Has Lasseter lost the plot?

Originally Posted By leemac

Having read most of the nationals' reviews of Cars this morning I was struck by the heavy criticism of the characterisations (particularly the "unlikeable" McQueen) and the plot.

I'm just wondering what everyone else thought about the story itself and whether Lasseter really did deliver this time and the critics are wrong...

Discuss....

 

Originally Posted By idleHands

It's been exactly two months since I saw the film, and liberal amounts of wine were consumed during dinner beforehand. So, to be fair, I was not 'fully present' during my viewing.

That being said... I feel that I can somewhat relate to what the reviewers are critcizing.

For me, the resemblance between 'Cars' and 'Doc Hollywood' disturbed my comfort factor more than I would have liked. Even though the same similarities between 'bug's life' and 'Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven' can also be drawn, for some reason, that situation didn't bother me as much.

Perhaps you hit the nail on the head, leemac, about the "unlikable McQueen" being a factor. While I do not detest Owen Wilson (he and his brother Luke are excellent performers and screenwriters), I couldn't stop my own 'personal barrage' of comparisons between Owen Wilson and Michael J. Fox once McQueen arrives in Radiator Springs. And given the obvious similarity between Fox's red Porsche in 'Doc Hollywood' and McQueen's flashy red paintjob, it was virtually impossible to stop the internal barrage, once McQueen was sentenced to his own community service, a la Ben Stone.

It doesn't bother me that the basic plot of the earlier film has heavily influenced the 'Cars' story. What bothers me more is that Owen Wilson as McQueen was not as likable as Fox as Ben Stone. I'm far more of a fan of Fox's work than Wilson's, including his performances in the so-so 'Stuart Little' films. And I'm confident that the "six degrees" connection between 'Cars' and Michael J. Fox was a definite factor.

I liked 'Cars' very much, but feel that TS2 was a far stronger story, that worked on multiple levels. Everyone must deal with the anxiety of loneliness and belonging, as did Jessie, no matter their cultural upbringing or socio-economic status. But not everyone needs a wake-up call from the narcissistic self-indulgence of fame and fortune. And for those that do, like Ben Stone or Lightning McQueen, I need to feel that empathy when their lives start to fall apart. And for McQueen, the empathy could have and should have been much stronger.

So... to answer your original question, leemac... I believe that Lasseter did indeed deliver on the story for 'Cars.' Where I feel he didn't deliver, was on the voice talent selection for McQueen. I would have been happier with another actor in that role.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<Perhaps you hit the nail on the head, leemac, about the "unlikable McQueen" being a factor. >>

This was what was running through my head when I was reading the reviews. My favorite Pixar movies are the non-Lasseter ones like Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc (and even a bug's life where John didn't write the screenplay) because I don't find he can create truly engaging and likeable characters. Woody is just plain awful IMO. Buzz is dumb. John magnifies these qualities for comic humor which works perfectly but I never feel connected to those characters at all. Finding Nemo totally captivated me as I could associate with Marlin on his impossible journey. Same with Mike and Sulley. I still get choked up when you see Marlin truly give up on finding his son and when Sulley knows that Boo has to go home. Gut-wretching is the way I'd describe those moment and the heart-felt drama is emotionally draining. I'm just not convinced that John can deliver this type of movie for me. I do enjoy both TS and TS2 but it becomes too knowing and full of industry references for my liking.

The Incredibles is still bottom of the Pixar library for me and Cars doesn't change that.

 

Originally Posted By HyperTyper

I saw "Cars" last night, and think that many critics' respect for Pixar is keeping the film from receiving even more bad reviews.

It isn't a terrible film. It is certainly better than most. It is amazing to watch the animation ... in particular, the scenery. Pixar sets itself apart in its attention to technical wizardry and attention to detail. The scenery is the star of the show here, which is a huge accomplishment for Pixar's animators, but a big dissapointment for its writers and voice actors.

The problem with "Cars" starts with its subject. "Cars" is a world of automobiles and no humans. The cars ARE the 'people' and a LOT of reality has to be suspended for this. Even though they load-up each automobile with as much character as one can put on four wheels, there is still a limit to how much one can personify a piece of machinery. The characters themselves are rather tired retreads (excuse the puns) that are, yet again, bit parts created to fit a bloated cast of big-name voices. Only a clueless hick of a tow truck and a nearly silent little Italian repair vehicle come off as really endearing, and even the "dumb but loveable" thing has been done to death already.

The absurd premise (cars as people) bothered me in so many ways. It's tolerable when watching a Chevron commercial, but the idea of a car universe is so way-out that it put me, a grown-up, in "Thomas the Tank Engine" mode throughout, and never allowed me to connect with the characters as if they could really BE living, feeling things. I felt trapped in a 2-hour long "Little Golden" book from my childhood. We know at least animals do have feelings, so we can excuse them if they talk in the occasional movie or two. But cars that exist on their own? Why do they have DOORS if there are no people to sit inside???? It may seem nit-picky, but I am jerked out of all reality again when the same car that stretches and bends like silly putty in one scene becomes fragile, dented, shattered wreckage in another ... with all the accompanying sound effects.

The biggest problem with the movie is, yet again, story. The basic themes are fine: Progress shouldn't bypass nostalgia, friends should mean something, newer does not mean better, etc. But "Cars" tries to pack too many mini-lectures into the film, and like a bad road trip, it still takes way too long to get to the destination. The plot is sitting there on horizon, and we can easily see where we're going two hours before we get there. There are no subtle twists, not even the smallest surprise. I felt like I'd viewed this movie a dozen times before already, and I haven't even seen the much-compared-to "Doc Hollywood."

I think the Pixar people went into this weekend's release already realizing their problems. In one interview I read, one Pixar person immediately (defensively?) reminded the readers that reality is SUPPOSED to be suspended in the movies, as if he expected reality might pose a problem for some viewers in this one. (He expected correctly.) And then one of the film's few truly funny bits is a self-mocking reference, during the closing credits, to Pixar's use and re-use of a certain big-name voice. It's like Pixar knows its weaknesses, but seems in no hurry to solve them, but is stubbornly determined to rest on its admired reputation. It was VERY funny, but sadly revealing.

Pixar's approach to film making has been "Let's take something everyday and ordinary, and animate the heck out of it, so people will go 'Oooohh' and 'Aaaahhhh.' It apparently started with a desk lamp, and went on to toys, bugs, cars, monster fears, hero legends, etc. (Will Pixar tackle "Telemarketers" next?) There is a constant theme of putting a twist on everyday things in modern life. But how many times can Pixar put everyday experiences into quirky new settings, and expect it to be new, fresh and funny?

We really have yet to see Pixar attempt a story that is far-removed from our day and time. Pixar's technical prowess is so well-suited for an otherwordly, mythical, epic fairy-tale or adventure, I am really surpised (shocked?) that Pixar has not attempted one, and has no plans to do one as far as we know.

It seems Pixar and Disney are now repeating each other's weaknesses, and (aside from technical innovation) I'm wondering how much Pixar will help Disney now that they're on the same team. "Cars" will undoubtedly be a hit among the kiddies, but don't expect much nostalgia among grown-ups as "Cars" ages over the years. Disney has occupied a unique position as a maker of "classic" movies, a position that is currently empty. "Cars" demonstrates that Pixar has not yet succeeded in getting Disney back into that coveted winner's circle.

Disney and Pixar need to stop treating adults (and kids) like kids. We've grown-up now, and by 'we' I also mean children. We've cut our teeth on "cute" and now we're ready for something substantive. Sure, you'll always get a few audience chuckles when characters do a drop-jaw freeze, or fart, but where's the meat? Where's the complexity? We're ready for a solid meal now ... an epic that hasn't already been cut-up into easily chewable pieces. Kids and adults are reading sweeping narratives the likes of "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings" now, and eating them up. We are WAY past being fascinated by an animated "Autopia."

It all boils down to taking risks, and Pixar really needs to take one. They've played it safe for far too long, building on themes and techniques that have already been pre-tested on Saturday morning cartoons and in Happy Meals. When Disney and Pixar take some bold risks and step out into the unknown, as Walt Disney did, THEN the magic will be back, and they will have finally arrived.

 

Originally Posted By HyperTyper

>>> Woody is just plain awful IMO.

Hallalujah! That's 'MO' too. I wanted to rip Woody right out of the movie screen when I saw that movie. (Sure, it was mostly because Tom Hanks really gets on my nerves, but still...)

I actually thought "Nemo" had many of the same problems as "Cars." The ONLY thing that saved "Nemo" for me was Dory, a truly novel character. Otherwise, it was like watching "Labyrinth" (let's find and rescue the little boy and meet a string of random, quirky and otherwise unconnected characters along the way ...) and watching "Labyrinth" was an ordeal.

But, like you, I think Pixar's best was "Monsters, Inc." because it was truly creative in every way, and Sully was entirely likeable. But then I also enjoyed "Incredibles" because the different theme (hiding talents to fit-in) and because they used the RIGHT performers, not big-name ones, for the voices.

I don't think many of us will be wild about "Cars."

 

Originally Posted By ChiMike

Good post HyperTyper. I agree. Monsters is my #1, with Bug's Life and Incredibles right behind it.

Lee, I must have missed it, but what didn't you like about Incredibles? I thought Incredibles was fantastic. I thought Brad Bird really helped break the Pixar pattern that HyperTyper laid out above. After coming out of Incredibles I felt I just watched something that at the same time played homage while still being very fresh. The soundtrack, visuals & vocalizations were certainly a fresh, excellent direction for Pixar. IMO

HyperTyper, I felt the same way about Finding Nemo's story as you do; Dory even became stale for me by the end of the movie. Also, I find Finding Nemo to be, so far, the least repeatable Pixar film. Your comparison to Cars certainly peaks my interest.

I am looking forward to seeing Cars tonight. I haven't seen anything in the theaters since Batman Begins. Cars as well as Superman Returns where the two I was looking forward to seeing this summer.

 

Originally Posted By smeeeko

SeanYoda & I were able to see the film last satruday at the Irvine Spectrum screening (he got tickets through an ABC channel 7 contest).

I don't know where folks are getting these negative reviews.. (I haven't read any reviews so what do I know?) I don't like Owen Wilson but eventually I did get into the movie and forgot about him..

As far as Doc Hollywood I honestly hadn't thought of it til I read the LeeMac comment.. I've never seen Doc Hollywood all the way through.. but I can see now where one might say that, however.. I don't think it really matters in this film.

The quality is there, the story is there.. the heartstrings and the story is there. I enjoyed the film immensely. There was a bit of a drag in the middle of the film where all the little kids in the screening got restless and started throwing popcorn, crying and fighting and whatnot.. but that's what happens when you go see a movie with a mixed group of animation lovers and family-types (read screaming kids).

I think I cried more in the credits than during the James Taylor "our town" piece.. I'm not THAT old but I can relate totally.. and I think that a lot of people of varying ages will be able to relate to the film. I don't have one bad thing to say about the film.. I even liked Larry the cable Guy (which I didn't honestly think I would..)

I think the only thing is that I need to see it again, however on a fullsize screen (IMAX?) and after it's been out a while. The movie is a little long for impatient children and I don't find that to be anyone's fault at all. Certainly not Pixar.. and not Disney.. this is the sort of story I imagine Walt would do if he were around and doing films. Animation for adults.. for the whole family. =)

I guess if I had one complaint (besides the screaming/ fidgety kids which one can't do much about) is the people that stand in front of you after deciding they want to leave.. stay or leave! don't block my view of the credits with your butt! (can I say butt?) IT's soo freaking annoying!!! grrrr

 

Originally Posted By smeeeko

oops sorry idlehands.. that was you with the doc hollywood comparison!! my bad! =) Still I didn't pick up on that like you did.

The thing about the cars not being humans, I thought guys would totally get that and it would be the moms suffering or soemthing.. I totally get the idea of CARS as people. You have a car you love, whether it's your first VW or your "priusaurus" as an internet buddy of mine calls his car.. or your XB "boxcar" whathaveyou.. Cars take on a life of their own and especially with the whole socal thing (man, are people SUV crazy down here) I think everyone could get into Pixar's CARS..

I really think everyone should see the film at least once (if not twice) and stay for the credits..

I hope I'm not spoiling it for anyone when I say there's parts in there that really made me long for those roadtrippin' days with my family before the divorce.. you know when you would see a sign "see rock city" or something like that and you'd take the roadless traveled.. sure it took 6days to get to florida but what the heck.. you had a family vacation and memories. =)

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<Lee, I must have missed it, but what didn't you like about Incredibles? I thought Incredibles was fantastic. I thought Brad Bird really helped break the Pixar pattern that HyperTyper laid out above. After coming out of Incredibles I felt I just watched something that at the same time played homage while still being very fresh. The soundtrack, visuals & vocalizations were certainly a fresh, excellent direction for Pixar. IMO>>

Mike it was just all too knowing for me. Again I didn't find Mr. Incredible to be an appealing character. In fact his anger management issues and the way he dealt with his family did not make me sympathic to the characters at all. I really do feel I need to empathise with the characters in order to engage with Pixar movies. I don't know why. I have never felt that way about 2D animation.

I just found the movie to be too stylish to be honest. I also found it really sagged in the middle and lost my interest and never really got it back. 111 minutes was far too long for me.

I did like the villain though but it has little repeatability for me. I can happily watch MI, bug's life and Nemo all the time.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

<<Cars as well as Superman Returns where the two I was looking forward to seeing this summer.>>

Mike! What about Dead Man's Chest? I can honestly say that is the only movie that is of serious interest to me this summer. The trailers make it look simply superb.

 

Originally Posted By ChiMike

As soon as I read the other thread, I said "D'oh".

Yes, I will see POTC in the theaters too. I just am more hesitant when it comes's to Disney's sequels. Starting with the Shaggy D.A., I have not had a good experience with Disney's sequels. If I am anywhere as close to being entertained with POTC2 as I was with POTC1, I will feel that I got bang for my buck.

I would love to repeat Summer 2003 with Pixar and POTC all over again.

--

And to each their own on Incredibles. Thanks for the reply! Art is art.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

I was unaware that this film was being compared to "Doc Hollywood" (which I have never seen). Can we get links to any of these reviews? The few I have seen have been uniformly positive. (A big rave in the LA Times this morning.
<a href="http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-cars9jun09" target="_blank">http://www.calendarlive.com/mo
vies/reviews/cl-et-cars9jun09</a>,0,3816075.story )

It has been said that there are a finite number of plots in the world, and that everything is derivative of something earlier. Cars combines the well known "fish out of water" plot with the "country-folk-are-wiser" plot.

I have seen Cars twice now, and like it very much. I do feel that this is the most loosely plotted of the Pixar canon, but compared to the lazy screenplays in most Hollywood productions these days, it's a work of genius. The only thing remotely approaching criticism on my part is that the story does sag a bit in the middle, but then that's only because the opening and closing sequences are so frenetic. I would posit that this was intentional, to further emphasize the "take it easy" attitude embodied in Radiator Springs.

Pixar is headed up by a group who are, for the most part, raising families. The films they create are, naturally, an outgrowth of what is presently important in their own lives. (This has always been true of all creative people.) If there is any thread that connects Pixar's films, it is the concept of family-- family, in the broadest sense of the term. This theme is again embodied in Cars, as the Radiator Springs "family" teaches hotshot loner Lightning McQueen a few life lessons.

I liked it, and will be seeing it (again!) with my family on Saturday.

 

Originally Posted By TheRedhead

It's always strange how different our opinions are on these nerdy boards of ours.

Incredibles was my absolute favorite Pixar film, followed by the Toy Story films. Monsters Inc and Bugs Life are way at the bottom for me.

I love a really seriously flawed leading character, and I love that writers/directors are exploring that concept more and more nowadays. The Sopranos and Rescue Me come directly to mind. And Meg from Hercules. I get how some people might find it annoying - I just find them interesting and refreshing and real.

(seeing Cars in 4 hours)

 

Originally Posted By wahooskipper

The first time I heard the plot for Cars I immediately thought of 'Doc Hollywood'. Don't know if there was a consious or subconscious connection by the animators but it sure sounded familiar to me.

Doc Hollywood was a cute movie...but not a Blockbuster. I think this movie will do fine if for no other reason they haven't had a miss yet.

But, put a couple of these out back to back (if the reviews are on the money) and there could be an iceberg looming under the water.

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

<Incredibles was my absolute favorite Pixar film, followed by the Toy Story films. Monsters Inc and Bugs Life are way at the bottom for me.>

My order of favorite exactly The Redhead.

I'm looking forward to 'the next big thing' with 3-D animation -- how about a big Broadway-like musical, that doesn't wink at the audience and make fun of the genre.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

Doug:

Chicago Tribune review:

<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-060608cars-story" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/
entertainment/chi-060608cars-story</a>,1,3175825.story?coll=chi-entertainmentfront-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

NY Times review:

<a href="http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/movies/09cars.html" target="_blank">http://movies2.nytimes.com/200
6/06/09/movies/09cars.html</a>

Washington Post and Boston Globe were more positive though. I haven't seen a review yet that places it above either Toy Story movies or Monsters, Inc.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

I just looked at the list from the LP guide. There are so few negative reviews. Haven't had time to sit and go through them all, though.

I read the LA Times review this morning.

 

Originally Posted By leemac

The only one that is wrong in the LP Guide is Roger Ebert writes for the Sun-Times and not the Tribune.

 

Originally Posted By Dlmusic

I really liked Cars, while it seemed a little lazier than some of the other films in it's plotting and characterization, it still managed to move me emotionally in several spots. I'm looking forward to seeing it again. Personally my ranking of the Pixar films right now would be:
Incredibles, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc, Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life

Personally I think Pixar's record of quality productions still shines through. Even if people don't quite respond to this movie as much as movies in the past, when was the last time you've seen any major producer churn out 6 movies in a row that were critically succesful (All Pixar films get well into the "fresh" rating on rotten tomatoes). In many ways Pixar is doing better than Walt Disney who had a complete flop, Fantasia and a mediocre run with Pinocchio. Also beyond the first five films was a wonderful film called. . .The Reluctant Dragon. Remember that one?

Yes obviously the situations aren't completely analogous but on the other hand you've got to hand it to Pixar to keep themselves not only critically sucessful but also financially succesful enough to keep producing these high quality films.

If Cars doesn't quite catch on, I wouldn't worry too much. Ratatouille looks much more like the typical Pixar formula (laugh a minute type comedy).

 

Originally Posted By TheRedhead

Overall I liked the movie, I guess, but I was really worried there in the beginning.

Up until they get to Radiator Springs, I thought the film was boring, repetitive, and just not funny. The film only starts to get interesting halfway through.

I think once Sally and Lightning go on the drive, from that point on the movie is great. I'd like to see it again, becuase I wonder if my expectations fuzzied my opinion of the first half. But for a while I really was thinking, oh crap, this is pretty worthless.

But even during the creaky points, I just had to marvel at the artistry of the whole thing. It is just so shiny and neat to look at. And the "universe" of the cars is so complete without totally relying on gimmicks. Mater is great (his silent moments are hilarious). Paul Newman is great. But my favorite is the "pit stop" guy.

My main gripe? Racing people as voices. Ugh. Maybe NASCAR foke will get all moist hearing Richard Petty, but I'd like to hear an actual professional actor please. I'm surprised Pixar would go that route. It seems below them.