupid idea that Walt Disney founded Pixar or something, and the other bad thing they do is make people think that Pixar is better than Disney.

What? You've actually met someone who thought that Walt Disney founded Pixar? And what have Pixar ever done to confuse people into believing that? And why is it a bad thing if a person thought Pixar was better than Disney?

And I think it's very obvious Walt Disney would never buy another movie studio to help him, I see it is obvious that he would rather he makes his own Disney movies and he succeed on his own movies' merits.

If only we all shared your ability to tap into the mind of a man who's been dead for nearly fifty years.

How no one sees that Pixar's success "becoming" Disney's success is just Disney stealing another's success instead of making their own for themselves is beyond me.

Disney stole another's success? In case you meant Pixar, Pixar have never stolen anyone's success, they achieved their own success through producing films of a high quality that appealed to millions and millions of people all over the world. As far as I can tell, Pixar have never played up their association with Disney to try and promote their films so I fail to see how they "stole" success.

[Disney Duster]

When people think Disney and Pixar are the same thing, that means they could easily think something like Pixar was founded by Walt Disney. The point is, Pixar wasn't because Pixar is different, it is not Disney!

And I meant that it's like Disney stealing Pixar's success instead of making or depending on their own!

[Victurtle]

Why do you care so much about perception? Do one can quantify perception, no one can account for perception and all you are doing is generalising the public based on less than a handful of encounters.

[DisneyAnimation88]

When people think Disney and Pixar are the same thing, that means they could easily think something like Pixar was founded by Walt Disney. The point is, Pixar wasn't because Pixar is different, it is not Disney!

I would hazard a guess that most people know that Walt Disney had nothing to do with the creation of Pixar, especially as he died nearly thirty years before Pixar released their first film. Have you actually ever heard someone say that? And yes, they are two different companies who have had a long and successful partnership that is going to continue.

And I menat that it's like Disney stealing Pixar's success instead of making or depending on their own!

I don't see it like that, maybe others do. The success of Pixar's films raised the game in the animation industry and as a result, Disney have had to raise their game. Personally, I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Dr Frankenollie]

You know, everyone can have their opinion, but it doesn't matter. The fact is I am quite glad that Pixar is no longer seen as so perfect in so many people's eyes.

And you called me a stupid jerk?!

And I think it's very obvious Walt Disney would never buy another movie studio to help him, I see it is obvious that he would rather he makes his own Disney movies and he succeed on his own movies' merits.

Except...he did buy another movie studio to help him in the late 1940's: Denham Film Studios in Britain, which helped him produce Treasure Island and the Story of Robin Hood and his Merrie Men (released in 1950 and 1952, respectively).

Once again, Disney Duster, I cannot fathom what goes through your mind sometimes; you dislike Pixar simply because people think it's Disney?! Yes, it's different, but it's nevertheless a very similar entity to Disney; and besides, although this will anger and upset you, Pixar has made plenty of movies much better than the majority of DACs.

In fact, I would say that only the first five DACs and the four big Renaissance movies are better than Pixar's best, whilst the likes of everything from Cinderella to the Hunchback of Notre Dame are inferior to things like Toy Story, Up and Wall-E. Pixar's movies are original, inventive and all maintain a perfect balance of emotion and humour (even Cars, but I haven't seen Cars 2 yet). Ever since 1995, Pixar has been beating Disney at its own game and has yet to stop doing so.

[seanjonmc]

So I just came back from seeing Cars 2 in 3D and I really liked it. I don't get what all the drama was about from the critics. I'll admit it wasn't Pixar's finest, but it gave me everything I wanted from a Cars sequel. It was entertaining, visually stunning, and I enjoyed the story. Mater wasn't distracting like I thought he would be. I'm sad Cars 2 will go down with such a bad rep because it doesn't deserve it.

[CampbellzSoup]

It felt like a Saturday morning cartoon rather than a feat in story telling...it was just weak. It was beautiful of course, but still the film was very very weak

[toonaspie]

And I menat that it's like Disney stealing Pixar's success instead of making or depending on their own!

Unfortunately that really has been the case over the course of the past recent decade. It's more fact than opinion that with Pixar outdoing DACs in the box office, Disney has to rely on the 3 Ps (Princesses, Pirates, Pixar) as well as Disney Channel hits in order to stabilize itself in the entertainment industry. Popular opinion affects this which is a shame because I think Disney did make a few good films in the past decade even if the box office numbers don't reflect that fact.

[ajmrowland]

It felt like a Saturday morning cartoon rather than a feat in story telling...it was just weak. It was beautiful of course, but still the film was very very weak

Would've it have been weak 30 years ago when films were actually about fun and entertainment rather than deep emotional drama and Oscars?

[Victurtle]

Uhm, how was the story weak?

I agree with ajmrowland, the story was an intricate who dunnit/thriller which asked the audience to participate in solving the mystery and saving the Queen.

[Elladorine]

I actually did enjoy the story and what they did with the characters; I even thought it was pretty cool that they managed to pull it off with vehicles. Michael Cane was awesome (as always) and I had no issues with Mater being the main focus. The only thing that felt off to me was that the entire premise did not fit the tone of the original film. Even with the same main characters, it didn't seem connected enough to feel canon. We got spies this time around, but there might as well have been aliens or superheroes. Instead of an honest-feeling continuation of the original, it simply felt like Pixar sold out.

I did enjoy it enough to buy it when it hits the store shelves regardless. The scenery and animation is simply gorgeous.

[ajmrowland]

Uhm, how was the story weak?

I agree with ajmrowland, the story was an intricate who dunnit/thriller which asked the audience to participate in solving the mystery and saving the Queen.

I never really said that, but okay. I can see where the complaints are coming from now. Nobody likes to have to think during a movie.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Uhm, how was the story weak?

I agree with ajmrowland, the story was an intricate who dunnit/thriller which asked the audience to participate in solving the mystery and saving the Queen.

Question: did the Queen appear, and if she did, did she appear as a car?

[estefan]

Yes, the Queen does appear near the end of the flick, in car form (naturally).

And I don't see why being a Saturday morning cartoon is such a criticism. There are some really great Saturday morning animated series out there.

[disneyboy20022]

Yes, the Queen does appear near the end of the flick, in car form (naturally).

And I don't see why being a Saturday morning cartoon is such a criticism. There are some really great Saturday morning animated series out there.

A sequelt to movie that felt like a Saturday Morning Cartoon movie on the Big Screen that were either bad or good?...Here's what comes to mind at the moment in my head

The Jungle Book 2

Return To Neverland



Doug's 1st Movie

Return to Neverland

The Simpsons Movie*

Teacher's Pet

Hoodwinked & its godawful sequel

Ducktales the movie

[estefan]

DuckTales: The Movie and A Goofy Movie were pretty solid, in my opinion. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is particularly excellent.

[Wonderlicious]

In fact, I would say that only the first five DACs and the four big Renaissance movies are better than Pixar's best, whilst the likes of everything from Cinderella to the Hunchback of Notre Dame are inferior to things like Toy Story, Up and Wall-E.

Uh oh, you poo-pooed the movie that begins with C. You gonna get ripped to shreads, I tells ya.

And to Duster:

I think you're being obsessive about and you ought to think things methodically and rationally.

I was predicting that Cars 2 was not going to be as well received as the other Pixar films. Do I want it to be the beginning of the end for Pixar? Not really. Unless Brave and Monsters University do poorly, then we can't really say if it is. As a comparison point, when The Rescuers Down Under didn't do too well, it ended up being swept under the rug as the spotlight was placed further upon the films that came just before and after it. The same could end up happening with Cars 2, to be honest.

Do I think Pixar is perfect? Well, I think they're great, but not perfect. I think Finding Nemo is a bit overrated, and I didn't really like WALL-E (though I only saw it once, and there were problems at the screening). Does my own nostalgia make me prefer Disney proper to Pixar? In a way, yes. I automatically get more intrigued by what Disney proper has in store as opposed to what Pixar has in store, which says something. However, I do realise that Disney proper isn't perfect as well, especially since the 90s. In all fairness, a great deal of Pixar's stuff is better than much of what Disney proper has released since 1995 (with some exceptions - Tangled, Mulan and Lilo and Stitch in particular), mainly due to the fact that poor management and executive decisions at Disney caused problems for the in-grown films. Even the sacred Walt-era films and "renaissance" films, as utterly enjoyable and truly great as they are, aren't perfect once you take the rose-tinted glasses off; some have pacing issues (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has pretty poor pacing in its middle act), many films have animation problems (rushed animation on Dumbo, off-model Ariel and Belle, some realistic characters in older films look stiff) and some films and a number of the films can be considered unenlightened today (whether that means unintentionally or intentionally racist characters, or "my stepmother is a witch/all men are strong and save weak women" gender stereotyping). Yet I'm still there, rooting for what is now the underdog, and praising the films I grew up with.

Would I, however strong my love for Disney may be, want to see an implosion of Pixar similar to what we saw with Disney feature animation back in the late 90s and early 00s, with a string of critical and commercial flops and countless jobs of humble artists being lost, a real blow to the animation industry? Or see John Lasseter's career go the same way as Don Bluth's? No, because it's ultimately bitter and immature. If anything, I want Cars 2 to be a wake-up to the Disney company as a whole to stop trying to create franchises for the hell of it, and for Pixar to go back to pushing boundaries like they used to. It should be the toys that promote the films, not the films that promote the toys.

Considering you go on about your good Christian values sometimes, I think that you should try and remember the core "be as you would be done by" mantra of your faith. If you were doing a great job in a seemingly stable environment, and had your career thrown into jeopardy, would you be happy? Just because your opinion of Pixar is low, it doesn't give you an excuse to go taking joy in their pain when they haven't done anything malicious. I find your attitude frankly immature and petty.

[The_Iceflash]

I consider Pixar to be a part of Disney. Even though they are separate studios, Pixar is owned by Disney and Pixar employees hold pretty high positions at Disney (i.e John Lassater who is the chief creative officer at Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios.) which shows that they are even more fused together. A success for Pixar is a success for Disney and a failure for Pixar is a failure for Disney. To further illustrate how much Pixar has become a part of Disney, look at how much Pixar is a part of Walt Disney World. From the All Star Movies Resort (Toy Story Section) to Pixar Place at the Hollywood Studios.

Disney's animated output as dramatically increased in quality since John Lassater became chief creative officer at WDAS. Disney and Pixar together has helped Disney more than anything.

I proudly display my Pixar BDs with my non-Pixar Disney BDs.

[Disney Duster]

I would hazard a guess that most people know that Walt Disney had nothing to do with the creation of Pixar, especially as he died nearly thirty years before Pixar released their first film. Have you actually ever heard someone say that? And yes, they are two different companies who have had a long and successful partnership that is going to continue.

I didn't hear anyone say that exactly, but it's implied when people think Pixar and Disney are the same thing, because if they are the same thing, that would mean people do think they were founded by the same person, you see.

I don't see it like that, maybe others do. The success of Pixar's films raised the game in the animation industry and as a result, Disney have had to raise their game. Personally, I don't see that as a bad thing.

Since Pixar came onto the scene, has Disney really done better? Tangled didn't get nominated for Best Animated Feature, but Pixar's movie did. Couple this with the fact that Pixar was definately the reason other studios, including Disney, changed to CGI and is probably the reason Disney has tried to be un-Disney to compete with the non-Disney but more successful films.

And I think it's very obvious Walt Disney would never buy another movie studio to help him, I see it is obvious that he would rather he makes his own Disney movies and he succeed on his own movies' merits.

Except...he did buy another movie studio to help him in the late 1940's: Denham Film Studios in Britain, which helped him produce Treasure Island and the Story of Robin Hood and his Merrie Men (released in 1950 and 1952, respectively).

NO HE DIDN'T, that's wrong. I looked up info on that studio you said Walt bought, and what he did was not the same thing today's heads at Disney did with Pixar at all!!! He bought their studio to make his own films there, to make his own Disney ideas come to life using it as a tool. That is not Pixar, which is Pixar people coming up with their own Pixar ideas and Disney taking their money and depending on their success instead of their own from actual Disney movies. Walt Disney did not buy all of Denham's films and sell them as his own like today's Disney heads are doing with Pixar, Walt was basically just using their lot to shoot his own Disney, not Denham, Disney films.

Once again, Disney Duster, I cannot fathom what goes through your mind sometimes; you dislike Pixar simply because people think it's Disney?! Yes, it's different, but it's nevertheless a very similar entity to Disney; and besides, although this will anger and upset you, Pixar has made plenty of movies much better than the majority of DACs.

In fact, I would say that only the first five DACs and the four big Renaissance movies are better than Pixar's best, whilst the likes of everything from Cinderella to the Hunchback of Notre Dame are inferior to things like Toy Story, Up and Wall-E. Pixar's movies are original, inventive and all maintain a perfect balance of emotion and humour (even Cars, but I haven't seen Cars 2 yet). Ever since 1995, Pixar has been beating Disney at its own game and has yet to stop doing so.

I don't dislike Pixar because people think it's Disney, that is one reason but actually I dislike Pixar because I see that their only okay and so many people wrongly think they're the best, better than Disney.

I actually cannot believe that you said most of Disney's films are inferior to Pixar's. That goes against you being a member here or even having your user name. Frank and Ollie would definately be appalled and ashamed to hear that you said that. You could write any explanation of why you think they wouldn't because it's their animation that's so good or they didn't think the other films were the best but that doesn't mean they wouldn't still be absolutely terribly hurt and think you're wrong for what you said because I think we both know it is most, most likely that they really would.

Anyway, the Pixar films just aren't all that great. Their all re-treads of like the same basic buddy-comedy-get-the-thing structure, Bugs Life, Monsters Inc., and Cars were so forgettable and hardly ever mentioned until the recent sequel discussions and Wall-E had a really poor second half while Ratatouille made no sense with it's presenting the critic something that's supposed to be original but instead of meeting that challenge it really fed the critic and us something that was old and just reminded the critic of something he ate before. And Toy Story 3 had that too long drawn out fire scene unecessarily until they were somehow out of the blue saved by other characters, a big ol tease, not to mention we still have the problem of how the toys may forget about Andy, passed from owner to owner, do toys even die, it's just full of problems that the ending created instead of solved. And Up was one of the most lackluster all-over-the place things I've ever seen with the guy meeting his childhood hero not stiring up any big feelings like it should have.

And none of these Pixar movies have the Disney magic found in just about every single Disney film. None of them have touched that unique power only found in Disney that feels so wonderful in a way Pixar couldn't make because they're Pixar not Disney. Disney is original and inventive, just applied to classic stories, which means they have a balance themselves of the idea of timeless classics and new creativity, something Pixar doesn't have. And a balance of humor and emotion or being original is not all there is to films, something Pixar people won't understand. The wonderful magical feelings found in Disney films can't be found in other films and if other people, including you, can't feel them, then all it is is a sad shame that shouldn't be. But I say that almost all of Disney's films are far superior to Pixar's films, even if not on some kind of technical levels that for some reason are the only things you can see I guess. A film is much more than a technical crowd pleasing thing.

I only rejoiced at Pixar's Cars 2 fail because I just want Pixar to stop doing what you said, "beating Disney at their own game", because while I don't think they truly are beating Disney in the area of films, Pixar is beating Disney at success among audiences and critics, Pixar is beating Disney at getting people to like them.

Wonderlicious, your trying to use my religion in this won't work on me. "Be as you would be done by" is what I follow, as if somewhere Pixar was talking about how they are joyful that my movie didn't hit it well with the critics...I would accept that! I genuinely felt joy over Pixar now being equal to the other studios, I am joyful they are no longer "beating Disney at their own game" as Dr Frankenollie said. I felt genuine joy and I am not hurting anyone with it, in fact you're supposed to let your feelings out.

And I do not want the company to outright fail and die like you completely exaggerated! I simply want them to stop beating Disney, like every real Disney fan really probably wants even if they don't admit it.

And by the way Wondy, I don't think Walt Disney would like you referencing Cinderella with the "C word" joke making it a double entendre for one of the most foul words in all of curse words.

The_Iceflash, the only reason that you accept Pixar as part of Disney is because the heads of Disney bought Pixar and put their films and characters next to theirs and in the parks. You are basically just following what the current heads of Disney are trying to make happen because they want Pixar's success, even though the heads at Disney said they were going to ignore what the real person who made Disney, Walt Disney, wanted for the Disney company. For shame, man. But Disney and Pixar still have seperate names and identities and are not one another.