New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cars 2: THE HTF 3D ADDICT REVIEW

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 

 

htf3daddictbanner.jpg

What can I say?  I love 3D!  From the moment I began watching 3D content in my home I quickly discovered that I needed more content.  I suspect that those of you just purchasing your first 3D hardware will acquire the same ferocious appetite.  That's why I became the HTF 3D ADDICT.  I personally love images that pop off the screen and come inches away from your face without becoming overly gimmicky.  However, I certainly appreciate the nature documentaries that offer beautiful depth and separation.  These are not necessarily reviews of the film themselves.  I am not going to concentrate on story or supplements -- you can find the 2D reviews elsewhere on this forum.  My job is to let you know exactly what kind of 3D experience to expect from the titles that are being released.   As I will be receiving a handful of new product from the studios expect to see more title coverage.

 

 

 

 

61i0ftgXnoL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

CARS 2

  

Studio: Walt Disney

Product Release: November 1, 2011

Ratio: 2.39:1

Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio. French and Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital EX

Running Time: 106 Minutes

Rating: G

 

 

3dsmall.jpg

ON A SCALE 0-5

Overall 3D Presentation Rating: 2

3D Separation: 3

3D In Yo' Face Factor: 0

 

 

The idea of Pixar making an animated film that humanizes automobiles may

have first seemed an odd choice when the original Cars film premiered in 2006,

but audiences seemed to have immediately fallen in love with its family-friendly

testimonial to heartland America, Nascar and the towns and tourist attractions

that used to line Route 66.  

 

Unfortunately, Cars 2 retains none of the charm of its predecessor.  In fact, 

it's an utter, complete mess of a film that somehow gets turned into a loud,

complex shoot-em-up spy thriller that completely ignores all the elements of

what makes a great Pixar movie including intriguing story, character development

and relationships that invoke some sort of emotional investment by its audience.

 

cars21.jpg

 

This time around, the film centers upon two sub stories.  The first involves 

Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) who agrees to participate in the championship

World Grand Prix race against a Italian Formula One Francesco Bernoulli 

(John Torturro),  The second involves the good-hearted Tow Mater (Larry the 

Cable Guy) getting cluelessly involved in a spy ring headed up by British agent

Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and love interest Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer)

who face off against the villainous monocle-wearing weapons designer Professor

Zündapp (Thomas Kretschmann).  

 

cars22.jpg

 

One would think that filling the screen with colorful racing cars and fast-edited

action scenes would hold the interest of Pixar's target audience.  However,

somehow the story gets totally bogged down with over-the-top violence and jokes

that mostly aim more towards adult audiences than kids (though there is the inclusion

of un-warranted toilet humor).  In essence, Pixar has taken the focus away from its

lovable characters and put it towards a complex plot that adds to much weight

to the film's overall enjoyment.

 

Disney has always been noted for its first-rate transfers and this one is no 

exception.  The pristine transfer allows for the film's beautifully animated cars

to show off their shiny clear-coats. The pure digital transfer shows an unparalleled

level of sharpness that brings out deep rich rich textures within the animation.

Colors are stunning here, particularly in the Tokyo race sequences where brilliant

neons dazzle the eyes.  There are absolutely no flaws to be found here.

 

cars23.jpg

 

My biggest complaint outside of the film's plot, is its 3D presentation.  Like

the story, it seems to be mostly ineffective and all over the map offering 

varying degrees of depth from scene to scene.  While the process does manage

to add realism and make the film somewhat more immersive, one could easily

argue that the 3D adds no real value to this film at all.  Most of the scenes seem

quite flat, offering a minimal amount of depth.  The level of depth seems to open

up in town shots of Radiator Springs, Paris, and along the winding roads of the

Italian countryside.  In fact, it isn't until 3/4 of the way through the film during 

a scene inside the London clock tower that one gets the sense that the filmmakers

were making good use of the format with their placement of various objects.  This

leads to one of the biggest arguments I have been making against 3D as of late....

why don't filmmakers make better use of the format?    Theaters and Home

Entertainment companies are charging a premium to watch a film like Cars 2

where there is absolutely no payoff for the audience.  With all the props at

the filmmakers disposal, why couldn't some WOW factor be interjected into

the film?  How much more enjoyable would a film like this have been if objects

flew out towards the audience.  Isn't this what makes 3D what it is?   Instead, 

Cars 2 keeps all its action within the confines of the screen.  There is nothing

of WOW value here except perhaps a few fenders attempting to poke out

beyond its boundaries.  As I sat and watched, I couldn't help but be aggravated

over the fact that people paid good money to see a film like this in 3D and

probably walked away extremely dissatisfied.

 

cars25.jpg

 

The film has a rather punchy 7.1 DTS-HD track, downconverted to 

5.1 on my system.  Viewers will find themselves immersed in 360-degree

audio that places them in the middle of the action.  A great example

of this is the race sequences where revving engines dash across 

the channels with a gratifying amount underlying bass while the surrounds

come alive with the sounds of roaring crowds.   Dialogue remains stiffly

in the center channel as the surrounds give a wealth of support for

the film's effect noises which are well placed throughout with a nice

sense of directionality.  Michael Giacchino, who has written scores

for films like Star Trek (2009), Ratatouille, Up and Super 8 provides

a soundtrack that is not only mostly forgettable, but easily gets lost

amidst all the noise of the film.

 

Cars 2 arrives as a 5-disc combo set comprised of 3D Blu-ray, 

2D Blu-ray, Blu-Ray Bonus, DVD and DIgital Copy packaged in

lenticular packaging.

 

The 3D disc includes the short Air Mater in 3D, which is a

sort of light-natured story about Tow Mater becoming part of 

the Falcon Hawk squad while giving us an introduction to the

upcoming Planes series.  The 3D is adequate here, giving us

nice depth, but nothing eye-popping.

 

The 2D Blu-ray and DVD disc also offers Air Mater as well 

as the theatrical short, Hawaiian Vacation.  A Director's commentary

is offered along with the film feature.  The Blu-ray bonus disc

offers interactive access to deleted scenes, documentaries,

animation and more from different locations in the movie. 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

cars24.jpg

 

Cars 2 completely runs out of gas, failing to connect to its audience

on any level.  Furthermore, it's one of those films that could have

possibly been saved by being a satisfying 3D experience, but alas,

even fails at that.  

 

Only true fans of the series will appreciate the film.  I would expect

kids will quickly become bored by the film's complex storyline.  This

film certainly should not be considered for a blind purchase based on

expectations from the original film.   Though at the time of this review,

there was only a $7 difference in price between the 2D and 3D offerings,

I am uncertain whether the extra expense offers a better viewing experience.

 

 

Images are for illustrative purpose only not representative of the picture quality of this disc. 

 

Equipment

 

LG 60PX950 THX Certified 3D display

Oppo BDP-93 3D Blu-ray Player

Denon 3311CI Receiver

Atlantic Technology H-PAS AT-1 fronts, 4400 center; 4200 rear speakers

SV Sound Subwoofer

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 36

Thanks for the review Ron.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post

Though at the time of this review, there was only a $7 difference in price between the 2D and 3D offerings, I am uncertain whether the extra expense offers a better viewing experience.

 


One important note, the 5 disc 3D version, gives you not only the film on 3D but an additional Blu-ray disc full of 2D bonus features that isn't included in the 2D Blu-ray set.  I think that disc is worth the $7 even if you aren't interested in the 3D disc.  I am assuming there will probably be a coupon as well, cutting that down to probably a $2 difference.

 

I disagree with your overall thoughts on the film.  Maybe because I was watching it with my kids I had a different overall reaction?  It is different from the first film, the opening scene makes it clear that this its going to be. 

 

The violence didn't really bother me.  There is a lot of missile, rocket and machine gun fire, some menacing welding torches, a car that breaks apart when falling from an oil derrick into the ocean.  There is a scene where the American CIA agent is being destroyed via a EMP blast where you see the lead up, the beam being fired, the initial struggle, but the camera cuts away to a monitor, where you can just barely see the fireball in the reflection.  This prompted an "Is he dead?" question from my daughter.

 

To me this was a story about being true to yourself and your friends. Most of the humor was derived from Mater being a fish out of water as he was taken out of his comfort zone in Radiator Springs. While my soon-to-be six year olds didn't get all the plot points they got enough to easily follow along (bad guys trying to do bad guy things and good guys trying to stop them). More importantly the message of appreciating people for who they are came through. They appreciated the toilet humor not only because it was literal toilet humor, but because it was also fish out of water bathroom humor. Note to parents who haven't seen it: the scene I am thinking of (and I believe Ron is referring to) is Mater needing to use the restroom and finding himself in a stall with a high tech bidet, with no controls in English.

 

We saw this in 3D on a recent Disney cruise.  I can't remember anything specific about the 3D, so I guess that means it didn't bother me or stand out in any way.  I'll have to check it on on 3D Blu-ray and see if I feel any differently.

post #3 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich View Post

I disagree with your overall thoughts on the film.  Maybe because I was watching it with my kids I had a different overall reaction?  It is different from the first film, the opening scene makes it clear that this its going to be.

I don't have/want kids and I enjoyed it well enough (and I'm sure kids love an action-y movie with talking cars as the stars). It's nothing amazing but I'm surprised at the beating that it took from critics. And making a sequel that is very different from the first one was a great idea.
post #4 of 36
My six year old son loved this film. Definite purchase.
post #5 of 36
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post

 

This leads to one of the biggest arguments I have been making against 3D as of late....

why don't filmmakers make better use of the format?    Theaters and Home

Entertainment companies are charging a premium to watch a film like Cars 2

where there is absolutely no payoff for the audience.  With all the props at

the filmmakers disposal, why couldn't some WOW factor be interjected into

the film?  How much more enjoyable would a film like this have been if objects

flew out towards the audience.  Isn't this what makes 3D what it is? 


I think that you may be confusing actual designed for and shot in 3D movies, versus 2D movies that were never intended to be or filmed in 3D, and simply converted as an attempt to cash grab in on the supposed '3D craze'.

post #6 of 36
Thread Starter 

Jeff,

 

I try and be careful to research exactly which films were

intended for 3D and which were simpy upconverted for cash grab.

 

Cars 2 was definately shot with 3D in mind according to the

films director, John Lasseter.

post #7 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Cooper View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post

 

This leads to one of the biggest arguments I have been making against 3D as of late....

why don't filmmakers make better use of the format?    Theaters and Home

Entertainment companies are charging a premium to watch a film like Cars 2

where there is absolutely no payoff for the audience.  With all the props at

the filmmakers disposal, why couldn't some WOW factor be interjected into

the film?  How much more enjoyable would a film like this have been if objects

flew out towards the audience.  Isn't this what makes 3D what it is? 


I think that you may be confusing actual designed for and shot in 3D movies, versus 2D movies that were never intended to be or filmed in 3D, and simply converted as an attempt to cash grab in on the supposed '3D craze'.

I think in general film makers are being too conservative with 3D, especially with films that are shot in 3D.  I think that they are so afraid of being too gimicky, that they have swung 180 degrees to using no gimicks which are part of the fun of 3D.

 

post #8 of 36
I saw both Up and TS3 in theaters in 3D -- I got the impression that Pixar was using the 3D as a way of adding presence and physicality to the scene rather than doing gimmicky stunts where they throw things at the camera every 2 minutes. Sounds like that's what they're doing here too. One man's lack of wow factor is another man's mature sense of restraint. Of course, I didn't feel the 3D really added anything to either of those movies, but I think that's true of all 3D movies with the possible exception of Avatar.

Also, I should add the incredible storytelling is the most amazing gimmick in the Pixar playbook, and Cars 2 may have accidentally left that one out too.
post #9 of 36
Thread Starter 

Andrew,

 

You make good points about restrained and frequent

use of 3D in films.

 

I would make the argument that it depends on the type

of film you are talking about. 

 

I think Cars 2 fits my argument rather well.

 

My boss has kids and he tells me that whenever there

is a choice between 2D and 3D, they want to see the

3D version.  Of course, that means the parents are paying

a premium on the tickets.

 

What is that premium offering kids who go to see Cars 2?

 

Nobody wants things thrown at them every 2 seconds --

and I realize that's an exagerration --  however, one would

think that at least the filmmakers would use the tools at

their disposal to do some really neat gimmickry that adds

to the story rather than detracts from it.

 

Everybody is jumping onboard to make 3D movies, but

hardly anyone is really doing anything cool with it.  In fact,

after all the 3D films I have watched over the past year, I am

starting to get bored with it only because without it being

properly exploited, it's offering only minimal enhancement

over the 2D version.

 

Funny, I have seen some really bad films actually made

better with 3D (take Yogi Bear for instance).  Reason being,

the filmmakers were able to intertwine some cool 3D gimmickry

into the story  -- and it is those gimmicks you remember when

you leave the theater. 

 

As for Cars 2, that's a film I might have appreciated more

if the filmmakers would have made it a little more fun by

integrating some cool effect work into the story. 

 

This is one of those issues that not everyone is going to

agree on.  I have already stated that I have rather aggressive

tastes when it comes to 3D.  Others will simply enjoy the

level of depth it provides. 

 

 

post #10 of 36
The first Pixar movie I've legitimately disliked. The original film was my previous pick for the weakest Pixar movie, but at least that film had some nice morals about slowing down and enjoying life, all of which are rudely shoved aside for frenetic, disturbingly violent action sequences and non-stop Mater schtick. Seriously, this was direct-to-video cheapquel stuff done with an "A" budget, and coming from Pixar, that's like a slap in the face.
post #11 of 36
When 5.1 came out, there were a lot of "gimmick" tracks before sound designers calmed down and practiced "restraint." Does that mean 5.1 now only offers minimal enhancement over matrix-encoded surround? I'd say there are a lot of 5.1 tracks don't call attention to themselves, yet are highly aggressive, immersive, and fully exploit the advantages over matrix-encoded surround.

I'm not a fan of "gimmick" 3D on any level, but even I found the 3D in Cars 2 lacking. With Up and Toy Story 3, I really appreciated how, as Andrew described, it added a great sense of presence and physicality to the scenes. Cars 2 seemed to lack the sense of depth and space that 3D can add to the illusion.
post #12 of 36
The way I see it, Cars 2 feels like nothing but a cash in. Look at all the titles they've made and all the potentials that either a sequel or prequel would have made. Cars was a movie that was not only the film that got the lowest ratings of any Pixar movie, but it had one thing that the other movies did not. A huge successful merchandise run. If you've been to any toy store, wall mart, or any place that sells Hot Wheels, you will know that from 2006 to today, Cars merchandise was always on the shelves. It outlasted the merchandise runs of The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E, and will most likely outlast Toy Story 3.

And what better way to cash in on the potential merchandise than making the toys more merchandisable? Let's look at what Cars 2 did for itself.

Set the movie in international areas = More variety of cars it can produce
Have it be an action film = Toys come equipped with guns and rocket launchers

Go look at the Cars merchandise and see for yourself. You've got cars with pop out guns, and other cars so international that there's a three-wheeled Reliant Robin.

But the last, probably most insulting part about all of this is the moral of the story. Mater, who has been screwing things up throughout the entire movie, finally comes to an understanding that maybe he was being a jerk to Lightning and everyone else with his antics. Just when you think his character is actually going to develop and actually become likable, Lightning just flat out tells him to stay the way he is.

o_o

And if nobody likes it, that's their problem.

O_O

-_-

If you're movie just flat out presses the "Cancel Character Development" button, than your movie is nothing.
post #13 of 36

I happened to have a $55k Sim2 3D projector on hand for a little while this morning, unfortunately its leaving as quickly as it came.  We used Cars 2 3D as a demo, and watched about 25 minutes of it.  I didn't see any WOW 3D use, but the depth of field in 3D was incredible.

post #14 of 36
I'm with Adam on this one. . .Toy Story 2 it wasn't, but it was a good solid action comedy that worked as an homage to Hitchcock and James Bond films. IMO the torture-murder scene (which dragged out the torture part more than Adam implied) was a bit much, though. That by itself warranted a PG rating.
Quote:
Note to parents who haven't seen it: the scene I am thinking of (and I believe Ron is referring to) is Mater needing to use the restroom and finding himself in a stall with a high tech bidet, with no controls in English.

That was also intended to reinforce the idea of Mater being unsophisticated -- in Japan, almost all toilets are like that. smile.gif

I don't like the fact that you have to get the 5-disc set in order to get the extras (even if it is only a few bucks more). I never had and likely will never have any interest in the 3D disc or digital copy.
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman View Post

That was also intended to reinforce the idea of Mater being unsophisticated -- in Japan, almost all toilets are like that. smile.gif

After seeing that scene, I was so glad I did not encounter any toilets there that spoke. Who knows what they could have been saying about how you were using (or misusing) all of the functions for everyone to hear? frown.gif
post #16 of 36
Cars 2 3D Playback Error

I have titled this new Disney/Pixar issue "time warp".

As the disc will play forward and then at random points jump back to a point that it had already played and then play forward by passing the point it had jumped backwards from, playing along forwards for a few minutes, then jumping backwards to a random pre-played point in the movie and then play forward again.... This is not a normal "SKIP" or "LAYER CHANGE" as they only effect forward playback, and are repeatable at the same time point / chapter on the disc... this error does not happen at the same point twice, after trying to play the disc over four days.

I gave up trying to watch after 15/20 minutes so don't know if at some point later the disc would play correctly.

Is anybody else in this forum having these troubles??confused.gif??

I have a Samsung BD-D5500 with the latest firmware and have read that this model, along with other, Samsung players are having the same issue with this 3D disc in other forums (not to have my posting mixed up with others) but also have read a at least one software/computer player and one Panasonic machine have reported like playback errors.


David
post #17 of 36

I reviewed the 3D disc on a Panasonic 310 player and experienced no problems at all. I also have a Samsung 6900 3D player, but have not tried it in that one. Maybe next week if I find myself with some time on my hands, I'll pop this back in and watch on the Samsung. I want to rewatch it anyway.

post #18 of 36
I'm not sure how this movie got off the pitch board. The main characters were quite unlikable, nothing made sense (why would cars have a sushi bar?), and it was all action and all of it boring. When I saw the preview for "PLANES" I threw my hands up.

As for the 3-D, several times while watching this "thing" I had to check my glasses because it felt like they weren't working. Oh, but they were. Barely.
post #19 of 36
Thread Starter 

I'm rarely wrong with my assessments of the 3D  :)

 

It was pretty non-existent.

 

 

post #20 of 36
Why *wouldn't* cars have a sushi bar?

smile.gif
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Perregaux View Post

I'm not sure how this movie got off the pitch board. The main characters were quite unlikable, nothing made sense (why would cars have a sushi bar?), and it was all action and all of it boring. When I saw the preview for "PLANES" I threw my hands up.

IMDB.com's trivia page for Cars 2 isn't helping the film either.

- The first Pixar film not to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Film since the award was created in 2001.
- The first Pixar film not to win the Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film since the category began in 2007.
- The only Pixar feature film ever to receive a "Rotten" collective rating from critics at Rotten Tomatoes.

And my personal entry?

- The only Pixar film I refused to go see at the theater.

The original Cars was my first ever low point for my love of everything Pixar. I was more than willing to give it a pass and move on to other, more interesting Pixar projects without saying they've done a bad film, but Cars 2 was not only a bad movie, it changed my opinion on the first Cars movie where I now label that one as a bad film as well. I cannot tolerate the original Cars movie the way I used after seeing how this movie is made for one reason and one reason only. TOYS.
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Van Duyn View Post

I cannot tolerate the original Cars movie the way I used after seeing how this movie is made for one reason and one reason only. TOYS.

How is that different than every other movie that they've made since Toy Story? It's a business so merchandising has always played a part in all their movies or those movies wouldn't have wall to wall cutesy characters that are always sold as plush toys, food tie-ins, action figures, etc. It's not like Cars 2 is Pixar's best work by any means but it's also not like the people involved spent years making the movie just to make the company billions of dollars. Like virtually every movie ever made, be they great or terrible, the people making it tried their best while also trying to make something that would make money.
post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post

How is that different than every other movie that they've made since Toy Story? It's a business so merchandising has always played a part in all their movies or those movies wouldn't have wall to wall cutesy characters that are always sold as plush toys, food tie-ins, action figures, etc. It's not like Cars 2 is Pixar's best work by any means but it's also not like the people involved spent years making the movie just to make the company billions of dollars. Like virtually every movie ever made, be they great or terrible, the people making it tried their best while also trying to make something that would make money.

Where do I begin? Ok, I'll start with this.

Have you ever been to a place that sells toys? Walmart, Toys R Us, ect. since the release of the first Cars movie? This is the only Pixar film to outlast the merchendise run of not only every Pixar film after it, but also it's own Toy Story lines. The profit from the first Cars movie earned Disney/Pixar five billion dollars. FIVE BILLION DOLLARS. Cars didn't even gross 1/10 that much in it's entire run. And with every single Pixar film, none of their movies have had merchandise that equals what Cars' merchandise made.

But does that mean that merchandise was the whole reason Pixar movies were made? I don't believe that to be the case. But you're right when it comes to making merchandise regardless. There will always be an element of merchandising involved. But where Cars 2 is different than say, Toy Story or even Wall-E and Up for that matter, is that the films always put the characters and their stories first. Look at UP. Does that film scream merchandising mad house? No. The film is about a very old man who walks slow and is very stubborn. Toy Story was about Toys, but each entry always had something more to it that wasn't "it's just for the toys".

Now, let's take a look at the Cars 2 approach. As mentioned previously, the first Cars film was a massive success with the merchandise. So, how do you take something that sells toys like water off a waterfall, and try to make more toys out of it? Here's what they did.

1. International setting. If you take a look at the original Cars merchandise, you will note that a lot of the toys are variants of the same character. So instead of making kids buy the same toy over again, having the film be international adds a LOT more variety to the cars that can be made and produced. They even have the dreaded Reliant Robin as a toy. So that's a lot more cars toys that can be made.

2. Action oriented. As if this wasn't the most obvious indication enough, but turning Cars into a spy thriller is like making a sequel to Doc Hollywood but having it be a Bourne film. Why did Disney/Pixar go with this approach? Well, the toys can now have guns and rocket launchers that pop out of the toys! More action oriented toys for the boys who don't like to collect just car toys. Now they have car toys with guns.

But the most important question I ask in the end, what was the point of the film? What did it add to the characters? From what I watched, nothing. Mater sticks to being his usual insufferable self when the whole movie force feeds you moments that cry out for character growth. And when you think that moment of maturing might actually happen, it gets sidetracked by Lightning who tells him to be who he is no matter what anyone else thinks. Which reminds me.

IMDB.com Trvia Page:

- First Pixar movie to have a bad moral.

Unlike a lot of other Pixar films, Cars 2 took no risks and appealed to the lowest age possible rather than being a film that all ages could enjoy. Pixar's reputation took a serious hit with this film, because when the merchandising is the only thing that this film does better than the other Pixar films, it's because it was made for that purpose.
post #24 of 36
Yes, the biggest reason that the movie was made because they knew they would make billions on merchandise and that's obvious. When they have a merchandising cash cow like Cars (which made nearly $250 million in the U.S. box office so it's not like it only made money on merchandise), they're going to want a sequel and, except for maybe the first Toy Story, merchandising was as much of a driving force on Cars 2 as it is on any of their other movies. Nemo isn't a cute little fish and Wall-E isn't a cute little robot just for the sake of story, it's because they know they will be able to merchandise the hell out of them. However, that doesn't mean that the people behind it just lazily churned out any movie. They try to walk the line of making a good movie while also incorporating elements that allow them to generate tons of money in merchandise. In your opinion, they didn't make a good movie and that's fine but if this movie only exists because of toys then you have to say the same thing about basically every movie they've done for the last 15 years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Van Duyn View Post

The profit from the first Cars movie earned Disney/Pixar five billion dollars. FIVE BILLION DOLLARS. Cars didn't even gross 1/10 that much in it's entire run.
Since 3 movies ever made have ever earned 1/10 of 5 billion dollars, that's essentially a meaningless stat.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post

However, that doesn't mean that the people behind it just lazily churned out any movie. They try to walk the line of making a good movie while also incorporating elements that allow them to generate tons of money in merchandise.

Not convinced. This is the studio that's been very vocal about their stance on sequels. They only do them if the story is right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post

Since 3 movies ever made have ever earned 1/10 of 5 billion dollars, that's essentially a meaningless stat.

3 movies ever made? Well, alright. Let's look at what all the Pixar movies have made.

Toy Story $361,948,825
A Bug's Life $363,109,485
Toy Story 2 $484,966,906
Monsters, Inc. $526,864,330
Finding Nemo $867,894,287
The Incredibles $632,882,184
Cars $461,923,762
Ratatouille $620,495,432
WALL-E $532,743,103
Up $731,304,609
Toy Story 3 $1,064,404,880
Cars 2 $553,950,875

That's 8 out of 12 films that Pixar has made that have grossed over 1/10 of five billion dollars. Eight movies. That's not even including movies that are NOT Pixar. And one of the Pixar movies grossed 2/10 of five billion dollars! So no, the stat is not meaningless.

And here's the point in why I even bothered bringing it up. You see how slowly but surely, Pixar movies make more money over time? You see that one film that's almost sandwiched in between the films that grossed over 500 million? That one movie that also wasn't the most liked Pixar film in general? Well, when it comes to making 5 billion dollars on merchandise based on the movie, I don't think the higher ups are worried how much Cars 2 will perform as long as the toys get out. Because when it comes to the Pixar standards of doing sequels, Cars 2 is a film that almost has no reason to exist. And if you think they weren't being lazy in the film making process, let me remind you...

Their high standards = Larry the Cable Guy as the lead character.
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Van Duyn View Post

Not convinced. This is the studio that's been very vocal about their stance on sequels. They only do them if the story is right.
And I'm sure they felt that it was and is the right story or they would have done something else and probably made the same amount of money. If the only goal with Cars 2 was to make money from toys, they could have made a movie for alot less than $200 million, made just as much from merchandising and then really maximized their investment. While you like other Pixar movies more, any coportaion that is funding a $100 or $200 million kids movies is always concerned with being able to make as much money as possible in every way and that includes making sure that they will be able to have lots of toys to sell.

Quote:
3 movies ever made? Well, alright. Let's look at what all the Pixar movies have made.
I thought you were referring to the U.S. grosses so fair enough.
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post

If the only goal with Cars 2 was to make money from toys, they could have made a movie for alot less than $200 million, made just as much from merchandising and then really maximized their investment.

They didn't have to make a movie at all -- new CARS toys have been released on a regular basis ever since the first film came out.

The stated goal of John Lasseter was to make an homage to spy films in general and to fish-out-of-water Hitchcock spy films specifically (e.g., North by Northwest), and at that they succeeded pretty well IMO.
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman View Post

They didn't have to make a movie at all -- new CARS toys have been released on a regular basis ever since the first film came out.

Yeah, but how many re-paint/variants can one release before there is nothing more to do? And as I've mentioned, the genre change enables new toys to come with features that the old toys couldn't have, i.e. guns and missile launchers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman View Post

The stated goal of John Lasseter was to make an homage to spy films in general and to fish-out-of-water Hitchcock spy films specifically (e.g., North by Northwest), and at that they succeeded pretty well IMO.

Well, North by Northwest didn't star Larry the Cable Guy, nor did the lead character act like a complete imbecile. And if they wanted to make an homage to the spy film genre, why did it have to be a sequel to Cars? Why not just make something outside of the Cars universe by creating a new one entirely that would compliment the spy homage more than Cars? And if I was given a choice, I would rather watch North by Northwest than Cars 2 anytime anywhere in any situation.

And I know this point has been made already, but the Incredibles was far more worthy film deserving of a sequel than Cars. Where with Cars you had a pretty stand alone story that had a beginning, middle and an end with not much more to expand on, the Incredibles ended with the family just settling as a super hero team ready to take on their next adventure. This is like JJ Abrams deciding to make a sequel to Cloverfield that doesn't involve any monster rather than making a sequel to the Star Trek movie they made in 2009 that was essentially built to have a sequel.
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Van Duyn View Post

Yeah, but how many re-paint/variants can one release before there is nothing more to do? And as I've mentioned, the genre change enables new toys to come with features that the old toys couldn't have, i.e. guns and missile launchers.
Like I've already said, if the movie was only a vehicle to sell toys like you want to think, they could have made it for alot less than $200 million. If they did that, they still would have had tons of toys to make and a less expensive movie to act as a commercial for those toys. It's ridiculous to think that John Lasseter (who can make virtually any movie that he wants to at this point in his career and make more money than his grandchildren can ever spend from whatever he does) spent years working on a movie ONLY so the company could make billions of dollars. I'm not even saying that the movie is all that great but I'm sure he and everyone else involved was as artistically engaged in this movie as they've ever been.

Quote:
And I know this point has been made already, but the Incredibles was far more worthy film deserving of a sequel than Cars. Where with Cars you had a pretty stand alone story that had a beginning, middle and an end with not much more to expand on, the Incredibles ended with the family just settling as a super hero team ready to take on their next adventure. This is like JJ Abrams deciding to make a sequel to Cloverfield that doesn't involve any monster rather than making a sequel to the Star Trek movie they made in 2009 that was essentially built to have a sequel.
I think one of the strongest things about Cars 2 is that it was deliberately different from the first one. The first one is a fine movie that tells a little story about small town life but there's no reason to make that same movie again (especially when a very common complaint about the first one was that it was slow and boring). Taking the characters from the first movie and putting them in an entirely different scenario is alot more interesting than seeing another movie about how great small towns are. I'd much rather see a sequel that does something different over the usual sequel that does the same basic thing again.
post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post

Like I've already said, if the movie was only a vehicle to sell toys like you want to think, they could have made it for alot less than $200 million. If they did that, they still would have had tons of toys to make and a less expensive movie to act as a commercial for those toys. It's ridiculous to think that John Lasseter (who can make virtually any movie that he wants to at this point in his career and make more money than his grandchildren can ever spend from whatever he does) spent years working on a movie ONLY so the company could make billions of dollars. I'm not even saying that the movie is all that great but I'm sure he and everyone else involved was as artistically engaged in this movie as they've ever been.

And I'm sure the same thing can be said about every movie... well, ever. Every time I look at a movie I try to see how something like this was conceived, pitched, planned and executed in a way that would make everyone involved happy and proud of the work they took part in. The Transformers movies for example have some of the best looking visuals I've seen in any movie, yet they are still some of the most offensive and boring movies that I wouldn't recommend to anyone. Now I'm sure the creative teams did their best with what they had and really poured their heart into it, but that doesn't mean the movie will be instantly loved. Even M. Night, with all the reputation he's built over The Sixth Sense, still delivered some of the most embarrassing and self-indulging films I've ever seen a director make. Some of that was also in Cars 2 when Lasseter actually made himself into a character (which was also made into a toy).

I think that quote about Lasseter being able to make any movie he wants is pretty telling. I know the man has developed an outstanding reputation worthy of the big names, but even the big names have made duds some of us aren't very proud of. What's also disappointing about his position is that, well, so very few people who want to do the things that Pixar was really known for aren't getting those kinds of shots. The most painful example comes from their soon to be released "BRAVE", a film that I have been waiting for since Monster's Inc. when I started realizing that Pixar seemed to distance themselves from making a movie/short with a female lead. It wasn't until Brenda Chapman, a really talented animator from way back in the 1900s came in and got Pixar off their biased butts by pitching this movie to them. She not only pitched "The Bear and the Bow" (Original title), but also wrote it and for a certain length of time was it's director. Unfortunately, she got fired and was kicked off the movie entirely. You think John Lasseter will ever get fired off a project he started in Pixar? I doubt it very much. When John Lasseter says "Cars 2", it's full steam ahead with everyone backing him up. But when someone else comes up with a story that Pixar has never done, they're more likely to have that taken away from them and given to someone else to take all the credit (also happened with Jan Pinkava for Ratatouille). I don't hate Cars 2 because it was mediocre, I hate Cars 2 because I didn't want to see a Pixar make this kind of self-indulging, merchandise spewing sequel to a mediocre movie when real talent ed folks are being let go for just standing by their projects.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Blu-ray

Gear mentioned in this thread: