Cars 2

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5713
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Cars 2

Post by Dacey » December 11th, 2010, 6:01 pm

No "humans were wiped out and solar powered cars were all that remained", or anything to explain why they exist.
Prequel anyone? ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 5903
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » December 11th, 2010, 11:22 pm

I have to admit, though Cars did grow on me and I appreciate its sentiment, the world never made any sense to me.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 13
Joined: November 11th, 2010

Re: Cars 2

Post by DisneyPictures » January 19th, 2011, 9:19 am

Hi!

Just wanted to share these new character images and descriptions with you guys. What do you think of some of the new characters so far?

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 20261
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 19th, 2011, 1:51 pm

I think the new characters and names certainly point towards Cars 2 throwing out the softer, subtler elements of the first one and going flat out with commercial entertainment. McMissile's name easily suggests that there's a basic lean towards comedy as opposed to the deeper, introspective tone of the original.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 13
Joined: November 11th, 2010

Re: Cars 2

Post by DisneyPictures » February 2nd, 2011, 10:51 am

Don't worry, Ben, nothing's being "thrown out!" Disney and Pixar are holding Cars 2 to the same standard as all of our movies. We hope everyone will find something to love in the film, which means creating a mix of spectacular animation, comedy, and emotionally provocative story lines. And that combination is what we all love about Pixar movies, right? :)


We have two new characters out for you all to see! Meet Raoul ÇaRoule and Carla Veloso!

American_dog_2008

Re: Cars 2

Post by American_dog_2008 » February 2nd, 2011, 11:28 am

Cars was great, but not the best movie of 2006.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 84
Joined: January 18th, 2011

Post by carlminez » February 5th, 2011, 8:19 pm

Another sequel? Surely, this most indicate the end of Pixar's golden period.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3792
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » February 5th, 2011, 9:04 pm

Okay, Carl? I've held back to be polite. Seriously.
I know you're giggling with naughty abandon at Saying Mean Things About Pixar because of some personal issues, but that's not why it's getting old--
It's getting old because you're making what is currently THE OLDEST THREAD ON THE INTERNET every single, solitary, blue-eyed time the P-word is mentioned, patting yourself on the back for believing you're the first person on Planet Earth to say it, and those of us with some actual modicum of Disney knowledge groan each and every single darn time a newbie believes himself to be discovering the square wheel.

I know I keep saying "Okay, here's the explanation one last time", and that's because I always believe it IS the last time I have to explain this...How silly of me. It's like sweeping the Sahara with a whisk broom.
But let's see if it penetrates this time--(Yes, Ben, excuse me while I cut loose, but in the long run, I think you'll thank me for it):

2005: Disney CEO Michael Eisner is having trouble keeping Pixar under house rule, as their contract with the studio nears expiration. Pixar threatens to quit and go independent if Finding Nemo is a hit, and despite Eisner's best attempts at sabotaging the marketing of the movie, Pixar seems to have won their case.
As a bit of counter-leverage, Eisner claims that Disney owns all marketing rights to Pixar characters, and since video sequels creatively come under the heading of "marketing", Disney could legally make their own sequels to existing Disney-released Pixar titles. "You're bluffing!" Pixar responds--Eisner quickly forms Circle 7 Studio, a CGI house specifically made to produce direct-video Pixar sequels, the first two announced titles of which are...sound familiar?...Toy Story 3, and Monsters Inc. 2.
(Don't believe it? Here's what Eisner thought would be Toy Story 3:
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... o-see.aspx
...Not pretty, is it?)

After Eisner is kicked out on his rear (and C7 being cited as one reason why), Disney and Pixar properties become common Disney property, and the "fake" sequels reverted to Pixar's ownership. And what is the best way to assert legal copyright ownership and prevent someone ELSE from making an evil wretched imitation of something you own?....Figure it out, you're smart.

As for Cars 2, have you ever heard Bob Iger talk about anything else? Well, have you?
That's Iger, btw, not Lasseter.

Well: Hope that settled in--
Still--Let's make sure...Here's a pop quiz:

1) What was the name of the CGI studio Eisner formed to combat Pixar?
a) Circle 7
b) Mark VII
c) WDFA


2) Which one was NOT one of the fake sequels Eisner threatened to make?
a) Monsters Inc. 2
b) Toy Story 3
c) Wall-E Goes Hawaiian


3) Which of the following is NOT true about Bob Iger's overreaction to unfairly received Disney films?
a) Built an entire Cars area into Disney California Adventure
b) Declared that Tiana would be permanently featured in Disney Princess marketing
c) Has Chicken Little tattooed on his left rear.


Yes, we know--"Eww, Pixar's making sequels!" Gosh, that's original.
And if it isn't...you've just been accused of having the same idea as about two thousand other newbies on the net. Which, right now, is how we see you, until you come up with a new act.

Harsh? Oh, a tad. :x
Btw, do you wanna see what Bolt would've looked like without Lasseter, too?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 831
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » February 5th, 2011, 10:11 pm

I'm not writing this to stir trouble, I'm just stating what I think others are seeing. In nearly all reviews of previous Pixar films, there is some statement along the lines of Pixar being the one studio who is always prepared to take risks and produce original ideas for the screen.

I guess some people are seeing that Pixar's slate currently involves 3 sequels back to back, which is implying the original idea well has run dry at Pixar.

I don't wish for Pixar to fail, in fact I do hope there are still finacially successful at the Box Office, as I want to watch animated films at the cinema. I just wish that the critics wouldn't drool over everything Pixar, I do honestly feel like as soon as the critic sees the word Pixar associated with it, it automatically gets a high grade. Which has made me resent the success at Pixar

I loved A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2 and absolutely adored WALL-E. I thought Toy Story and Finding Nemo were pleasant. The ending of Toy Story 3 helped make a serviceable movie memorable. But personally, I scratch my head over the amount of love that was bestowed on Monsters Inc, Ratatouille and especially Up.

I guess I just get annoyed with the whole original idea angle that is spoken about with Pixar when every movie is a basic rehash of each other. The lead character joins up with an opposite to go on an adventure. Nothing orong if it works, but just because you use a fish or a toy or a rat or an old man doesn't make it outstandingly original.

I'll admit it made me happy that Cars didn't get great reviews (but they were far from being called a critical drumming), apart from the Our Town sequence I was bored. But that's probably not Pixar's fault. I'm not a fan of anything that revolves around automobiles. The trailers for Cars 2 does not entice me to want to see this at the movie. It looks like a sad grab for merchandise which really shouldn't drive a movie's production (yes Eric, I know you could give me millions of examples). Throw in the fact that it almost looks like a Dreamworks version of a Pixar film, I will admit I'm sitting here hoping the critics pull it apart from a criticial point of view. Plenty of Dreamworks movies have survived a critical drumming, so I'm certain Pixar could and will survive a critical drumming for one movie.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that for some people it's starting to look like Pixar is just like every other movie studio - money hungry.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 608
Joined: January 22nd, 2007

Re: Cars 2

Post by Whippet Angel » February 5th, 2011, 11:29 pm

What really irks me, is the number of so called "animation buffs" who constantly say they are "rooting for Pixar to fail". Seriously, if you're such a huge fan of the medium, then why would you be happy to see ANY major studio fail??? Especially one that's recently set the bar so high for the medium that other studios are constantly trying to top them (and are making better films as a result). Seems good for the industry overall you'd think...
But personally, I scratch my head over the amount of love that was bestowed on Monsters Inc, Ratatouille and especially Up.
I like Monsters Inc and Up, but I wouldn't call them two of the best ever in the medium. Ratatouille on the other hand, just really resonated with me personally. The whole idea of an artist who's passionate about his craft, but unable to pursue it for various reasons from discrimination (who he is, where he comes from) to a lack of support and understanding from his family (they want him to be something different). Aside from the fact that it's a gorgeous film, there are so many themes that I can relate to, thus making it one of my favorites ever.

We all have our reasons for liking the films that we do, original or not.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3792
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 6th, 2011, 1:38 am

Also: "Eww, Pixar just had a sequel and they've got two more!" Glad you noticed, Hawkeye.
And they've been announced for what, two years now, three?--And as noted, all with extraneous corporate-ownership motivations that have nothing to do with being "money hungry" or "out of ideas".

Oh, but I'm sorry...My opinion is in the minority. It's clear that Pixar has fallen victim to greed and corruption.
Now that they've run out of ideas and are coasting on their TS3 money, we'll get sequels like Cars 2, Monsters 2, and...um....er....

...Come to think of it, HAVE they announced any more sequels in the last three years than the Circle 7/Iger tied ones as detailed in five years of contentious Eisner-vs.-Lasseter history above? Anything?
Oh, come now, they must have had some other coldhearted mercenary inspiration by now to exploit their entire canon all by their little selves--Gee, maybe they're so "out of inspiration" they've run out of sequel ideas, too.

Or, alternative theory #2: You're a petulant fanboy crank, I'm right, and you're wrong. ;)
(That's not "wrong=bad", that's wrong as in Kevin-Spacey-in-Superman-Returns "...WROOOOONG!" :P )

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 831
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » February 6th, 2011, 6:16 am

Thanks for the attack Eric, clearly you just skimmed my post and decided to rant on what you thought it was about it. No where have you addressed my issue about Pixar - the movie critics drooling over every single picture.

My beef isn't with Pixar, it's with the critics. And if you re-read my post carefully, you'll notice that I was writing about the impression I was getting of the current nay sayers of Pixar, it's not my persnal opinion.

And I don't care about your little emoticons and your ' look at how clever and knowledgable' quips, I take offence at you calling me a petulant fanboy crank. Oh and if that whole post wasn't directed at my post, than perhaps you need to make it very clear.

Whereas Whippet Angel's post clearly demonstrated that they took time to read my post and articulate a well rounded thought. One that doesn't involve a snide swipe at people who see an opposing view point to them.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 20261
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » February 6th, 2011, 1:45 pm

People...quiet! :)

Here is the facts:
1) Pixar have been bought by Disney.
2) They have a responsibility to prove they are worth what was payed.
3) They have a slate of risky, non-animated projects.
4) They can't risk those films cutting into the bottom line if they fail.
5) They will make a couple of non-risk, sure-fire hit sequels to cushion any potential blow.

And, c'mon...it's not like we're going to get Toy Story 4, 5 and 6, or six Cars or Monsters films, unlike a rival company, and not like we won't have anything else coming from them that won't be more creatively original.

Can we stop the pointless bickering now? If you don't want to see more sequels, don't go and see these ones! Disney will soon get the point.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3792
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » February 6th, 2011, 2:50 pm

And basically yes, Bill, we know: Pixar's like the grade-A student everyone hated in fourth grade, who passed every test.
How'd the student get that way? By passing every test.

Yes, you're sick of critics "fawning" over Pixar, and you'd like them to stop, for a little variety. Then why the resentful grade-A-student venom at Pixar for making the movies they fawn over?
Is it the wish to make Pixar "mortal" and prove they can fail "like normal human beings"? Sorry if they defy the law of averages. I know people who feel the same way about Apple computers, and respond by either whining that "the prices are too high", "Steve Jobs is a big ol' fraud", or "Fans are just mindless brand-zombies who get together in big hugfests". Again, sound familiar?

In a word, you're acting like the critics did after Nemo in '04-'06, who were so intent on thinking that, okay, now that they've had their big moment of glory, this's the part in the script where they have their big Pride Goeth Before A Fall, they get their first flop, and we realize that nobody's made of marble.....And it didn't happen.
You never saw critics try harder in their life to MAKE it happen anyway: If Incredibles didn't do Nemo numbers--for the simple reason that nothing could--analysts jumped on the reasons why the box office had "failed" (maybe it was too scary for kids! Maybe audiences didn't like action!)
When the majority of opinion was that Incredibles hadn't "flopped", and it would be another year and a half till Cars fell short of (unrealistic) expectations, you never saw such an orgasmic explosion of wishful thinking in your life: "The King is dead! First flop ever! So, why DOES the audience hate cars with faces?" When the second week Friday numbers made it look as if Jack Black would win the second week, champagne popped at ever media column in the country...Until the final numbers came in, Pixar was still #1, and was now seen as the "evil interloper" that prevented other poor, innocent, struggling films from making money.

I know I keep saying, "...Sound familiar?" but guess what: YOU DO.
For "familiar", dig out your thesarus and read "Unoriginal". Others have had the exact same thoughts as you, for the same petulant reasons, and looked just as silly.
Critics are accused of having opinions, and the opinion they have is that Pixar earns what it gets from hard work--And shows up how little we get of it from other studios, which only adds to the "brandname hugfest".

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 831
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » February 6th, 2011, 7:33 pm

And you called me a petutlant fanboy crank.

Clearly we are seeing different movies.

Not sure why you need to attack me for wishing movie critics didn't fawn all over everything Pixar. I had the same problem with The Lion King and original Shrek. Good movies that were elevated to outstanding by the critics. Hell, I watched Despicable Me for the firswt time on the weekend and walked away wondering why all the love for a good movie.

I will repeat again I'm not anti-Pixar. I'm anti the critics who gloss over the minor pitfalls of Pixar movies but are happy to poke out thesame pitfalls in other movies.

Post Reply