CARS - What did everyone think? (SPOILERS INSIDE!)

[Maerj]

Wow. congrats, Maerj!

Just remembered two things I wanted to mention earlier.

1). Thought One Man Band was awesome!! Man, the facial expressions on all of those characters were priceless.

2). One minor chink in the story armor to point out. If this is a world without humans, why the need for farms growing food? Looked like in one scene there was a lettuce farm or something like that.

Picky, picky

First, thanks for the congrats, everyone!

Perhaps the produce from the farm is turned into some sort of grain alcohol used for fuel? I dunno.

[Pluto Region1]

Did anyone see this article at the Jim Hill Media site called, <a href="http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... MouseWatch: Excuses abound as to why "Cars" under-performed</a>

I'm still reading it because it's a long one. Wondering what some of our overseas forum members think about his comments that:

"Well, one wonders how foreign film-goers (Who aren't all that familiar with NASCAR or our country's car culture) will actually embrace a motion picture that celebrates this distinctly American institutions."

Also of interest, which I had no idea about, was that the 2nd weekend of box office receipts drop off about 50% on average compared to opening weekends. He partly contributes this phenomenon to the studios overstocking the film in gazillions of theaters on opening weekends, hoping to have huge 1st weekend totals.....

My feeling is that there are a lot of contributing factors and one cannot measure the success or failure based on how many people went to see Nemo or Incredibles 2 to 4 years ago.... I just don't think you can compare movies like this when they are released in different times of the year, the economy is different than it was back then, etc.

[2099net]

I'm still reading it because it's a long one. Wondering what some of our overseas forum members think about his comments that:

"Well, one wonders how foreign film-goers (Who aren't all that familiar with NASCAR or our country's car culture) will actually embrace a motion picture that celebrates this distinctly American institutions."

Well, as is (probably) well known by now, I'm not that enthusied and never was, even before the NASCAR information was released. A film about Cars, just never did or does appeal.

I look forward to the part in the film where the Cars realise they are causing climate change! - A sarcastic comment, yes, but one some Europeans are likely to be thinking about! While it may not affect children in the slightest, it will be harder for some people over here to see actual cars as being likable or heroic - we have congestion charges, sky-high fuel tax, road tax, speed cameras all over the place and there's even talk of pay-as-you-go levvies linked to GPS technology - all designed to discourage heavy car usage.

The "death of a town" storyline doesn't really speak to British audiences either. Not when, if anything, small towns and villages are booming these days (for various reasons, not all good - especially for long time residents). Unless you're in the wilds of Scotland, there isn't really any rural community sufficiently distanced from a major town, Britain is so small.

Also of interest, which I had no idea about, was that the 2nd weekend of box office receipts drop off about 50% on average compared to opening weekends. He partly contributes this phenomenon to the studios overstocking the film in gazillions of theaters on opening weekends, hoping to have huge 1st weekend totals.....

My feeling is that there are a lot of contributing factors and one cannot measure the success or failure based on how many people went to see Nemo or Incredibles 2 to 4 years ago.... I just don't think you can compare movies like this when they are released in different times of the year, the economy is different than it was back then, etc.

I think though you can compare films with similar opening dates to other films in the same year. By all accounts Cars got one of the best opening dates. Not a surprise, because Disney and Pixar will have been planning it for months. Looking at Cars opening figures compared to other films this year, it has suffered, as it has looking at opening figures for similar films in similar times in previous years.

However, and this is a big however, there's no way Cars will see a 50% fall-off. Not even close. Cars will do solid numbers throughout the summer and I don't actually think the opening weekend figures actually matter.

I also think some of the business analysts have got it wrong... According to IMDB Cars has an estimated budget of $70m (which sounds a little low to me, but even bumping it up by $30 to make it comparable to Finding Nemo - $90m - with and extra $10m left over for inflation and other sundries). Taking $60m, plus don't forget all the merchandise sales, in one week is still an incredibly viable financial proposition (for example X-Men 3 took double the opening weekend, but cost more than double to make - yet X-Men 3 is hailed a great success - even though X-Men 3 did experience the 50%+ drop rate the next weekend).

Also, long after the X-Men craze dies down and returns to the domain of comicbook geeks again (no offense intended, I'm a comicbook geek), Cars will still be popular and profitable with children and families.

[Loomis]

Well, one wonders how foreign film-goers (Who aren't all that familiar with NASCAR or our country's car culture) will actually embrace a motion picture that celebrates this distinctly American institutions."

That's interesting, because I wasn't aware that Americans knew the rest of the world existed.

Seriously though, cars - and the fact that they have four wheels and go fast and are sometimes used for racing - is fairly common knowledge across the globe. Perhaps this won't appeal in those nations yet to achieve electricity, but the rest of the western world will manage to somehow work out the whole cars/going fast thing.

After all, 90% of the mainstream US films that are released here embrace a "distinctly American institution" in one way or another, but the important thing is find that common denominator - be it human interest, comedy, drama etc. In my humble opinion, and I got blasted in another thread for saying this so I'm bracing myself, Cars did not achieve the 'emotional' element necessary to carry a film about shiny things going around a track.

[dvdjunkie]

Loomis, I still think you have your pants on too tight, or you haven't been getting your proper ration of cheese!

I think you are missing the whole point of the story of "Cars". It wasn't about cars going fast, or competing on some sort of level. This was the story of one total jerk of a "guy" who thought he could do everything himself and didn't need anyone else to succeed in life. It was all about "him" and even in the human world that doesn't work very well at all.

After getting 'lost' in the vast expanses of the desert off of Interstate 40 (which is what the old Route 66 is called) he becomes frightened and ends up causing a lot of damage to the personal property of the residents of Radiator Springs, in the heart of Carburetor County. The 'old' judge, voiced by Paul Newman, sentences him to community service to repair the damage done to their fair city, and all McQueen can think about is getting out of the place and getting to California to win that all important "Piston Cup" race. What happens after his sentencing is what life is all about.

Put yourself in the position of Lightning McQueen. If you are a self-centered person thinking only about yourself, and not those around you, you are going to be looked upon as a pretty arrogant jerk (for lack of a better word that can be used here on UD). You learn that life doesn't revolve around 'you', and you learn that there are other people who are equal or worse off than you, who manage to get along just fine. It is those lessons in life that bring us to our true being and show us what we are all about. We also learn the true meaning of friendship and what a real friend is and should be.

My great-grandfather told me that in my lifetime I would only meet FIVE true friends. I believe he was right, because I am now 66 years old and I have three true friends, so I know that I have a lot more to look forward to in finding two more friends for life. My grandfather's definition of a friend was "someone who would drop anything to help you out of any problem and you would do the same for him/her, anytime, anyplace, and anywhere. A true friend could be defined as that person you would take a bullet for."

How many true friends have you made so far?

I think we have all missed the point of "Cars" and the story it is telling us. Are we all too self-centered to see what true friendship is all about? Do we see ourselves in Lightning McQueen and that is why we don't like him? Or is the story to close to what is happening in our life, that we block it out and try to see something that isn't there?

I think, and this is just my own opinion, that too many of us look for too much in a movie, whether it is "Brokeback Mountain", "North Country", "Country Bears", or the present movie we are discussing "Cars". Why can't we just let the movie tell us its story, and not be so over-critical about whether it is about Cars, Bugs, Monsters, or real people? As Samuel Goldwyn once said back in the 'Golden Days of Hollywood', "Movies are our best entertainment".

I think if we all looked at the movies we spend our hard earned money for as just that - ENTERTAINMENT - and not something that we are to be so critical of that we take away another person's enjoyment of it, we could probably all have a lot more fun in life.

None of us on this forum are "paid critics"and are just offering our opinions of what we see. However, when you are watching an animated film, remember, it is a depiction of what it might be like in that animated world, be it ants, caterpillars, monsters, or whatever. It is a film that is trying to tell you that we are all in this world together and we all have our problems, and this is how we all deal with those situations.

Enough of this rant.........I am sorry if some of you still don't get it, but it is something that I feel truly needed to be said.

[memnv]

nicely said Junkie

[2099net]

Did you see the same film DVDJunkie? or were you watching Doc Hollywood?

[Luke]

That Jim Hill. He can slant anything to get a reaction. No, <i>Cars</i> didn't perform as well in its first three days as the last three Pixar movies. But thanks to summer weekdays, it's already pulled ahead of <i>Monsters, Inc.</i>. And there's NO way the film will drop 50% in its second weekend - that's something that a non-family fanboy-heavy sequel/franchise film might do, but word of mouth on <i>Cars</i> is good and anyone not taken in by the premise (and many have vouched for this) should be intrigued by the good buzz. (Look at <i>Over the Hedge</i>'s small drop and expect something similar for <i>Cars</i>.)

I love the way that JH's per-theater average chart shows <i>Cars</i> near the bottom to make it look like an underperformer. Gee, where is that uber-success <i>Chicken Little</i> (which made little more than half of what <i>Cars</i> did in its opening weekend) or for that matter <i>Shark Tale</i>, <i>Madagascar</i>, <i>Robots</i>, <i>The Wild</i>, <i>Valiant</i>, <i>Hoodwinked</i>, and <i>Doogal</i>? I can understand leaving off the last three due to their budget nature and limited theatrical count. But it's really kind of pathetic to twist a $60 million opening weekend (which at best, is a bit below strong expectations) into something of a flop...especially when you're always going on about how successful <i>Chicken Little</i> (which <i>Cars</i> has already made more than half the domestic gross of in a handful of days) is. Heck, even the first sentence of the article (that <i>Cars</i> had the second-biggest opening in June) is clearly wrong upon a link-click.

Anyway, sensational journalism rant over. Go back to bashing the film and anyone who didn't like it!

[magicalwands]

Put yourself in the position of Lightning McQueen. If you are a self-centered person thinking only about yourself, and not those around you, you are going to be looked upon as a pretty arrogant jerk (for lack of a better word that can be used here on UD). You learn that life doesn't revolve around 'you', and you learn that there are other people who are equal or worse off than you, who manage to get along just fine. It is those lessons in life that bring us to our true being and show us what we are all about. We also learn the true meaning of friendship and what a real friend is and should be.

....

I think we have all missed the point of "Cars" and the story it is telling us. Are we all too self-centered to see what true friendship is all about? Do we see ourselves in Lightning McQueen and that is why we don't like him? Or is the story to close to what is happening in our life, that we block it out and try to see something that isn't there?

I never looked at it that way. And the 5 friends thing is really getting to me, I'm counting whether I have all 5 now. Your "rant" showed me a new way to watch Cars. I would have never thought our hate for Lightning was the result of us being like him. Anyways, thanks very much for writing this!

[MICKEYMOUSE]

CARS was definitly Pixars BEST looking (visual) movie so far!! I loved the movie, even though some of the characters reminded me of Finding Nemo. I think this now might be my favorite Disney/Pixar movie now!!

[Jake Lipson]

That Jim Hill. He can slant anything to get a reaction.

Agreed. I go and read his stuff a lot anyway, because there have been times when he's been right -- he provided the initial news of the Alice in Wonderland and Pocahontas special editions, for example -- however, it's always good to keep what he says in check and take it with a pinch of salt.

Heck, even the first sentence of the article (that <i>Cars</i> had the second-biggest opening in June) is clearly wrong upon a link-click.

I will, however, defend him in saying it had the second biggest opening. As I recall, he wrote the article based on weekend estimates before the Sunday actulals were in -- at which time Cars was estimated at $62.8 million and would, indeed, have been the second-biggest June opening had that figure been accurate. As can be seen at <a href=http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weeken ... =06&p=.htm target=blank>Box Office Mojo</a>, Cars is currently the #3 June opening after Harry Potter (2004) and Hulk (2003.) Hulk's opening gross was $62,128,420; a $62.8 million estimate for Cars would have put it ever so slightly above Hulk, which would have given it the #2 position below Mr. Potter. So, at the time that the article was originally written, his statement was correct using the figures that were available then. And he should probably have updated it by now to reflect that change (although that would give him another chance to take a stab at the film because Disney overestimated the Sunday gross, so maybe it's best to leave it.) Just thought I would point that out.

As for the Oscars question, there's unfortunately not a chance that Cars will be up for Best Picture. A Golden Globe for Best Musical or Comedy seems possible, but as long as there's a Kid's Table (Best Animated Feature) and the Academy Awards are decided by people who rely on live action filmmaking for a living,

Actulally, the Hollywood Forigen Press Association has hopped on the Academy's bandwagon and <a href=http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=12957 target=blank>added a Best Animated Feature Film category</a> starting with the 2006 awards. So Cars looks to be locked out of its Best Pic race there, too, unfortunately. Some quotage from the press release at the link above:

"The members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association have recognized several animated feature films in the Best Picture (Musical or Comedy) category in recent years, including 'Beauty and the Beast,' 'Aladdin,' 'The Lion King,' 'Toy Story,' 'Toy Story 2,' 'Chicken Run' and 'Shrek. Animated features have become an important component of the studio lineup so there was an overwhelming consensus that this new category be created."

Rules - bold mine for emphasis:

Eligible films must be "feature-length (70 minutes or longer) with no more than 25% live action. If less than eight animated films qualify, the award will not be given, in which case the films would be eligible for Best Picture. <b>Otherwise they would not be eligible for the Best Picture category.</b> The category will be limited to three nominations per year."

And certianly we've got more than eight animated movies this year (and every year from this point forward, it seems, with this glut of CGI crap like "Wild," "Doogal," etc. flooding theaters), so it looks like we've seen the end of the Golden Globes recognizing animation with their significant (Picture) awards. Great pity, that;, to lose one orginization that has until now treated animation as it should be -- with the same level of respect as live-action filmmaking -- instead of roping it off to, as Luke said, the "Kid's Table." As Berk said, the Globes have honored many animated films before, which is indicative of the strong emotional pull and narrative strengths of the films, in line with live-action material. That alone means that they should be in contention with live-action material. And certianly something like Doogal isn't going to stand a chance competing with, say, United 93 or Flags of Our Fathers or any of the other major live-action Oscar possibilities this year. But I think certianly something like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Incredibles, and most recently Cars certianly could give them a run for their money and should be allowed to do so. Alas...I guess not.

Anyway, rant over for now. Thoughts, anyone?

For the record, looking at the politics of it and the grosses, my guess for Animated Feature nominations this year are Cars, Ice Age 2 and Over the Hedge (or Flushed Away, depending on which one DreamWorks chooses to promote.) For Oscar, if the category widens to five nominations -- which it can, because there are more than enough elligible films (something like 15 this year?) -- the other two slots should be filled by the other DreamWorks movie and Curious George (I'd like this for the sake of 2D being recognized.) But I still think Cars is a near lock to win it.

[Elladorine]

Dvdjunkie's right on the money on this, of course. It's about Lighting's journey of self-discovery. . . as I said in my previous post, there's more to life than just doing things for yourself. And it's just one of those things that people have to discover for themselves, that you get what give to people, that friends are important.

This film was very touching to me, to the point that I couldn't fully enjoy it the first time around because I couldn't handle it (but that happens a lot when I watch Pixar).

I'll have to go see it again soon.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

As for the Oscars question, there's unfortunately not a chance that Cars will be up for Best Picture. A Golden Globe for Best Musical or Comedy seems possible, but as long as there's a Kid's Table (Best Animated Feature) and the Academy Awards are decided by people who rely on live action filmmaking for a living,

Actulally, the Hollywood Forigen Press Association has hopped on the Academy's bandwagon and <a href=http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=12957 target=blank>added a Best Animated Feature Film category</a> starting with the 2006 awards. So Cars looks to be locked out of its Best Pic race there, too, unfortunately. Quotage:

"The members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association have recognized several animated feature films in the Best Picture (Musical or Comedy) category in recent years, including 'Beauty and the Beast,' 'Aladdin,' 'The Lion King,' 'Toy Story,' 'Toy Story 2,' 'Chicken Run' and 'Shrek. Animated features have become an important component of the studio lineup so there was an overwhelming consensus that this new category be created."

Rules - bold mine for emphasis:

Eligible films must be "feature-length (70 minutes or longer) with no more than 25% live action. If less than eight animated films qualify, the award will not be given, in which case the films would be eligible for Best Picture. <b>Otherwise they would not be eligible for the Best Picture category.</b> The category will be limited to three nominations per year."

And certianly we've got more than eight animated movies this year (and every year from this point forward, it seems, with this glut of CGI crap like "Wild," "Doogal," etc. flooding theaters), so it looks like we've seen the end of the Golden Globes recognizing animation with their significant (Picture) awards. Great pity, that;, to lose one orginization that has until now treated animation as it should be -- with the same level of respect as live-action filmmaking -- instead of roping it off to, as Luke said, the "Kid's Table." As Berk said, the Globes have honored many animated films before, which is indicative of the strong emotional pull and narrative strengths of the films, in line with live-action material. That alone means that they should be in contention with live-action material. And certianly something like Doogal isn't going to stand a chance competing with, say, United 93 or Flags of Our Fathers or any of the other major live-action Oscar possibilities this year. But I think certianly something like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Incredibles, and most recently Cars certianly could give them a run for their money and should be allowed to do so. Alas...I guess not.

Anyway, rant over for now. Thoughts, anyone?

This has Katzenberg written all over it.

When Chicken Run wasn't nominated for "Best Picture" it was he who convinced the Academy to put up the "Best Animated Film" award. Since Wallace and Gromit wasn't nominated for Best Movie(Comedy or Musical) at the Golden Globes(which obviously deserved it) he probably helped make that slot at the Golden Globes too.

[Jake Lipson]

This has Katzenberg written all over it.

Typical -- the guy is obsessed with winning Oscars. Case in point: Pocahontas, The Prince of Egypt...and then he went to DreamWorks and dumped his serious streak for a bunch of spoof movies, and wants Oscars for them too. Sheesh.

Memo to all award orginizations: Just honor the best film, please -- but apparently that's too much to ask.

[Luke]

Actulally, the Hollywood Forigen Press Association has hopped on the Academy's bandwagon and <a href=http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=12957 target=blank>added a Best Animated Feature Film category</a> starting with the 2006 awards. So Cars looks to be locked out of its Best Pic race there, too, unfortunately.

Ugh! Thanks for the (awful) news, Jake. Talk about ironic. Animated features have become an important component of the studio lineup...so they have to be relegated to the kids table. Honestly, with all the CGI in films today (including one that recently won the Best Picture Oscar), it seems so stupid to say that something entirely CGI (or stop-motion, 2-D, etc.) is different and not worth consideration of a Best Picture award.

While the Academy's new category actually has awarded films that wouldn't have been recognized otherwise, the Golden Globes' move is plainly disappointing.

[Pluto Region1]

....it will be harder for some people over here to see actual cars as being likable or heroic - we have congestion charges, sky-high fuel tax, road tax, speed cameras all over the place and there's even talk of pay-as-you-go levvies linked to GPS technology - all designed to discourage heavy car usage.

Following your line of thinking here, then if you think that if much of Europe will be turned off by a film which celebrates car culture, then did Pixar/Disney not consider the tastes of the wider world market?

The "death of a town" storyline doesn't really speak to British audiences either.

Even so, I think when audiences unfamiliar with it see the scene, they will empathize with what happened. Since it is explained on a level that a 4 year old could understand, I think even cultures not familiar with Route 66 story here, will relate or at least understand what happened.

Looking at Cars opening figures compared to other films this year, it has suffered, as it has looking at opening figures for similar films in similar times in previous years.

I think this is an important point - he did sort of touch on it in his article, but it seems that no films in recent years have done that well in June.... but Jim Hill didn't go out of his way to point this out. You sort of had to read between the lines there!

However, and this is a big however, there's no way Cars will see a 50% fall-off. Not even close. Cars will do solid numbers throughout the summer and I don't actually think the opening weekend figures actually matter.

That's good... I was thinking, look at how much Narnia has gone on to make, and this is a Pixar film. I think the film will do good by word of mouth at this point and over the long haul - even if it has lower box office receipts than say Incredibles, I think the film has legs and will make it up on franchising, merchandise, and DVD sales.

[Loomis]

Loomis, I still think you have your pants on too tight, or you haven't been getting your proper ration of cheese!

I think you are missing the whole point of the story of "Cars"
[...]
Enough of this rant.........I am sorry if some of you still don't get it, but it is something that I feel truly needed to be said.

Well, once again, we must agree to disagree.

I find your argument - if you don't like this film you just don't get it - a bit insulting. Especially given that I didn't like the film, and I didn't think there was a hell of a lot to "get". The message about finding places in the world and finding true friend was as transparent as a freshly cleaned windshield, and the journey that Lightning McQueen took to get there was (in my humble opinion) long and predictable.

However, I will agree with you on one point - partly, because I'm nothing if not contrary - in that I think there is too much armchair criticism and overanalysis of films at the moment. Perhaps it is because I have written several hundred reviews for DVDBits, and am a lover of all forms of cinema, that I can't help but compare and contrast films and examine their weak points as well as strong. For that reason, I can't help but hold Cars up against the other Pixar films and films within the genre. With all that in mind, Cars just failed to grab my imagination. Mind you, your lengthy rant did just that - gave far to much weight to an otherwise hollow money-making piece of entertainment.

And it was entertaining, and as I said over in the other Screening Log Thread, some of the animation was breath-taking. It is just when all is said and done, despite the 'good intentions' of the moral side to the story, it didn't grab me. I'm not sure what else I can say and we'd have to agree to differ on that point. It is purely a gut-reaction, even within the context I'm placing it in. After all, we have all seen hollow films without any moral context, and Cars - to me at least - doesn't quite fit at either end of the spectrum.

Also, to answer your other question, I have no friends. Who would befriend a pantless CheeseJunkie?

[Jake Lipson]

Oh, and, guys - with regard to nobody spilling what the end of the end credits surprise is -- I'm gonna go ahead and do it, because, wow, look at the thread title. I put SPOILERS in the title because there needs to be a place for us to discuss the film with others who have seen it - that place is this thread. Anybody who wants to avoid spoilers should avoid this thread until they've seen it.

That said, the end credits surprise is that we come to the lost cars who came through Radiator Springs and they're still lost. The wife asks if they can PLEASE ask for directions now, and her husband says that no, there's an off ramp here somewhere, he knows...but there's not. And I think that was it, basically; I don't remember the rest of the specifics since I haven't seen it in almost a week.

[Pluto Region1]

I think you are missing the whole point of the story of "Cars". It wasn't about cars going fast, or competing on some sort of level. This was the story of one total jerk of a "guy" who thought he could do everything himself and didn't need anyone else to succeed in life. It was all about "him" and even in the human world that doesn't work very well at all.

After getting 'lost' in the vast expanses of the desert off of Interstate 40 (which is what the old Route 66 is called) he becomes frightened and ends up causing a lot of damage to the personal property of the residents of Radiator Springs, in the heart of Carburetor County. The 'old' judge, voiced by Paul Newman, sentences him to community service to repair the damage done to their fair city, and all McQueen can think about is getting out of the place and getting to California to win that all important "Piston Cup" race. What happens after his sentencing is what life is all about. ...

OMG, DVD Junkie,

That was the most beautiful review of this film that I've read. The whole thing... I didn't want to requote the entire piece here. It's not just a kids fun movie with animated vehicles but a life story for young and old.

[Nala]

We went today and just loved it. Some of the roads looked like they wre live action and the cars looked real. The movie was awesome. I've been waiting for this movie since I heard about it.

What did some of you think about the short One Man Band prior to the movie? I enjoyed it.

I'm definitely getting the DVD when it comes out.