Cars 2 in 2011 and series of Cars shorts

[Sotiris]

Well, the kids seem to like it. One of them said "I hope there's a Cars 3!"

[Sotiris]

Disney's 'Cars 2' a Hit Already—in Stores
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0637710278

As Walt Disney Co. prepares for this week's release of "Cars 2," the entertainment giant is betting the movie's main character, Lightning McQueen, can race for years into the play rooms, lunch boxes and even the bathtubs of young boys around the world.

Disney says "Cars 2" is on track to sell more tie-in goods than any single previous film, surpassing by a wide margin the current record holder, "Toy Story 3," which last year sold $2.8 billion of merchandise. That's on top of the average $2 billion of "Cars" merchandise sold annually since 2006.

As the production cost of big movies skyrockets and DVD sales plunge, Hollywood studios want to spread their risk by focusing on those films with the potential to generate sequels and spin offs, as well as consumer products, games and theme-park attractions.

Disney has been especially aggressive, and this year is allocating 80% of its production budget to such films, up from 40% in 2010. The strategy has found its fullest expression yet in the sequel to 2006's "Cars," due this Friday.

"It has been a companywide initiative," said Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger. "Everyone recognizes the value here."

In recent months, Disney and its licensees have packed the shelves of Target Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toy R Us Inc. with "Cars" Kleenex, shampoo, juice boxes, sleeping bags, kids' furniture and a half-size acoustic guitar emblazoned with the image of Lightning McQueen, a red race car with a friendly smile.

Beyond that, Disney Interactive Studios on Tuesday is releasing "Cars 2: the Videogame," for major console systems, including a 3-D version for PlayStation 3.

The company next year will open a 12-acre "Cars" area of its California Adventure theme park. Cars Land is to be the centerpiece of a $1 billion expansion designed to enhance the appeal of Disneyland's less-known neighbor.

Disney doesn't disclose the royalties charged for use of its characters. The average royalty rate for all products licensed from entertainment properties last year was 9.4%, according to the Licensing Letter, a trade publication. Licensing Letter publisher Ira Mayer said that a successful film like "Cars" commands two or three percentage points more than an average movie or TV show.

The most technically ambitious Pixar production yet, "Cars 2" is estimated to have cost slightly less than the $200 million production cost of "Toy Story 3."

Among other challenges, "Cars 2" features numerous, highly complex settings, including several foreign cities and offshore oil rigs, set on a backdrop of roiling ocean waves. On top of that Mr. Lasseter took over as director only last year, far along in the making of the movie, and reworked major elements of the plot and characters.

"They're not getting easier to make," said Pixar's president and cofounder, Ed Catmull, adding that the visuals in "Cars 2" involved "far greater complexity than anything we've done before."

To achieve better than break-even results on its massively expensive productions, Pixar counts on a sizable share of its films to generate merchandise tie-in, Mr. Catmull said.

To be sure, not every promotional effort succeeds. "World of Cars Online," an online role-playing game that launched last year, has yielded mixed results. Mr. Iger said it needs "retooling."

Disney Consumer Products Chairman Andy Mooney said his division approached "Cars" as a "lifestyle brand for young boys"—the male answer to the Disney Princess marketing push that highlighted characters including Snow White and Ariel, the mermaid.

Disney executives believe "Cars," set in a world populated by anthropomorphic vehicles, is an especially powerful brand because it combines two elements that separately tend to drive sales: toy vehicles and beloved movie characters.

"It is very, very potent in terms of its appeal to kids," Mr. Iger said.

Mr. Mooney said that after asking themselves what everyday products for boys could be "Cars" branded, Disney executives concluded the answer was: "All of them."

Disney's financial structure encourages such cross-division collaboration. When Disney's toy division makes money from a product derived from a particular film, the movie studio books a percentage of that revenue. Executives' bonuses are tied to the performance of their own operating divisions and of the company overall, giving them a personal incentive to cooperate with other units.

Executives at Disney and Pixar acknowledge that the commercial power of "Cars" helped convince them to make the forthcoming sequel, though they stress that it was far from the only consideration.

"The decision about making the sequel was very much an extension of the franchise discussion," Mr. Iger said. "But it wasn't mandating a sequel to be made."

"We only do sequels at Pixar if we've come up with a story that's as good or better than the original," said Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter, who directed both "Cars" movies.

The animation studio's first 15 years saw just one sequel, 1999's "Toy Story 2." That was in part because of the terms of Pixar's distribution agreement with Disney, which changed when Disney bought the studio in 2006. Today, in addition to last year's "Toy Story 3" and "Cars 2," Pixar is readying a "Monsters Inc." prequel for 2013.

The company doesn't have a policy on how many of its movies need to have consumer-products potential, but Mr. Catmull said it works out to around one in three.

Some other Pixar titles have had little merchandise-spinoff potential. Those include "Up," about a dyspeptic retired balloon vendor, and "Ratatouille," about a rodent haute-cuisine chef.

The DisneyToon animation studio, which makes direct-to-DVD films, is at work on a "Cars" spinoff, "Planes," due for release in 2013.

Mr. Lasseter, who also oversees DisneyToon, said that if "Planes" is successful, he may build additional titles around boats, trains and other vehicles.

"It's a bigger idea that can be expanded," he said.

[PatrickvD]

Ahrrgg, did that one kid in the video ask for Cars 3?? please NO.

[Sotiris]

K-C Revs Up Marketing Efforts Behind 'Cars 2' Across Brands
http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/k-c ... ds/227696/

[Sotiris]

Ahrrgg, did that one kid in the video ask for Cars 3?? please NO.

They definitely put that comment in the video on purpose. So they'll say that kids were begging for another installment and they have to listen to popular demand.

[dvdjunkie]

Went to the Midnight (12:01 a.m.) showing of Cars 2 at our World Class IMAX Theater, and it was sold out, so I sat with about 400 other people and enjoyed, what I think will be the hit movie of the summer.

Not at all what I was expecting from the trailers, "Cars 2" is very well done. It has a lot of heart, and it will make you laugh and cry, sometimes at the same time. All of your favorite characters from the first film are there, though because of death, some of the voices are done by other people, but it is hard to notice.

Being a huge fan of "Cars", I think that Pixar/Disney has got themselves a real box office hit!!!

I loved the way they use the 3-D, they don't just throw things at you, they immerse you in the story and make you feel like you are right there with them. Again the PG rating is for some 'toilet humor' that even the first movie was guilty of.

I will definitely see this one in the theater a couple more times before it leaves to go to the discount house.

I don't understand all the "Cars" haters out there. "Cars" is in my Top Three Disney/Pixar films of all time and I think that when "Cars 2" comes to Blu-ray, it will be right up there. And for all you who are saying "Oh no! Not a Cars 3!!!" Sit back and relax, because I think this is a cash-cow that Disney/Pixar will milk while they can. As long as the stories are as good as this new movie, I will pay to go see "Cars 3, 4 and 5" if they happen to come out in my lifetime.

[RIPJoeRanft]

I was at a midnight showing. I don't want to say it's bad, because it's not, but it's not really that good either. It's just standard action for the most part, well-done action though, but they could have fleshed out the story more. Less spy talk, more heart would have been a good thing.

Mater does get grating as the main character, and was better cast as the sidekick. Lightning is gone from long stretches of the film, and most of the characters of Radiator Springs are only given a line or two of dialogue. A lot of the film is Mater with Finn McMissile and Holly Shiftwell, so it might come down to how you feel about Larry the Cable Guy and those characters.

I will say that the visuals are pretty amazing. Pixar animators should be commended. This film looks gorgeous. One of their best-looking. And the Toy Story short was just hilarious, tons of great gags.

[CampbellzSoup]

I just watched Cars the first one yesterday going into it with a fresh mind about the film not wanting to hate it anymore...and it just wasn't good....long stretches of boring/nothing going on...and some gags that seemed borderline toddlerish...

[Hogi Bear]

Oh, you're just jealous.

Dang straight! ;D

If it makes you feel any better, most of the Pixar and Disney animated films are released here two or three months after the US. Tangled, Bolt and Princess and the Frog (eg November releases) were released in January the following year. More often than not though, if it's not a worldwide release, then it's delayed and usually by months.

I think this maybe the first Pixar film that wasn't delayed by a few months here.

Anyway, no hard feelings I hope.

[NeverLand]

Worst Pixar movie I have ever seen!!!!!
They should get the Razzie for Worst Movie and Worst Director of 2011!!!!!

[pap64]

To be perfectly honest, I did expect Cars 2 to get middling reviews, considering it's the only Pixar franchise that is very divisive and not as beloved (merchandise sales be damned). But I AM surprised that it has gotten such low reviews. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some critics are rating the movie down not because it's a genuinely bad movie, but because its a sequel no one really wanted.

It is also a movie that isn't TRYING to yank your heartstrings or make you deeply ponder about the meaning of life. It is a straight up action comedy starring a red neck character. It isn't in any way trying to be a deep, meaningful movie. It is just plain 'ol stupid, colorful, silly fun.

I realize that some critics are upset at the quality and it isn't because its a Cars sequel. But it seems that Pixar has dug itself into a hole they really can't get out of, and that means that the audience is expecting something different from them.

[toonaspie]

It is also a movie that isn't TRYING to yank your heartstrings or make you deeply ponder about the meaning of life. It is a straight up action comedy starring a red neck character. It isn't in any way trying to be a deep, meaningful movie. It is just plain 'ol stupid, colorful, silly fun.

Well sometimes you don't wanna go the other extreme or it gets too sappy. I felt that "Up" was too sentimental for it's own good and it didn't really appeal to me.

[dvdjunkie]

What I am reading here is that those who didn't like the first "Cars" movie are slamming the second one. That is not fair, because there are those of us, including me, who think that the 'Cars' movies are really a lot of fun. They aren't meant to be Academy-Award films, they are meant to be movies that the whole family will enjoy.

We are going as a whole family tomorrow to see "Cars 2", which my son-in-law and I have already seen at our World Class IMAX Theater here in Wichita.

Save your money on the 3-D if you are looking for things flying out of the screen at you, because that doesn't happen. This is a 3-D immersive-style movie and it works in its own magical way.

If you didn't like the first "Cars", chances are you may not find "Cars 2" to your liking, so make sure you clarify whether or not you liked the first one before you give your personal review of the new movie.

"Cars" is in my Top Three of Disney/Pixar movies, and, as I said before, "Cars 2" will probably join it when it comes to Blu-ray later this year.

[milojthatch]

I just got back from seeing it. I won't say it full on sucks or that I hated it, but it is Pixar's worst, hands down. It definably did some brand tarnishing. I think a third one would full on destroy the brand that is Pixar. Fun enough, my wife loved it, so I guess there are some who'll like it. I just wonder how many will feel like that. I for one, the self-proclaimed "Biggest Pixar fan in the Wolrd," didn't like it that much. I'd have to give it 2 and half out of four stars and that's is me being nice becuase it's Pixar.

I just watched Cars the first one yesterday going into it with a fresh mind about the film not wanting to hate it anymore...and it just wasn't good....long stretches of boring/nothing going on...and some gags that seemed borderline toddlerish...

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Worst Pixar movie I have ever seen!!!!!
They should get the Razzie for Worst Movie and Worst Director of 2011!!!!!

You have no idea how hard it is to say this, but I have to agree.


I guess, if it was a short, I'd have liked it better. I just feel that Matter isn't the right character to carry a film, as he did in this one. It felt like they took a story from one of the "Cars Toons' and stretched it out into a full movie. I love the shorts, I really do. But shorts and films are not something you can switch out one for the other. I hope they make more shorts, I'm good with that. But a "Cars 3?" I may actually miss that one, and I've seen every Pixar film opening day since "Monster's Inc." and opening weekend since "Toy Story," so for me saying that is kind of a big deal.

I don't need it to be 100% sappy the whole time, I can enjoy action movies. But, I think the best action movies still have some kind of heart and characters you care about,a nd it still has to be well told. I hate to say this, but I could have cared less what happened to Matter or Lightning this time, and I didn't feel that with the first one.

[PixarFan2006]

Surprised this is getting really mediocre reviews (especially from Leonard Maltin). I am still going to see it with an open mind in a few weeks (Since I have the free ticket from the Incredibles Blu-Ray). I am not expecting it to be Pixar's best, but I am also not expecting it to be awful.

[dvdjunkie]

milojthatch wrote: (actually misspelled twice)

Matter

The character name is 'Mater' "as in Tow-Mater!!!"

These are animated films, and cannot be judged against live-action films. I found that the pacing was really good, there are enough one-liners to last a person a year, and the puns are bountiful.

"Cars" was undoubtedly a better film than "Cars 2", but let's not be slamming a film that was brought out 'by demand' from all those people who spent millions of bucks on the toys.

Pixar knows what it is doing when it comes to putting out one film a year, and they have the formula that works well.

Let's see if Disney's "Planes" has any life compared to this wonderful sequel "Cars 2".

[Kyle]

These are animated films, and cannot be judged against live-action films.

The heck? They absolutely can. People that try to separate animation from live action are the reason animation has its own separate category during award season. The medium should matter not, all the rules of story telling still apply.

[estefan]

I just got back from seeing Cars 2 and you know what? I liked it. It's my least favourite Pixar film, but only because there isn't quite the emotion and character development we usually expect from them and the message is pretty much hammered in. But I thought the secret agent storyline was well-done, the racing sequences were exciting, I liked the Mater character, I laughed a good number of times and at no point was I bored with it. The universe still doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that was a problem I had with the first Cars as well.

[milojthatch]

milojthatch wrote: (actually misspelled twice)

Matter

The character name is 'Mater' "as in Tow-Mater!!!"

Typo. It happens.

These are animated films, and cannot be judged against live-action films.

The heck? They absolutely can. People that try to separate animation from live action are the reason animation has its own separate category during award season. The medium should matter not, all the rules of story telling still apply.

I agree 100%. This is the same kind of thinking that kept films like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Up" from winning Best Picture of the Year. Film is film, end of story. If the story is good, if the characters are worth liking and embracing, then what does it matter if they are live action actors or cartoons? Makes no difference.

Anyway, who said I was judging "Cars 2" against live action films? There are 11 Pixar films made before to judge it against, and I have to say, again, while I don't hate it, it is the bottom of the Pixar barrel. but I mean hey, I'd still take "Cars 2" over most other animation studios best films, so it's not that horrible if you keep that perspective to say that.

Ahrrgg, did that one kid in the video ask for Cars 3?? please NO.

I agree. I say, let them keeping making "Cars Toons," I like them. But no more "Cars" movies.

[David S.]

What I am reading here is that those who didn't like the first "Cars" movie are slamming the second one. That is not fair, because there are those of us, including me, who think that the 'Cars' movies are really a lot of fun. They aren't meant to be Academy-Award films, they are meant to be movies that the whole family will enjoy.

I agree!

"Cars" is in my Top Three of Disney/Pixar movies, and, as I said before, "Cars 2" will probably join it when it comes to Blu-ray later this year.

Yes, the original "Cars" is my second favorite Pixar film and third favorite CGI animated film of all time. I never understood the hate some have for it and never will. But to each their own, as they say.

It is also a movie that isn't TRYING to yank your heartstrings or make you deeply ponder about the meaning of life. It is a straight up action comedy starring a red neck character. It isn't in any way trying to be a deep, meaningful movie. It is just plain 'ol stupid, colorful, silly fun.

I realize that some critics are upset at the quality and it isn't because its a Cars sequel. But it seems that Pixar has dug itself into a hole they really can't get out of, and that means that the audience is expecting something different from them.

Ob the bright side, on that same Rotten Tomatoes site where the "critics" are bashing it, the movie has a favorable rating from viewers. So maybe it is living up to the audience expectations with most of the "general public". Like you said, I wasn't expecting a deep tearjerker, or for it to be as touching as the first movie. Based on the previews, I was expecting a fun and entertaining action/adventure/comedy, and the movie easily lived up to this.

A lot of the negative critcal reviews I've read seem to focus more on what the movie is not, rather than what it is. Which seems kind of unfair, not to take it on its own terms.