The hate for Cars 2... - Cars 2 (2011) Discussion

[–] Mississippi20 11 years ago

As a serious attempt to answer the lesser reception of Cars 2...people seem to have a tendancy to see the movie as immature and for children. That's because the characters are cars and the characters are extremely popular with kids. You can find Lightning and Mater on pretty much anything for kids. People seem to have a tougher time accepting humanoid cars as oppose to humanoid fish, rats, toys etc.

Even the first Cars film was "lesser" received than all the previous Pixar films before it. It was going to be extremely difficult to make a 2nd one that got a better reception.

In my opinion, Cars 2 was more exciting, more visually stunning and at least just as funny as the first film.

Especially coming off the heels of 'Up' and 'Toy Story 3' - movies that had some real tear jerking moments....'Cars 2' didn't have that. But that doesn't mean the film isn't good or doesn't have heart. It's just a fun movie with a touch of heart and has a good message involving Mater being himself.

reply

[–] benmasta 11 years ago

the reason cars sucks is because its a random ass world that makes no sense and the humour in the movies is really weak.

Can someone explain to me how the cars world exists? Where are the humans? Every other pixar movie felt magical because we as humans are in the world too, but we get a unique perspective of whatever the movie is based on. We see a world otherwhise hidden from us.

In cars, its just like the world is the same but instead of having any people whatsoever, there are living vehicles designed to carry and transport people (that dont exist). The world is designed for humans but run by cars...?

Mater is a painfully stupid character. Hes the only memorable character in the franchise and hes basically slapstick stupidity for little kids to think is silly. You can like cars all you want, but to think it can compare to the worlds the other pixar movies create is just ludicrous. I cant believe you think its because people are too dumb to appreciate cars, its more the opposite. the smarter you are the less entertaining you will find the franchise. The more you think about how things work the less respect you will have for the story. It's half-assed lazy writing if it doesnt make enough sense. Even made up cartoon worlds need some sort of realism.

The whole movie could be the same thing if you just changed the races to foot races and made every character a person. Them being cars is all about merchandise. Kids will buy sets of anthropomorphic cars way before they buy sets of humanoid characters.

What kind of cool insights did we get to see in a cars life? Thats basically what pixar movies are "a toy's life" "a bug's life" "a fish's life" even up was "an old mans life" lol

but cars, cars is just "a living car in a cars world" not relate-able at all, it doesnt make sense, and its just not even remotely possible.

reply

[–] willywonkasrevenge 8 years ago

Why do the cars have doors? Who is getting in them?

_____________________
I'm your Huckleberry.

reply

[–] jlyn1980 11 years ago

I just watched it for a second time and I like it better the second time more. I prefer the first Cars because I love NASCAR, but this one is James Bond with cars. I think it's done very well.

Namaste

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tinny-Tinette 11 years ago

I never understood the hate for Cars 2 either. It's not the best animated movie ever made, but I thought it was much, much better than the critics gave it credit for.

reply

[–] DarleneHamilton 11 years ago

I have a 3yr old son who squeaks with delight when I put it on and plays the plot with his toys. It does its job and I don't feel like killing myself on the 500th view...what more does a kids film need? Its too cute to hate

reply

[–] gcarras 11 years ago

But, really, altnerative fuels (see my previous posts here in my profile.)

RIP Annette Funicello

reply

[–] nicosia316 11 years ago

the heart warm feeling should have continued in the cars franchise, this story for cars 2 was way over the top and to complex, pixar should have used this story for another movie.

most kids who see these cars movies are from the age of 2 to 6

the cars toys are made preschoolers 1 year and older and the rest for 3 and older.

reply

[–] kristofferdahl-843-107341 10 years ago

The reason I don't like this film (and couldn't get through more than half of it) is Mater. Such an annoying character! NOT good voice acting at all, just the same thing over and over and over again. No feeling, just reading lines in a VERY annoying voice.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

You talk about people having a low IQ then say that this is better than the original? The irony .

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

It's clearly better than the first one. It has more action, more story, more excitement, more characters, better plot. The first one is just a copy of a Michael J. Fox movie.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

Well it isn't clearly better otherwise it wouldn't have had a largely inferior reception from critics and audiences would it?

It had more action, none of it was as exciting as the racing scenes from the original. It had a awful story which specifically copied spy movies and it had more characters but that's not necessarily a good thing because the characters weren't as good anyway.

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

Using popular opinion as the rightful judgement is a logical fallacy, because for example, majority of people believe in Christianity, therefore Christianity is the correct belief; which isn't rightfully true.

The action was more exciting because it possessed a more danger factor and the story had much more suspense. It had all the same characters, including more to shape the plot and story.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

Right so we should use the unpopular opinion, Jack and Jill is a great movie, The Dark Knight blows junks, 9/11 was an inside job and the Earth is flat.

You cant compare religious beliefs to peoples opinions of a film. The film exists for a fact and it widely disliked for a fact.

The reason the action wasn't exciing was because there was no sense of danger, the way the movie was presented and the way the characters you knew full well that nothing was really going to happen to these characters. In Toy Story 3 during the incinerator scene that had a sense of danger, this movie had nothing like that or anything from the Incredibles.

The best characters from Cars were all but gone here, there was no Doc, hardly any Sally, no Chick Hicks, a lot less McQueen and in its place we got a ton of Mater one of the worst animated characters in recent years.

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

I'm sorry but this is by far the most idiotic post I've ever read. First of all, a movie being good or bad is not a fact, it's an opinion. Using religious beliefs was an example because a belief an a opinion are the same, in which it's a logical fallacy to claim something is right just because it's popular opinion. One of your absurd examples, the Earth is flat, was a popular belief in the past that was proven false.

No sense of danger? Okay now you just created a completely flawed argument. Cars 1 had no sense of danger at all, as there were no one trying to kill each other in the film. Most animated films, including the two you compared it to, lack a genuine sense of danger because they're rated G/PG.

And this last sentence is not even a factual argument, but a complete personal opinion that holds no professional ground.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

And at what point did I ever say that Cars 2 was bad for a fact? I said the movie exists, that's a fact. Obviously it being good or bad is an opinion and there are actually still many people that believe the Earth is flat I'm not referring to the past.

I created a flawed argument? How is that when I never said Cars had any sense of danger to begin with? It didn't, the movie was about a race for a championship cup it wasn't supposed to have a sense of danger. That's not why the movie was better.

Cars 2 being a spy movie was supposed to have a sense of danger and did not in the slightest because of it's overall kiddy tone.

You're last sentence is absurd, you're saying that what I just said is an opinion and not a fact? Erm yeah obviously, 90% of what's been said in this thread is a matter of personal opinion that holds no professional ground.

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

It looked like you were implying it.

Yeah you did, because you're basically saying Cars 2 was too kiddy, when all animated movies are. Cars 2 was actually more mature than the first one, someone did die, and it put in a lot of situations regarding death.

I'm saying what you said is too personal to be an actual critique. You have to list actual goods and flaws about a movie, that are fundamental, not personal.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

No most animated films are made for kids but also made for adults to enjoy, Toy Story isn't kiddy, Wall-E isn't, How to Train Your Dragon isn't kiddy, Wreck it Ralph isn't kiddy. There's a big difference.

If you look at the IMDB ratings the over and under 18 crowd ratings are very similar, Wall E is rated higher amongst the over 18 crowd than the under. That isn't the case with Cars 2.

Even if you consider it a personal critique it isn't wrong. Doc was a good character that had a interesting relationship with McQueen being a former abandoned race car, Sally had a interesting relationship with McQueen because of their opposite feelings of the town they were in, Chick Hicks had a bigger personal fued with McQueen than the one from the sequel.

There was nothing like that in Cars 2, just Maters misinformed infatuation with the spy car throughout which was just silly.

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

They're all made for a 'family' audience, but mainly centered for children. None are made for a mature audience. You saying it's too kiddy just flat out makes no sense.

That's not a good argument because the second movie focused on a new plot and those characters no longer fit. It's like saying a Star Wars movie was bad because Luke Skywalker wasn't in it. That's too personal of an opinion, unless you provide why it was fundamentally bad for the film's plot or story.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

This was clearly not made for anybody that was old enough to have outgrown playing with toys. Pixar movies are made for everyone to enjoy, some say Wall E wasn't aimed at children enough. This was made for kids to sell toys and that is obvious considering the $10 billion the Cars movie made in merchandise and the approach this movie took.

There is a difference between a kiddy movie and a family movie.

The story should have made those characters fit. Toy Story 2 didn't just throw away Rex, Hamm, Mr Potato Head, it introduced new characters and kept the others.

Your Star Wars example isn't the same either because they had movies without Luke and it was ok because it was a prequel. What it would have been more like is if following A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back had C3PO as the main character, Luke wasn't as significant, Leia was in it for a minute and Han and Chewbacca were barely in it as background characters.

I shouldn't have to explain why that would have been terrible.

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

They're all made for children but are there for anyone to enjoy. We must not have watched the same movie, because I don't see how this movie was too "kiddy". It felt more mature and complex compared to the first one, as far as story and plot goes.

Even so, the movie didn't dispose of those characters, they just didn't have large roles in the plot.

You can't just say, "my favorite character isn't there so it's a bad movie", you have to actually detail why the characters deserved a larger role in the film.

Great writing can do justice where ever it counts.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

It was definitely more kiddy than the original in the plot department. The original was about a racing car that only cared about himself coming to terms with himself and learning to value others and the world around him. It wasn't the greatest story but it had an appealing message to anyone of any age.

Cars 2 is about a bumbling truck mistaken for a spy and gets shoved into zany situations throughout the whole thing to save the day. That is straight up a kiddy plot that doesn't appeal to older people.

The characters show up in a very small role, McQueen was the main character, he was advertised here as being the main character and yet he had a unimportant role in this film. Sally was an important character in the original, had a cameo in this one.

Characters and character development were pushed aside to make time for more wacky antics from Mater which weren't funny or entertaining and ruined the movie.

Pixar movies have all been about the characters first. This movie wasn't and that's why it was terrible.

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

The first Cars was a generic animated film, in which one must come to understand 'love'. We see this over and over again. Cars 2 tried something different, by taking a more mature plot line, in which Cars (people) were trying to kill each other in a grand scheme.

McQueen did have an important role, it was because of his ambitions that Mater even took on his spy adventure. Characters like Sally simply didn't fit in the plot this time, so their characters only had cameos.

All the important characters were already developed since the first film. The story focused on the development of the second lead, introducing and developing new characters.

Sometimes it's time for a change, unless you just want to see the same movies over and over again.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

Cars 2 was in no way more mature than the original, sure it was a spy movie compared to a coming of age movie but the way it was portrayed made Cars for all ages and Cars 2 for people old enough to buy toys.

McQueen's role wasn't that important. Yes because of McQueen wanting to take part in the championship it meant Mater eventually became the spy but it's because of Mater in the first place that McQueen ended up entering the championship.

McQueen's role was that he was the racing car that was at the centre of the whole Spy plot. That and the little falling out he had with Mater which had already be done in the original.

Good movies make characters fit. They had no such problem with the Toy Story or Ice Age films.

I don't mind a change but making a crappy character the main character and pushing the supposed main character into the background and having a plot that was so obviously trying to sell toys to kids is not the change that should have been made.

If Cars had only sold as much merchandise as other Pixar movies this movie would never have even been made. This was made solely to make billions off of a whole new range of toys.

reply

[–] sduck 10 years ago

It's too kiddy because it didn't have a love story in it? Again, a character died, and people were trying to kill each other in this movie.

Just because it was because of Mater that McQueen entered, the fact that it had been McQueen that entered the race, allowed Mater to get caught up in the grand spy scheme.

Good movies can make any concept work, as long as there's good writing and execution involved. I don't think it was because they couldn't fit the characters, they just wanted to try something different. And it seems like the fans here aren't used to change, and just expect the same movies over and over again.

You haven't explained why he is fundamentally a crappy character, but are just exerting your personal opinion.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

It's too kiddy because it didn't have a love story in it?

Toy Story and Finding Nemo didn't have love stories, they weren't kiddy. Cars wasn't just a love story, it's story was told in a way it could be enjoyed by anyone. Cars 2 was a spy movie made for kids to enjoy and that's it.

Again, a character died, and people were trying to kill each other in this movie.

That's nothing, it was a spy movie you expect that regardless. People try to kill others in most animated films. A Tiger was trying to eat a child in The Jungle Book. It's the way they are presented is what matters.

Good movies can make any concept work, as long as there's good writing and execution involved.

Yeah but this wasn't a good movie and it just wasn't the right concept the movie should have had. Cars didn't need spy cars and action to be successful.

Remember at the start of Toy Story 2 with Buzz infiltrating Zurgs base, fighting robots and then it turned out to just be a game. That's basically what this movie was if it turned out they weren't playing a game and that was the real plot throughout the entire movie.

I don't think it was because they couldn't fit the characters, they just wanted to try something different.

It's obvious what they wanted to do. Cars was not so well liked compared to other Pixar movies. It did well in America but not so well overseas because they don't care for American racing. Cars merchandise eventually made Pixar/Disney more money than nearly any Disney property.

So they make a sequel and purposefully have the movie be about a international championship set in Japan, UK, Italy was it? With European sports cars in order to appeal more to the overseas crowd.

They then make it a spy movie because then they that means they can make a whole new range of toys that now shoot guns, rockets, can change colours, pop out wings or can swim. Kids eat that stuff up.

The old characters? Forget them, kids aready bought them so introduce new characters so kids will go buy all those. Introduce Submarine and Plane characters for even more toys.

The movie was made to sell toys and replicate the success the original had with merchandise. The spinoff movie Planes was made for the exact same reason. You are kidding yourself if you think this isn't true.

You haven't explained why he is fundamentally a crappy character

It's like explaining why Jar Jar Binks sucked, he just does.

reply

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

"Made it to sell toys" is a lame criticism. What major film isn't made with the hope of making money?? I won't even disagree that merchandise sales helped Disney green light a 'Cars 2'.

However, that doesn't mean the filmmakers simply phoned in the film. Unless you think John Lasseter is a straight-up (and elaborate) liar, he has described where his ideas came from. When he was touring the world for press stuff on the first Cars film, he saw the weird signs on the road and cars driving on the left-hand side (wrong way for us Americans) and thought of what Mater would do. This got Lasseter thinking he would do a global thing if he ever got to do a sequel. There was a scene in the first 'Cars' where Lightening and Sally go on a date and watch a movie - this movie had a spy car (it ended up not being used). That was the birth of the Finn McMissile idea.

You may not like the film and that's fine, but it's just really lame to use that argument because it insinuates they didn't try and didn't want to do it - it was only made to sell toys. And I don't think that could be further from the truth.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

Every film is made to make money but there's only a handful that get made with the goal of making billions off of toy sales afterward. When they were making Up or Ratatouille I'm sure those were made with the intention of telling a good story whereas Cars 2 was made to sell toys to kids.

Cars I believe was genuine, I'm sure that too was made because they thought they had a good story to tell but then it goes on to make more money from merchandise than all of Pixars films (even as of now) have made worldwide in theatres.

I don't really blame them for their decision, it was a good idea in theory. Set the film around the world so it'd bring in fans from all over rather than mainly America like the first film and then have new cars that can do all these cool things and they can rake the money in from a much bigger audience.

It's just that by focusing on this first and foremost it made the movie suck.

reply

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

You just repeated yourself there, buddy. "They did it to sell toys" is a general, baseless claim. We all know there's a profit motive in the movie industry - whether that be ticket sales or merchandise. It does not mean that a genuine effort was not put forth.

reply

[–] scabab 10 years ago

I can repeat it over and over again because it's the most likely truth.

As I said they probably wanted to make a good movie and did put a lot of effort in, (why wouldn't they) but it doesn't stop the reason for why it was really made and why it ended up being terrible because of it.

If you think they didn't make this movie due to Cars selling $10 billion worth of merchandise then I don't know what to say.

reply