I have always been an avid fan of PIXAR films. I grew up, and am still growing up, in the golden age of PIXAR. They could, of course, tone back the amount of sequels but nostalgia does sell tickets.
With the recent release of Cars 3, I have (along with the rest of the internet) decided to capitalize on the trending movie and get noticed. I do want to note that I am a gigantic fan of the Cars series, although not my favorite film series, I have enjoyed the films. I did enjoy Cars 2 and saw it as a fun and wacky adventure.
I had the lovely chance to see an advanced screenings of Cars 3, courtesy of D23, and I really enjoyed the movie. The complaints I had with it are the complaints I had with all of the Cars films which are underdeveloped antagonist and clunky dialogue. Besides that, It moved me to tears.
But ultimately, what ruined Cars 2? Well, nothing. Financially speaking, it was a success, earning $562.1 million dollars at the box office. But critically? It got a 39% on rotten tomatoes, but Roger Ebert saw it wasn't that bad and gave it 3 and a half stars.
Upon looking into the fiscal report of 2011 for the Walt Disney Company (available here), they made $2,223,000,000 off consumer products. Yes that made over 2 billion big ones off of consumer products, which aren't limited to only toys. I'm not saying Cars 2 did this alone, since Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger were also released the same year. But Cars 2 certainly did help.
In fact, in the fiscal report of 2006 for the Walt Disney Company (available here), you can see the steady increase in profits for Consumer Products among the fiscal report. Apart of this is the cars. According The Hollywood Reporter, by 2011, Cars merchandise had crossed $8 billion in total sales. That is a big reason to keep the series going.
But we can talk about boring money all day, but greed is not what ruined Cars 2. Greed has ruined some great movie franchises (Saw, Pirates of the Caribbean, Happy Feet, RoboCop, Star Wars to name a few), but I don't believe Cars is one.
Cars 2, in no means, feels like a PIXAR film. We associate the painful and impactful stories of Up, Toy Story 3, Wall-E, and Monster's Inc. It, simply put, was a fun adventure. Being younger and more impressionable when I saw it, I loved it. I remember redeeming limited edition Cars Real-D glasses from Disney Movie Rewards to see the movie in 3D at the 8:00PM premiere at my local cineplex.
I walked out the theater, jamming to Collision of Worlds by Brad Paisley and Robbie Williams, with a wide grin on my face. I was entertained. Even going back now, when I want to watch an entertaining film that will make me feel good, Cars 2 is an option. Most other PIXAR films are out because they will have me cry and question life.
Cars 2 was for the kids and we have to accept that. It was refreshing to see Cars 3 take the more adult approach audiences love with PIXAR films for making a family movie, rather than a children's movie.
But once again: What ruined Cars 2?
It comes down to a common troupe in storytelling that is frankly a cheap way to tell a story: A passive protagonist.
I, as a writer, have used a passive character for many things, but what makes a passive protagonist good is the protagonist's change into being an active protagonist and the difficulty that comes along with that.
Harry Potter is a great example of a passive protagonist who changes when he chooses to become an active protagonist. He could easily tell an adult about the evil witchcraft and be done with it. That is probably the more responsible decision, but it's not a fun one. He suffers holding the sorcerer's stone as it burns his hand, he has trouble stabbing Tom Riddle's diary and he suffers seeing his friends get hurt in a game of chess. He suffers. That's the key to a good protagonist.
At no point does Mater truly suffer. There are pros and cons to every decision made. There is no backlash from Lightning McQueen when Mater calls into the TV show where they discuss the World Grand Prix. He gets an awesome vacation.
Through out the film, doing nothing gets him everyone. He travels in style on private jets, gets fancy gatling guns, parachutes, and more. He is living the life, meanwhile repeating the same cry of "But I'm just a tow truck."
And by the time there is potential risk, Mater has it figured out. Even in the clock tower, he survives a potential fatal fall into the gears of Big Bentley. The bomb appears on his hood but he knows who is behind it. He has no doubt. Being a kid's film, we know that it will end good. Up is a perfect example of the opposite: it broke our hearts in the first ten minutes and it has the chance to do that in the last ten minutes.
There is no risk. In the end, he gets to keep the rockets and gets a girlfriend. Man, why can't my life be that good?
Mater doesn't change. The story team realized that they needed to put an emotional ark to the crazy experiences John Lassater imagined as he traveled the world for the press tour of the original Cars film. They tried to put in a emotional story of Mater not feeling listened to by his best friend. Like all of the Cars films, it was told through clunky dialogue that didn't necessary match the actions of the characters film.
I believe that Brian Fee saw the issues in Cars 2 and tried very hard to fix it, while being monitored very closely by the father of the Cars franchise, John Lassater. Cars 3 is a much more action driven plot (pun intended), and is much better. By no way is it PIXAR's best film, as it realizes on a dear love of the original cars film and a complete forgetting of the events of Cars 2. Honestly, I think PIXAR doesn't want Cars 2 to be canon and expects people to treat it like one of Mater's tall tales.
Let's hope PIXAR doesn't have the same mistakes for the upcoming Toy Story 4, which is being headed by John Lassater, and The Incredibles 2. But only time will tell.
With the recent release of Cars 3, I have (along with the rest of the internet) decided to capitalize on the trending movie and get noticed. I do want to note that I am a gigantic fan of the Cars series, although not my favorite film series, I have enjoyed the films. I did enjoy Cars 2 and saw it as a fun and wacky adventure.
I had the lovely chance to see an advanced screenings of Cars 3, courtesy of D23, and I really enjoyed the movie. The complaints I had with it are the complaints I had with all of the Cars films which are underdeveloped antagonist and clunky dialogue. Besides that, It moved me to tears.
But ultimately, what ruined Cars 2? Well, nothing. Financially speaking, it was a success, earning $562.1 million dollars at the box office. But critically? It got a 39% on rotten tomatoes, but Roger Ebert saw it wasn't that bad and gave it 3 and a half stars.
Upon looking into the fiscal report of 2011 for the Walt Disney Company (available here), they made $2,223,000,000 off consumer products. Yes that made over 2 billion big ones off of consumer products, which aren't limited to only toys. I'm not saying Cars 2 did this alone, since Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger were also released the same year. But Cars 2 certainly did help.
In fact, in the fiscal report of 2006 for the Walt Disney Company (available here), you can see the steady increase in profits for Consumer Products among the fiscal report. Apart of this is the cars. According The Hollywood Reporter, by 2011, Cars merchandise had crossed $8 billion in total sales. That is a big reason to keep the series going.
But we can talk about boring money all day, but greed is not what ruined Cars 2. Greed has ruined some great movie franchises (Saw, Pirates of the Caribbean, Happy Feet, RoboCop, Star Wars to name a few), but I don't believe Cars is one.
Cars 2, in no means, feels like a PIXAR film. We associate the painful and impactful stories of Up, Toy Story 3, Wall-E, and Monster's Inc. It, simply put, was a fun adventure. Being younger and more impressionable when I saw it, I loved it. I remember redeeming limited edition Cars Real-D glasses from Disney Movie Rewards to see the movie in 3D at the 8:00PM premiere at my local cineplex.
I walked out the theater, jamming to Collision of Worlds by Brad Paisley and Robbie Williams, with a wide grin on my face. I was entertained. Even going back now, when I want to watch an entertaining film that will make me feel good, Cars 2 is an option. Most other PIXAR films are out because they will have me cry and question life.
Cars 2 was for the kids and we have to accept that. It was refreshing to see Cars 3 take the more adult approach audiences love with PIXAR films for making a family movie, rather than a children's movie.
But once again: What ruined Cars 2?
It comes down to a common troupe in storytelling that is frankly a cheap way to tell a story: A passive protagonist.
I, as a writer, have used a passive character for many things, but what makes a passive protagonist good is the protagonist's change into being an active protagonist and the difficulty that comes along with that.
Harry Potter is a great example of a passive protagonist who changes when he chooses to become an active protagonist. He could easily tell an adult about the evil witchcraft and be done with it. That is probably the more responsible decision, but it's not a fun one. He suffers holding the sorcerer's stone as it burns his hand, he has trouble stabbing Tom Riddle's diary and he suffers seeing his friends get hurt in a game of chess. He suffers. That's the key to a good protagonist.
At no point does Mater truly suffer. There are pros and cons to every decision made. There is no backlash from Lightning McQueen when Mater calls into the TV show where they discuss the World Grand Prix. He gets an awesome vacation.
Through out the film, doing nothing gets him everyone. He travels in style on private jets, gets fancy gatling guns, parachutes, and more. He is living the life, meanwhile repeating the same cry of "But I'm just a tow truck."
And by the time there is potential risk, Mater has it figured out. Even in the clock tower, he survives a potential fatal fall into the gears of Big Bentley. The bomb appears on his hood but he knows who is behind it. He has no doubt. Being a kid's film, we know that it will end good. Up is a perfect example of the opposite: it broke our hearts in the first ten minutes and it has the chance to do that in the last ten minutes.
There is no risk. In the end, he gets to keep the rockets and gets a girlfriend. Man, why can't my life be that good?
Mater doesn't change. The story team realized that they needed to put an emotional ark to the crazy experiences John Lassater imagined as he traveled the world for the press tour of the original Cars film. They tried to put in a emotional story of Mater not feeling listened to by his best friend. Like all of the Cars films, it was told through clunky dialogue that didn't necessary match the actions of the characters film.
I believe that Brian Fee saw the issues in Cars 2 and tried very hard to fix it, while being monitored very closely by the father of the Cars franchise, John Lassater. Cars 3 is a much more action driven plot (pun intended), and is much better. By no way is it PIXAR's best film, as it realizes on a dear love of the original cars film and a complete forgetting of the events of Cars 2. Honestly, I think PIXAR doesn't want Cars 2 to be canon and expects people to treat it like one of Mater's tall tales.
Let's hope PIXAR doesn't have the same mistakes for the upcoming Toy Story 4, which is being headed by John Lassater, and The Incredibles 2. But only time will tell.
Comments
Post a Comment