39,327
edits
Cars (franchise)/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
m
Mass update links
m (Dai-Guard moved page Cars (Animation)/Headscratchers to Cars/Headscratchers: Remove TVT Namespaces from title) |
m (Mass update links) |
||
Line 43:
** The vast majority of any race will be subservient to some degree, we only saw the vehicles in a small section of the world. There could be truck CEOs for all we know.
*** There are. Well, small-business owners, anyway - Mater's salvage company is even named after him.
** They don't have to stay the same model (theoretically). One of the dropped ides was that a car's "brain" is its engine and could be transplanted into other vehicle-bodies (so the kid-car at the end could become a fighter jet one day). This would've been shown with Lightning having a nightmare where Mater (who was much more of a [[Jerkass]]) ''[[Nightmare Fuel|taking his body for a joyride]]'' while he was either trapped in Betsy's body, Mater's body, or [[Brain In
** Wait, did you just suggest that the family sedan could become a fighter jet just by putting the engine in an aircraft frame?
*** It's ''Cars''. They probably have laws to keep that under control. Oh...and different technology to get more generic engines.
Line 134:
** Don't blame Disney, don't blame Pixar, blame my kids. My son ''wasn't even born'' when Cars came out, and it's still his favorite movie, and the only things he has asked for for birthday and Christmas are Cars-themed toys. Now personally I find it to be ''far'' from Pixar's "worst" movie and like it a lot. Just not to the single-minded intensity of a 3-year-old boy.
** I'll have to agree with the OP on this one. When [[Hannah Montana]] became popular, Disney started pimping out her shows and similar ones like there was no tommorrow, and it wasn't until fairly recently that they realized how much they really alienated their male audience. They saw how successful Cars was, and realized that they could use it to get their male audience back again.
** [[Fridge Brilliance]]: Pixar's take on sequels is that they only make them if they think they have a story that can top the original. What better way to do that than with your least excellent film? Also, their third-lowest-rated film, ''[[
* This film has been Pixar's lowest rating film yet. Why make a sequel? It's not like it was a cliffhanger or anything. Why not make one for the bigger films, like [[Finding Nemo]] or [[Monsters, Inc.]]?
** Touched on above. There's no real way to make a [[Finding Nemo]] 2 anyway, and [[Monsters, Inc.]] supposedly is indeed getting a prequel.
** There's also the fact that while it was their worst film, it was still pretty damn good. Plus racecars are cool - much cooler than fish.
** '''Merchandising'''. Kids want anything Cars-related, and Disney will milk that cow until it's bone-dry. Think of it as the blockbuster an actor does so they can afford to do a low-budget prestige picture.
*** Not to mention that yes, ''Disney is now making their biggest merchandising profit in stores off of Cars products, and have been for years!'' Pixar wouldn't have been caught dead to pass up supporting themselves in this type of economy otherwise, especially if Disney ''bought'' them and can make all the rules, regardless if John Lasseter and other employees their are car enthusiasts or not.
** Yeah, as said above, just because it's Pixar's "worst" film doesn't mean that it's bad at all. It's actually a fantastic movie. It's just that everything Pixar makes is pure gold; Pixar's worst movie is about the same quality as Dreamworks' best movies (Shrek and [[
*** I wouldn't say "fantastic", but yeah it's pretty good.
*** That argument is absurd if [[Rotten Tomatoes]] is considered an accurate measure and by that standard ''Cars'' at only 74% and even more so ''[[Cars 2]]'' (39%) obviously trail against the first two ''Shreks'' (both RT 89%), ''[[
* The sequel. This troper just saw the trailer and admits it does look ''very'' interesting, but HOW IN THE WORLD do you go from a relatively realistic film of friendship and learning there's more to life than winning, to SPIES and ESPIONAGE?!?! That's like making a sequel to WALL-E where aliens invade the Earth and threaten to destroy all of mankind!!!
** You gave them an idea!!! You jinxed it!!! Now we're all doomed!!! [[Big No|NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!]]
Line 218:
* Why are many people saying that Pixar is [[Jumping the Shark]] with Cars 2? It may be a [[Broken Streak]], but it came after some of the highest-rated Pixar films, and Brave seems reliable enough. Isn't Cars 2 nothing more than a fun little [[Breather Episode]]?
** Ditto
** Justifiably or not, this ''is'' the film that stopped Pixar's winning streak with critics, it has the stigma of not only being a sequel to Pixar's worst movie, but also a sequel made only made to sell toys, and the fact that after Brave is a [[Monsters, Inc.]] prequel, and it was made right after a [[Toy Story]] sequel. In short: Chalk it up to [[Fan Dumb]] that thinks that one slightly sub par movie means Pixar will be [[Merchandise-Driven]] [[Sequelitis|sequels]] [[Ruined FOREVER|FOREVER!!!]] What I want to know: Why is it that Pixar makes one slightly sub par movie and that's all everyone wants to talk about, but you're an automatic hater if you mention any of the lesser [[Dreamworks Animation]] films?
** This is just me and my sources could be wrong, but I heard Pixar's being controlled by Disney now. Look at how many Disney movies got sequels. Now look at how many Disney movie sequels didn't suck. That's enough to kind of make me worry about what's coming next.
*** What's coming next is an original film, a prequel, and [http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/37907/pixar-announces-november-27-2013-as-release-date-for-next-movie another original film.] Also, if Disney just wanted to play it safe and only make Pixar make sequels, why would they let them do any of the mature stuff they did in Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up, and Toy Story 3?
| |||