Cars 2

[carlminez]

John Lasseter did not have the idea for Cars 2. It was the Studio's request since the merchandise was still selling long after the first film's release. It's also a cushion for Pixar's experimental John Carter project, providing a safe hit in case that flops. Lasseter wasn't - you'll remember - even the director of the film until six months ago.

And, Carl...this is really an old subject. I'm going to ask you to go back and read this entire topic before posting again, since everything that's being said now has already been said.

If you continue to post in the vein that you have been, you'll find that your access here vanishes about as fast as McQueen get rev up to 60mph.

Absolutely. Just a fast a question. Could you just describe what you mean with "post in the vein" or, alternatively, give me an example of how Im doing that?

If you are really concerned about my behavior on this site, wouldn’t it be better to just send me a PM or give me a warning or something of the like? All I’ve seen from you are some occasional, sarcastic comments and now you are threatening me with a ban? I’m just a bit puzzled here.

edit: You know whatever, I’ll just send you a PM. Let’s sort this out in a constructive manner.

[EricJ]

Just a fast a question. Could you just describe what you mean with "post in the vein" or, alternatively, give me an example of how Im doing that?

I believe he means something between "Post the same danged thing over and over, regardless of opposing discussion or opinion", and "Steer every discussion into an opportunity to post the same danged thing over and over, regardless of opposing discussion or opinion, because you believe it's some colorful personal 'trademark'."
The examples you ask for, are free for all to read.

If, OTOH, as you suggest, you are genuinely, earnestly, and with good clean heart unaware you might be doing this....welcome to Kookville. That is the traditional and official signed seal and signature on the application.

[carlminez]

Oh really now, I didn’t know being repetitive is a violation of the rules of conduct. This far, the only thing I’m guilty of is ranting and discussing things that have already been discussed, and while this might be annoying, I really don’t thing that I deserve to be banned for it.

Besides, I can hardly be blamed for bringing up a topic that has already been discussed in a 10-page thread. (And I pride myself on having displayed a substantial cut in ranting since the TS3 thread!)

Anyway, if my behavior is truly this irritating to the users on this forum, I still think they could have handled this a bit more, I don’t know, constructively – moderators and users alike. They were hiding their frustration behind jokes and sarcasm. How can anyone expect me to take that seriously?

[Dacey]

You know, it might be best to stop insulting the mods publicly here, Carl. They're the ones in charge, not you.

[Randall]

Okay, carl's trying to play nice. Let's cut him some slack now.

[Ben]

I never said "banned", for one thing. And Carl hit his own nail on the head in working out what was meant by the "posting in the same vein" thing, so hopefully we can move on.

There's no point hammering on with the same arguments all the time...they get boring quick, and we're just not the type of forum that enjoys the kind of antagonism that frequents other, nameless, animation forums.

Perhaps, yes, we have prodded Carl a bit, but not after a very odd introductory stance from him where he basically set himself up as Carl Vs. The Rest Of The Forum.

Let's just dial things down several notches, and all should be fine...

[carlminez]

So wait, what happens if Cars 2 turns out to be a really bad movie? How would the critics react to that? I'm almost under the belief that Pixar can't release a movie that doesn't go beyond - let's say - at least 60 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.

Something about the Pixar formula, á la original characters (perhaps not when it comes to personality but when it comes to physical appearance), plot twits and so forth, just appeal to the critics. I just don't understand it.

[Randall]

Okay, now you're just baiting. Do you seriously find it odd that original characters and plot twists appeal to critics? Really?

[carlminez]

I'm not trying to provoke or anything. You rather misunderstood me. I'm surprised that critics allow themselves to be impressed by plot twists. And I don't think that the Pixar characters are particularly original. At least not in general.

I think they might give the impression of being more creative or original because of their physical appearance. Rather than making movies with the classical figures like talking dogs and cats, Pixar prefers to make movies about bugs, toys and rusty old robots. I think this it's an image the company is working on but just because a character looks original doesn't mean that the character's personality or character development is more original. Despite this obvious fact, I think that much of Pixar's image of being comparably creative and original has something to do with their choice of characters and setting. And to some point, I think this is wrong because in the end it's just a trivial detail.

I'm almost under the impression that the critics view the animated genre with a certain naivety.

Or well, that's my modest opinion.

[Randall]

Can't say I agree. People love Pixar movies because they're well-made and evoke real emotion. Well, for most of us, anyway. Like I said before, you just aren't on the Pixar wavelength... which is fine. You're trying to justify your stance (which is not really necessary, as you're entitled to your opinion ), but there are many holes in your hypothesis.

There's a reason why Finding Nemo was a huge hit, and SharkTale (while still a commercial hit) is not fondly remembered. They both had sea animals, but only one was really loved. And Toy Story remains a classic, but who remembers Small Soldiers? Blue Sky's Robots came out 3 years before Wall*E, but which one was adored?

As the saying goes, if it was easy, then everyone would be doing it. Many try to achieve Pixar's success, but they simply have the best storytellers.

As for "critics loving plot twists," I can't see that Pixar's films are especially twisty, nor do I see anything wrong with appreciating a twist when it comes. Seems to me that twists are more interesting than predictable stories.

[Bill1978]

I will admit that I find myself enjoying Pixar films more if I live in a bubble and don't read the hyperbole love that a film of their's receives. The less love I hear about it, the more I enjoy the movie it seems.

The only complaint I really have about Pixar films, and I'm sure I've mentioned it before is that on paper their movies are always the same 2 characters with different ideals/personality get to go on some sort of adventure and by the end they are BFF. I know this formula isn't just limited to Pixar, but I think it often gets overlooked because of the beautiful image on the screen, and maybe carlminez is partly correct. It is overlooked cause it involves a robot not humans or dogs, so it seems original. But as Randall said, there are plenty of examples where a movie with similar characters to PIxars is ignored, so how the story is told is very important.

re:Cars 2. I'm indifferent to the first one, I personaly wasn't wishing for a sequel and the trailers I have seen do not encourage me to see this at the cinema. Which could be a good thing for Cars 2 because my expectations are so low, it might actually impress me when I watch it.

[carlminez]

Can't say I agree. People love Pixar movies because they're well-made and evoke real emotion. Well, for most of us, anyway. Like I said before, you just aren't on the Pixar wavelength... which is fine. You're trying to justify your stance (which is not really necessary, as you're entitled to your opinion ), but there are many holes in your hypothesis.

There's a reason why Finding Nemo was a huge hit, and SharkTale (while still a commercial hit) is not fondly remembered. They both had sea animals, but only one was really loved. And Toy Story remains a classic, but who remembers Small Soldiers? Blue Sky's Robots came out 3 years before Wall*E, but which one was adored?

As the saying goes, if it was easy, then everyone would be doing it. Many try to achieve Pixar's success, but they simply have the best storytellers.

As for "critics loving plot twists," I can't see that Pixar's films are especially twisty, nor do I see anything wrong with appreciating a twist when it comes. Seems to me that twists are more interesting than predictable stories.

Well, I think having an original, distinguished concept helps a lot. It might be one ingredient in Pixar's no doubt successful formula, while decent storytelling is another. SharkTale, Robots and Small Soliders were either terrible movies or they didn't manage to advertise their movies probably at the time. (I really don't know, I haven't seen any of them) Not many of Pixar's movies are straight out terrible. I can give them that.

But I still think having an original concept and characters with a distinguished appearance makes a big difference. Perhaps bigger than it should.

Up had an old man in an house with balloons. The very concept seems to scream of creativity. But story-wise, when it comes to character development and dramaturgy, Up really didn't offer anything particularly new. Whatever creativity and innovativeness or originality that movie had to offer was mostly on the surface. But I can still image that many moviegoers (and perhaps some critics) allowed themselves to be impressed nonetheless. And I can definitely imagine someone walking out of the theater after seeing Wall-E saying "wow, isn't it amazing that Pixar can tell a touching story with a beeping robot as a main character!?". But we all know that making characters anthromorphic isn't that really that much of a challenge these days.

These original ideas are very easy to advertise and they really match the image that I can only assume Pixar is working on. Making characters about, let's say dogs, is really more of a Disney thing. (for example).

[Ben]

While I don't think Cars 2 will win critic points for being emotionally deep, I think they will recognize the Pixar name/brand of quality, cut them some slack for putting out a commercial sequel and essentially react to what looks like it's going to be a fast-paced, big fun entertainment. So I think Pixar's Rotten Tomatoes scoring tradition is going to be kept intact, for different reasons.

[carlminez]

So the critics would basically turn the blind eye to whatever faults this commercial sequel might have simply because it comes with the Pixar logo?
Let's certainly hope not!

[Dacey]

Carl, are you the only one in the world who's been losing sleep over this or something?