3D Blu-ray Review Cars 2: THE HTF 3D ADDICT REVIEW (1 Viewer)

[Ted Van Duyn]

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.

 

[TravisR]

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.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

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.

 

[TravisR]

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.

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.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

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.

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.

 

[TravisR]

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.

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.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

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.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

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.

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.

 

[TravisR]

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.

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.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

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.

 

[TravisR]

You're trying to cloud the issue by talking about Larry The Cable Guy or egos or Pixar being biased against women (though I have no clue how you came to that conclusion) when none of that has anything to do with the point that I keep making. You said that the movie was made only because of the merchandise and that's ridiculous. Merchandise is a huge reason why the movie exists but it's not the ONLY one.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

Merchandise is a huge reason why the movie exists but it's not the ONLY one.

It certainly wasn't made for it's message.

(though I have no clue how you came to that conclusion)

27 years in the business, 12 films, 20 shorts, and not one female lead. Sure, there are times when a Pixar film does have a great female character that's on par with the male lead (Jessie from Toy Story 2, and EVE from WALL-E being my favorite), but most of the time they're just the love interest who are more of an award than an actual character (Bo from Toy Story, Princess Atta from A Bug's Life, Celia from Monster's Inc., Colette in Ratatouille, Sally in Cars). I'm glad Sally's role was expanded for Cars 2....... right?

 

[Jeff F.]

I enjoyed this film, and so did my six-year-old son. There seems to be a lot of hate for it because it wasn't like the first film. But if it was exactly like the first film, it would have been accused of being like "Hangover 2." At least Lassiter and company attempted to change things up a bit.

 

[benbess]

I liked it well enough. It was a lot better than Puss and Boots for us. We bought it.

 

[Matt Hough]

I didn't hate t; I just didn't love it, a first for a Pixar film. It was very ambitious trying to balance Mater's James Bond-like adventure with Lightning's Grand Prix race-off, and I felt (as I said in my review) that they didn't really do justice to either plot.

 

[Edwin-S]

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.

Well, it's not like John Lasseter isn't known for this sort of thing. In fact, it seems to be his M.O. Look at Chris Sanders and his "American Dog" project. BOLT wasn't an awful movie, but I think it could have been much more if Lasseter had kept his nose out of it. On the other hand, maybe Sanders started spinning his wheels on the project and might have been relieved to leave it when Lasseter canned him. We'll never know for sure. As for CARS 2, I thought it wasn't all that bad because it was obvious that it was meant to be an homage to old spy movies. I actually thought it was a better "Bond" film than most of what passes for a James Bond movie nowadays. I don't think it was nearly as good as the first one; the first one being unfairly maligned in my opinion. CARS is going to outlast a lot of Pixars other films.