_Cars_, the newest one from Pixar

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The push begins in earnest. Here's where I readmit that while I'm impressed by Pixar and appreciate how clearly they have taken the lead in English-language animation I actually honestly don't love them much outside of The Incredibles and scattered moments elsewhere, like the door factory conclusion of Monsters Inc.. (Don't get me wrong, collectively that alone beats the crap out of everything Disney's done since The Lion King several thousand times over, and even then that's not counting the yeoman's work Lasseter's done helping to oversee the Ghibli DVD runs.) Yet frankly this one leaves me a bit cold from the sound of the story, though the fact that Lasseter's directing it intrigues.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 07:06 (twenty years ago)

I'm not terribly excited by Cars either. I'm not interested in cars, don't like them, and animated cars with cutsey faces aren't winning me over. It looks very 'young' too, more Monster's Inc and Finding Nemo than The Incredibles.
I'll wait for the Brad Bird directed Ratatouie.

― David Orton (scarlet), Thursday, 16 March 2006 08:25 (twenty years ago)

Good Lord. Saw the preview...looked like utter crapola. Until now, I had scrubbed it from my memory. Yurk. It will suck.

― John Justen (johnjusten), Thursday, 16 March 2006 08:41 (twenty years ago)

Pixar have a habit of pulling gold out of the bag at the last minute (The Incredibles trailers didn't work for me at all, but loved the film) but I do think they've got a pup on their hands this time. The really early Cars trailer on The Incredibles DVD looked dismal, and apart from some serious visual improvements this one seems no better.

Further to comments above, I'd argue they've painted themselves into a corner both artistically and dramatically by making all the characters into vehicles - pretty much everything in terms of visual character expression is going to have to be done from the slightly daft looking faces on the cars, unless they plan on pulling some Transformers style shit.

Apart from Monsters Inc. I've loved all of Pixar's output to this point though, and nothing would make me happier than for this to be another triumph.

(on an unrelated note, anyone here see the Pixar 20th Anniversary show at MoMa? The massive zoetrope was one of the coolest things I've ever seen!)

― Bill A (Bill A), Thursday, 16 March 2006 09:31 (twenty years ago)

I didn't much care for the trailer either, and I don't find films about cars that interesting. Also, I hate the fact that films like these will propagate to the children that cars are cute and cool instead of something that's damaging the environment.

Don't get me wrong, collectively that alone beats the crap out of everything Disney's done since The Lion King several thousand times over,

You haven't seen Lilo & Stitch, have you? That's like the liberal alternative to the The Incredibles' conservative family values.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 10:46 (twenty years ago)

"The liberal alternative to the The Incredibles' conservative family values!" was actually the tagline in Finland.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 16 March 2006 10:59 (twenty years ago)

wasn't interested in the incredible, not interested in cars, thought a bug's life wasn't v good, etc

toy story is still great, though

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:02 (twenty years ago)

There's no need to resort to politics in order to prefer Lilo & Stich over The Incredibles: it's just a better film.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:15 (twenty years ago)

I did like the look of lilo & stitch but never saw it

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:25 (twenty years ago)

Lilo & Stich were bloody annoying.

― David Orton (scarlet), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:28 (twenty years ago)

Lilo & Stich was possibly the most mawkish film Disney have ever made.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:48 (twenty years ago)

There's no need to resort to politics in order to prefer Lilo & Stich over The Incredibles: it's just a better film.

I think it's worthy of mention, since the main theme in Lilo & Stitch is that you can make your own family, and it doesn't necessarily have to consist of mom, dad, and kids. Admittedly, the conservativeness in The Incredibles was more between the lines, which is why I could still enjoy it (even though I had other objections about it as well, such as how lightly it dealt with violence and killing).

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:50 (twenty years ago)

it isn't called lilo & stich, is it?

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:53 (twenty years ago)

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1228713.jpg

http://images.supersport.co.za/stich001s.JPG

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:57 (twenty years ago)

No, that's my fault.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:58 (twenty years ago)

second serve

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:59 (twenty years ago)

No film is improved by reducing it to a political line, Tuomas. People who have seen L&S will hardly have missed the message, and those that haven't will think it's a tract.

Which it isn't. It's a great anarchic Looney Tunes of a film. It's the perfect end to hand-animated Disney, which put out some interesting stuff in it's last few years (eg The Emperor's New Groove) to make up for 300 tasteful monstrosties in the previous decade.

It's also blatantly emotionally manipulative. And it's really good at it!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 12:05 (twenty years ago)

No film is improved by reducing it to a political line, Tuomas

Actually this is probably nonsense, there are probably a few films which have an interesting political idea inside them, but are rubbish as films. I just can't really think of any. The Fountainhead, maybe?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 12:07 (twenty years ago)

nah

that might be the opposite, even

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 12:27 (twenty years ago)

there are probably a few films which have an interesting political idea inside them, but are rubbish as films

lol Red Dawn amirite?

― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 March 2006 13:05 (twenty years ago)

People are right that Lilo is the one exception to Disney's decade-plus of suck, so I'll backtrack there (but I've no need to invoke politics to do so).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 13:37 (twenty years ago)

Peace reigns! :)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 13:39 (twenty years ago)

Hooray!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 13:42 (twenty years ago)

I hated the trailers/line-up for Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, but I enjoyed all three immensely and would watch them again without reservation. I think Pixar probably doesn't give much of a shit about what's in a trailer; trailers are often totally misleading anyway and Pixar films in particular make loads of money basically off of 1. being Pixar films 2. getting excellent word of mouth.

Everytime I think Owen Wilson as a talking sportscar is a dumb waste of talent and certain to be totally unfunny I have to remind myself that John Goodman as a talking big blue furry thing was also a dumb waste of a talent that had no chance of being funny, until I actually watched the film.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 13:53 (twenty years ago)

Andrew: you realize that by bringing it up, you have effectively guaranteed that V for Vendetta will now be the perfect example for you of a rubbish film with an interesting political idea inside. Good job.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 13:56 (twenty years ago)

I thought The Incredibles was a disappointment: 10 minutes too long and kinda hateful in its treatment of Syndrome. Pixar always seem to be on the verge of putting out something soulless and unloveable, but the 2 Toy Stories, Monsters Inc and Nemo are 4 of my favourite commercial movies of the last decade. So this could go either way I think. I will say that as a parent my perspective is coloured by having to endure plastic tat being marketed furiously at the kids for the next 3 months.

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:11 (twenty years ago)

I didn't mean to say the political ascpects of Lilo & Stitch are the only thing about it, but I think they are an important part of the film, escpecially for an adult viewer. And I think it is interesting to view it in light of Disney's family-conservative past - the film has even what is probably the first gay couple (though only implicitly so) in a Disney animated feature.

In general I think it is important and necessary to think about the political and moral implications of family films, not in spite of them being "for kids", but exactly because of that. The Iron Giant is great-looking, touching and funny flick, but it is also a pacifist tract, and it would be a lesser film if it wasn't. Ditto for reversal of fairy tale gender expectations in Shrek.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:21 (twenty years ago)

Oh I thought Syndrome got exactly what he deserved. They discussed in depth the fact that he murdered lots of people just to stress-test the fucking robot. He was a bastard who shot rockets at planes with children on them, fuck that guy.

I really had a LOT of misgivings watching the Incredibles, actually, because of its superficial appearance of being some kind of family-values white people are awesome bullshit, but that's not how I felt it played out at all. The white suburban middle-class 50s family model is a plot device, mostly played up for haw haws, like Buzz Lightyear's ruthless paranoid militancy, it's not a goddamned political statement.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:23 (twenty years ago)

For me only The Iron Giant tops The Incredibles in terms of US animation in recent years. I enjoyed the trailer for The Incredibles as well. The one where he is struggling to fit into his old superhero suit.
Lilo & Stitch was just horrible to look at. that said, I did actually watch it, while I haven't been moved to even check out any other Disney animation since Beauty & the Beast!

― David Orton (scarlet), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:24 (twenty years ago)

Villainy! Have politics hijacked 'toons?

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:25 (twenty years ago)

Talking about the first implicit gay couple in a Disney feature is kind of absurd, Tuomas. I'm pretty sure every character in The Jungle Book is a flaming butt pirate. It's pretty well-known that Disney itself is riddled with homosexuals, cf calls for boycott by bigoted bible junkies nationwide.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:26 (twenty years ago)

Hahahaha where the New Yorker dare not tread, there goes the Christian Science Monitor. That's a pretty good article. In any case I think it's the critics who decide to relentlessly point out the possible social implications in cartoons who have the axes to grind, not the filmmakers, I mean FFS IT IS A CARTOON. A CARTOON. Next they'll be talking about how children's books are subverting our morals with all these thieving animals getting away with it all the time.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:32 (twenty years ago)

Well, okay, let's say more-than-implicit but not totally explicit.

My main objection with The Incredibles was how lightly it dealt with people dying - a lot of Syndrome's henchmen died during the forest chase scenes, but no one seemed to pay any attention to that. Children's films if anything is the one place where I'd like killing and dying not to be treated lightly. In fact, in many cases the deaths are totally unnecessary, there just seems to be some sort of moral that the bad guy "must" die at the end (but unlike in grown-up flicks, the hero can't kill him, because that would be "wrong" - which leads to a lot of "accidental" deaths in animated features). That's one more difference in Lilo & Stitch: no one dies, and in the end there isn't even a bad guy. I think that's a nice moral for the kids.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:35 (twenty years ago)

In any case I think it's the critics who decide to relentlessly point out the possible social implications in cartoons who have the axes to grind, not the filmmakers,

Obviously I don't agree with CSM, but I'd say the pacifism in The Iron Giant or the critique of fairy tale gender morals in Shrek is pretty explicit and intended by the filmmakers. Just because they're cartoons doesn't mean they're innocent.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:37 (twenty years ago)

That's one more difference in Lilo & Stitch: no one dies, and in the end there isn't even a bad guy. I think that's a nice moral for the kids.

And so reflective of how the world really works, too.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:40 (twenty years ago)

haha

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:41 (twenty years ago)

And even though I wouldn't make such lengthy analysis about The Incredibles, I think the comment about "celebrating mediocrity" is a pretty obvious commentary on the school system. How else would you interpret it?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:42 (twenty years ago)

(xx-post)

So you want the kids to learn that in real life there are bad guys who deserve to die?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:42 (twenty years ago)

Is there some reason they should not? Should they be taught that nobody ever dies and there are no such things as bad guys?

― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:44 (twenty years ago)

I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be bad guys in children's films, it's just that bad guy -scheme is really quite pervasive, and it's even glued to films where it isn't necessary at all. Take Mulan for example - the bad guy in that one was totally superficial to the story, which would've easily worked without it.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:47 (twenty years ago)

Should they be taught that nobody ever dies and there are no such things as bad guys?

That's not the same as bad guys deserving to die. In The Incredibles, for example, the bad guy could've just as easily put to prison, but for some reason the bad guy always needs to die, even in children's animated features. Or Western children's animation at least - Miyazaki's films, for example, are a totally different thing.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:49 (twenty years ago)

Miyazaki kills LOADS of people on a regular basis, wtf ate you talking about?

Tuomas would you disagree that celebrating the transition from fourth to fifth grade as a graduation of some sort is almost the definition of celebrating mediocrity? Or would you say that it's a good thing that in a desperate attempt to give everybody an equal playing field we've managed to make even baccalaureate degrees next to completely worthless?

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:56 (twenty years ago)

I think Tuomas is totally OTM throughout this thread and I find Andrew's insistence on banishing politics from movies (how is this done exactly? hands over ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA" really loudly?) bizarre. If you don't want to think in more than one direction at a time go ahead but don't fault Tuomas for thinking a little more about it, sheesh!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:56 (twenty years ago)

Well Tom, Syndrome as an adult is a dick who deserves what he gets, true, but his mistreatment as a(n albeit annoying) kid helps to form him. And that mistreatment is all part of the "why must society try and hold back the talented?" idea at the heart of the film which is a myth I just don't buy. Coupled with the family values schtick it all veers unpleasantly towards "Political Correctness gone mad!" territory.

And I'm with Tuomas about films that don't say "there are good people and evil people and the evil people deserve to die".

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:57 (twenty years ago)

Yeah but Tuomas is talking about giving preference to one cartoon over another cartoon because one of the cartoons is too political in a way he doesn't like. I'm saying where he sees politics, I see frankly somewhat cruel gags about the American Dream c.Levittown groudbreaking and since.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:01 (twenty years ago)

It's interesting that Brad Bird is responsible for writing and directing both The Iron Giant and The Incredibles, whose statements on violence and whose politics as you read them would appear to be in direct opposition to one another. I think you're misreading the former, though; rather than a defense of pacifism qua pacificism, it's more down to not allowing one's identity to be defined by others' perception of it. The Giant, after all, is a weapon and was designed to destroy things, but he's capable of being more, not because he's a pacifist, but because he's a unique individual capable of empathy and love.

As far as the "celebrating mediocrity" stuff, I think it's more a criticism of Harrison Bergeron-ism than any specific thing.

x-post Well, yeah, I'm not going to defend eye-for-an-eye-ism, but the bad guys meeting deaths that are (or appear to be) just, or ironic, or both, is a part of literature going back umpteen thousand years. What's more, the deaths in The Incredibles, with a few exceptions, are pretty much a direct result of people placing themselves in harm's way or otherwise participating in circumstances in which death is a likely outcome.

xxpost but [Syndrome's] mistreatment as a(n albeit annoying) kid helps to form him.

Mistreatment? The way I saw out was that Mr. Incredible was trying to protect him from things he was clearly unequipped to deal with and from which to protect himself. And he admits later that he was overly mean about it.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:01 (twenty years ago)

To be honest I think children's films pull that eye-for-an-eye shit less than adult ones. A lot of kids' movies are about the transition from a world of certainty to a world of moral ambiguity, much more so than your average Steven Seagal, anyway. (Not that there's anything wrong with SS movies).

― I'm thinking six, six, six (noodle vague), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:04 (twenty years ago)

I thought the Iron Giant was by Ted Hughes.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:05 (twenty years ago)

He didn't do the screenplay what with being dead and all.

― Why does the birds always shitting on me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:06 (twenty years ago)

Noodle Vague, "bad guys" and "evil people" don't exactly map onto each other and I think it's counterproductive to pretend they do. Bad guys are people who do bad things to other people. Evil people implies some sort of deeper metaphysical thing.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:06 (twenty years ago)

When do we get our movie?

http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/techrongas/images/successbig3art.jpg

― The Equator Lounge (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:07 (twenty years ago)

you're thinking of the iron man, alba

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:07 (twenty years ago)

x-post -- Aardxar.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:08 (twenty years ago)

The Giant, after all, is a weapon and was designed to destroy things, but he's capable of being more, not because he's a pacifist, but because he's a unique individual capable of empathy and love.

Haha you have just put your finger on what made me uneasy about this movie DESPITE its geopolitics: secular humanism!! ("Secular humanism can go suck it" (c) Sterling Clover) I mean first of all the Iron Giant is exactly NOT a unique individual capable of empathy and love, he's a mass-produced automaton! The army could make another one like him tomorrow!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:09 (twenty years ago)

Syndrome is "what if Jimmy Neutron was a bit more grounded in social reality and went through the US public school system, getting constantly hung up on lockers by his tighty-whities for being smarter than the big kids, and decided instead of shooting them the week before Senior Prom he would just bide his time and get his name in the headlines on his own terms"

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:09 (twenty years ago)

Miyazaki kills LOADS of people on a regular basis, wtf ate you talking about?

Yeah, but in his films no one is the bad guy and no one deserves to die. And Totoro is a great example of a wonderful children's film without any hint whatsoever towards violence. I'm not saying children's films necessarily shouldn't reflect reality (where people do really die), but I don't think they should revert to easy black-and-white moralism (he was evil and therefore deserved to die), which is actually pretty far from reality.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:09 (twenty years ago)

The army could make another one like him tomorrow!

he was an ALIEN!!

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:11 (twenty years ago)

Tracer I will destroy you

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:11 (twenty years ago)

He didn't do the screenplay what with being dead and all.

I know. But adapting a book for screen is not the same as writing an original screenplay (as with The Incredibles), so it's a bit of a flawed comparison.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:12 (twenty years ago)

phil I agree, but a lot of films don't make that distinction. I've got plenty of time for old-fashioned white hats vs black hats movies, but I do think that films that aspire to being about more than "just" action owe it to their audience to at least flesh out "what makes a man do bad things". All that said, there's no reason why Incredibles shouldn't be allowed to be ambiguous about this, or to use cruel humour. Syndrome's manner of death, above all else, is a good joke isn't it?

― Why does the birds always shitting on me? (noodle vague), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:12 (twenty years ago)

I mean first of all the Iron Giant is exactly NOT a unique individual capable of empathy and love, he's a mass-produced automaton! The army could make another one like him tomorrow!

Yeahbut nature v. nurture! They could make another one, but would it get hung up on power lines and rescued by a kid? Or watch some guy shoot Bambi's mother? No, therefore unique! PROVEN BY SCIENCE.

NV, agreed.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:15 (twenty years ago)

Disney's family-conservative past

Isn't every Disney hero/lead, like EVER, orphaned, abandoned or from a broken home?

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:16 (twenty years ago)

I love politics in films! I'm counting the minutes until V for Vendetta opens! I just don't think it does any good to say "That's like the liberal alternative to the The Incredibles' conservative family values" like it's some slam-dunk argument. It seems like standard Tuomas question-beggery. Which is my favourite out of the 377 different types of ILX question-beggery, but still not good.

In fairness, the thread is doing well, so I was probably wrong.

Miyazaki kills LOADS of people on a regular basis, wtf ate you talking about?

The main character in Princess Mononoke rack up a considerable death toll in the first half hour, if I remember right.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:16 (twenty years ago)

In order not to repeat the same arguments I made a year ago, you can read them here:

POLL RESULTS: TOP 100 FILMS OF THE 1990's

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:19 (twenty years ago)

Who are you, and what have you done with Tuomas?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:20 (twenty years ago)

(sorry)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:20 (twenty years ago)

he was not an alien, he was from USSR

also: Monsters, inc. is awesome, even better than Finding Nemo and Toy Story (although Toy Story 2 is closer, because better than TS1) and probably The Incredibles

also: I could understand being politically offended by The Incredibles if you have never read comic books, like, ever, or if you live in a magickal faeryworld commune where girls let you shave their heads

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:24 (twenty years ago)

Anyway, I'm not against all animated features having bad guys who die at the end, I was just noting how pervasive the pattern is. As I said in the former thread, in films like Mulan or Tarzan the bad guys feel glued-on and totally unnecessary to the main plot - it seems like they're added only because the filmmakers felt there simply needs to be a bad guy in such movies. Which is what exceptions to the rule such as Lilo & Stitch prove wrong.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:25 (twenty years ago)

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:26 (twenty years ago)

apparently the plotline is nothing but a rehash of Doc Hollywood.

― Should've Never Give Jimmy Mod Money (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:28 (twenty years ago)

Is Lilo & Stitch like Turner & Hooch?

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:29 (twenty years ago)

also Tuomas you know I'm being light-hearted up above there, I could never turn on you

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:35 (twenty years ago)

apparently the plotline is nothing but a rehash of Doc Hollywood.

I think you're onto something:

The G-rated movie, set for release on June 9, tells the story of up-and-coming race car Lightning McQueen, who learns to savor life in the slow lane after becoming trapped in a once-thriving Route 66 town that the freeway bypassed and the world forgot.

...

"I had been working nonstop through the '90s ... and my wife Nancy said, 'Be careful, your boys may go off to college and you will have missed it,"' Lasseter said.

The theme of "Cars" mirrors what Lasseter said he learned on his family road trip: "The journey in life is the reward ... and it's that much more special when you have somebody to share it with."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:35 (twenty years ago)

lilo's the little girl

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:48 (twenty years ago)

I thought there were bad guys trying to capture Stitch?

(I could be mistaken as I've only ever watched it once and couldn't bear to do so again)

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:55 (twenty years ago)

I'm not on to anything, my source is reputable. I stand by my claim.

― Should've Never Give Jimmy Mod Money (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:59 (twenty years ago)

There were, but they are actually good guys as Stitch is supposed to be the bad guy. But in the end none of them are, they're all just misunderstood.

Of course, I'm only going on one viewing as well. I'd rather remove my brain that let it even entertain the idea of watching it again.

(xpost to Onimo)

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Thursday, 16 March 2006 16:01 (twenty years ago)

No matter how cleverly written Cars is going to be, I can't escape the feeling that the basic concept here is pandering on a level not seen at Pixar before. I mean, certainly the other projects have had near-infinite marketing potential before--who wouldn't want a Sully doll?--but aiming at the huge NASCAR crowd strikes me as a much more cynical move than aiming at people who fondly remembered Slinky dogs or reading superhero comics under the bedcovers with a flashlight.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:00 (twenty years ago)

cars ain't cute

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:02 (twenty years ago)

Or anybody who ever anthropomorphized their Hot Wheels as a kid.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:03 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...

went to Science Musuem yesterday to see the Pixar exhibition (previously in New York, Tokyo next, then SF from what i hear). the big Zoetrope was great as was the 11 minute wiiiiiidescreen thing they were showing. early designs, working sketches, production stills and models were interesting enough. haven't seen Nemo or Incredibles yet (i'm old skool, me) so a lot of it was for things i don't know the finished version of but...

zoetrope was slightly different from the one in new york, had Jessie instead of Woody.

ny:
http://pixaranimation.blogspot.com/2005/12/pixar-moma-zoetrope.html
london:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/replicam/130097396/in/set-121662/

(look closely and you can see the slots in the floor where woody would've been)

― koogy wonderland (koogs), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 09:11 (twenty years ago)

Every time I see an advert for Cars it makes me think of the Simpsons episode where they had a trailer for "Cards, the new film from Pixar."

Not because of the name, so much, but because it looks like a parody of a bad Pixar film.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 09:15 (twenty years ago)

Words can't express how completely cold every trailer for this movie has left me. They might as well call it Movie Expressly Made To Keep Dan Perry Out Of Movie Theatres. It isn't even a visceral reaction, more bemused "why the hell would I want to see that?" puzzlement.

― Dan (Really Now) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:10 (twenty years ago)

someone plz photoshop hypothetical poster for Movie Expressly Made To Keep Dan Perry Out Of Movie Theatres!!!

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:26 (twenty years ago)

I just reread the whole thread and am a little bemused at how all of my posts appear to be invisible to everyone except for me & Andrew Farrell.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:39 (twenty years ago)

Dan cf my post way way up about every other Pixar movie ever? I saw Monsters Inc and TS2 in theaters only because other people (dates) basically dragged me!

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:41 (twenty years ago)

Compared to the other computer animated crap to come out recently (Over The Hedge was almost kinda bareable, though the best joke in the movie was stolen directly from Futurama), Cars isn't looking quite so retarded. Although fuck Larry the Cable Guy.

You whose movie ticket purchases aren't decided by 7 year olds though, wtf?

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:24 (twenty years ago)

From what I understood this was supposed to be Pixar's last Disney distributed film originally, no? It's like when musicians put out total crap to fulfill their recording contract.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:25 (twenty years ago)

what was the joke stolen from futurama?

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:27 (twenty years ago)

SERIOUSLY, FUCK LARRY THE CABLE GUY

― Dan (My New Mantra) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:28 (twenty years ago)

Once Fry drank 100 cups of coffee in one episode, and when he reached the 100th one, time stopped and he like saved everybody's lives or something. Hammy the squirrel drinks a caffeinated soda and voila time-stop-day-saving action.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 13:30 (twenty years ago)

geez, people. i've always thought all Pixar's films were going to suck, and they've all turned out to be at the very least EXTREMELY entertaining. for the first time in years, i'm actually trusting that a film will be good, interesting/shitty trailer or not.

Also, the best joke in Over the Hedge had to do with monopoly pieces. which now that i come to think of it wouldn't surprise me whatsoever if it were stolen from somewhere else, but whatev.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 15:32 (twenty years ago)

Oh, and my other favorite joke in Over the Hedge was when the doberman only said "PLAY!", a la the seagulls in Finding Nemo's "mine".

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 15:46 (twenty years ago)

apparently the graphics in this are mindblowing, but the story itself doesn't appeal at all. I couldn't care less about NASCAR. I'm sure it will do well with middle america though, make loads of money, and I guess I can't begrudge PIXAR success as long as their next movie is about something I want to see (is the next one about the rat in the French restaurant?).

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 15:56 (twenty years ago)

i've always thought all Pixar's films were going to suck, and they've all turned out to be at the very least EXTREMELY entertaining

YES THIS IS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING? I'm not yelling at you I'm just like wtf I have been writing in esperanto here or something apparently.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 15:57 (twenty years ago)

I can't see what a beatup dump truck and a Fiat 500 with an italian accent have to do with NASCAR

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 15:58 (twenty years ago)

I think I will wait for Pixar's next movie. Owen Wilson is great at playing motor vehicles so I've no doubt he will be good in this, but I am just sick of car culture in general. I think it will be a big hit with little boys, though.

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:02 (twenty years ago)

Are you saying you're going to stay in the house even for Tokyo Drift?!?!?!?

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:04 (twenty years ago)

I've got no desire to see this based purely on the NASCAR aspect. I hate NASCAR and everything associated with it, to the point that I won't buy cereal or paper towels or other products if they happen to have any sort of NASCAR tie-in going on at the time.

Shallow and misguided, perhaps, but man, fuck all kinds of NASCAR. I just don't get it.

― joygoat (joygoat), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:06 (twenty years ago)

the basic premise of this movie makes my head explode. are there humans in this movie? or do the cars just exist in some weird car-centric universe?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:06 (twenty years ago)

it is a cartoon

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:07 (twenty years ago)

There are people, Shakey.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:07 (twenty years ago)

Are you saying you're going to stay in the house even for Tokyo Drift?!?!?!?

Yes, even though I'm going to miss old Vin tearing up at the end of the movie.

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:07 (twenty years ago)

Although, as far as I can tell, they are just spectators during the racing scenes.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:07 (twenty years ago)

this article makes a point about there being no humans and also talks about the NASCAR stuff, to answer Tom's question.

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:09 (twenty years ago)

YES THIS IS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING? I'm not yelling at you I'm just like wtf I have been writing in esperanto here or something apparently.

Yeah, i didn't manage to read all the posts in this thread. Just randomly saw a lot of people saying "this looks like it will suck". Also, if you distilled the plot of every pixar movie into a blurb, they'd all sound awful. it's to their credit that they seem to succeed in every aspect despite being silly-premised feel-good family flicks.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:21 (twenty years ago)

i've never seen a pixar film, but this i kinda might want to see

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:25 (twenty years ago)

What makes "Cars" different from such previous hits as "Finding Nemo," "The Incredibles" and the "Toy Story" films?
Lotsa stuff. But one big thing in particular.

"Unlike any Pixar film, much less any film you've seen, 'Cars' is about a world where there are no humans," explains the company's executive vice president and the movie's director, John Lasseter.

haha D'OH

― mummy wrapped in IDIOT (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:27 (twenty years ago)

I really don't see how this premise (a world of CARS!) can provide a functional storyline.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:27 (twenty years ago)

When I saw the trailer (before MI3, I think?), it looked exactly like a parody of animated/Pixar films. Plot points that hit ever lesson-learned cliche in the book, lame characters, on down the line. Even the Incredibles didn't look this lame in trailers (but ended up being pretty mediocre).

I did laugh at the bumper sticker/slag tag line.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:28 (twenty years ago)

I really don't see how this premise (a world of CARS!) can provide a functional storyline.

in the exact same way that a world of FISH! or TOYS! or BUGS! can. the humans in those are little more than plot devices anyways. Pixar's really good at making self-contained worlds out of things you don't expect

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:31 (twenty years ago)

I laughed at this...
"Well, they told me about this, and I said I'd love to do it," says redneck comedian Larry the Cable Guy, who plays the clunky old tow truck, Mater... "So I immediately put on 1,700 pounds. Then they told me it was a cartoon; I felt like an idiot."

― Mater (BrianB), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:33 (twenty years ago)

the nascar thing isn't going to play to audiences in other parts of the world. i barely even know what it is. i don't believe Pixar would give the new film such a narrow focus.

― koogy wonderland (koogs), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:34 (twenty years ago)

trailers here. i think the nascar thing is a red herring.

http://www.pixar.com/theater/trailers/cars/index.html

― koogy wonderland (koogs), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:44 (twenty years ago)

"in the exact same way that a world of FISH! or TOYS! or BUGS! can. the humans in those are little more than plot devices anyways. Pixar's really good at making self-contained worlds out of things you don't expect"

see but its easy to conceive of fish and bugs existing independently from people and then anthropomorphizing them. There are people in the toys movies, and the toys' relationship to them is explicitly dealt with. But with cars... well, how does a car even exist without a person? where does gas come from? how do they build anything or do any maintenance? I realize I should be engaging in some willful suspension of disbelief, but this idea just seems dead in the water to me, its just too ridiculous to even be considered "cute".

To say nothing of how I feel about glorifying or humanizing cars and car culture, which I am definitely not down with...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:50 (twenty years ago)

(and yes I know its a CARTOON it isn't supposed to be realistic - but it does need to have some internal logic, and I don't see how that can be established with this premise)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:51 (twenty years ago)

Yes, when I see a trailer for a movie about talking, animate cars with personalities and the voices of famous people, the first thing I ask is "so, like, where do they fill up on unleaded."

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:54 (twenty years ago)

FUCK LARRY THE CABLE GUY

― Dan (SERIOUSLY, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:56 (twenty years ago)

I guess I just can't disassociate cars from people.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:56 (twenty years ago)

(also yes obv fuck that Git R Done moron - no argument there Dan)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:57 (twenty years ago)

THEY AREN'T REAL CARS, DUDE.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 16:57 (twenty years ago)

the style of the cars seems to owe a little to Aardman's gasoline commercials.

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:01 (twenty years ago)

I almost chuckled at the same thing BrianB did.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:03 (twenty years ago)

I understand they aren't real Milo - now explain to me (or send me a link with a plot synopsis or something) how their world actually works. Films traditionally set up a logical framework within which the action takes place - this isn't that difficult a concept to grasp, is it?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:03 (twenty years ago)

shakey mo is otm here

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:05 (twenty years ago)

compare to all the brilliant stuff toy story gets out of toys real life relationship w/ their owners & the thoughts they would have about this if conscious of it

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:07 (twenty years ago)

If you're wondering how cars eat and breathe
and other science facts (la la la),
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a movie,
I should really just relax

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:07 (twenty years ago)

Imagining John Lasseter as Joel actually kinda works!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:08 (twenty years ago)

"Hey everyone, these are my toys Woody and Buzz Lightyear..."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:08 (twenty years ago)

I've never seen "Toy Story" so I can't tell if Ethan's being sarcastic or not!

― Dan (Tom Hanks + Tim Allen = DJP KRYPTONITE) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:09 (twenty years ago)

look I KNOW ITS JUST A MOVIE. Movies still operate within conventions (premise, plot, characters, conflict, etc.) that are necessary to make them coherent.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:11 (twenty years ago)

ethan's not being sarcastic Dan, Toy Story milks the relationship between toys and real people for all its worth.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:13 (twenty years ago)

Speaking of Tokyo Drift, I was looking for that awesome picture of Vin from the end of this movie and came across this website:

http://www.vindiesel.hu/

good stuff

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:14 (twenty years ago)

Apparently (and I can't find the interview where I read this), the animators say they solved a lot of the problems with "buttons," as in, the car pushes up against a button that causes a robotic gas pump arm to activate and fill up the car, etc.

I'll probably see this one, and I LOVE LOVE LOVED The Incredibles, but I have to say it does look like a weird paint-by-numbers/parody of a Pixar movie.

― schwantz (schwantz), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:15 (twenty years ago)

x-post -- I have to send that link to my friend Y. Who will then blame me for her not getting any work done for the rest of the day.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:16 (twenty years ago)

(I only just realized that Tokyo Drift is Fast and the Furious III, though I had seen a trailer somewhere.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:18 (twenty years ago)

I understand they aren't real Milo - now explain to me (or send me a link with a plot synopsis or something) how their world actually works.
They're cars. That talk. And drive around. And substitute 'car things' (pinstriping) for 'human things' (lower-back tattoos). THEY'RE NOT REALLY CARS, THEY'RE PEOPLE. JUST LIKE THE CREATURES AND OBJECTS IN EVERY OTHER CARTOON KNOWN TO MANKIND. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. ROADRUNNERS AND COYOTES AREN'T REALLY ENEMIES.

I will wager that, if explained at all, gas stations and gas are portrayed as restaurants and food. How the universe works is remarkably obvious, possibly so obvious they won't even explain it to the intended pre-teen audience - but I guess it's necessary for someone to explain it to you.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:18 (twenty years ago)

thanks for being patronizing. always refreshing to see on the internet.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:19 (twenty years ago)

How did the inhabitants of Nimh learn how to transmit an oral history from generation to generation - rats can't talk!

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:20 (twenty years ago)

Mexican mice can't wear sombreros.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:21 (twenty years ago)

Apparently there is a VW hippie wagon who brews his own biodiesel in his backyard.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:22 (twenty years ago)

yes but if you posit that rats CAN talk - and create an explicit backstory to explain the rats' intelligence (the whole point of the fucking book/movie) - then the other conclusions follow naturally. try to keep up here. or keep distorting my point for comedy value - the laffs just keep on comin!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:23 (twenty years ago)

George Carlin voices the burnout VW, I'm looking forward to that.

So if you posit that cars are sentient, and do people things, then "the other conclusions follow naturally." You seem not to grasp this concept well. THEY'RE CARS HOW DOES THEY GET GAS?

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:26 (twenty years ago)

They have pedals on the ground, its in a trailer.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:28 (twenty years ago)

I think you would have to modify cars a bit to explain how they would do a majority of people things (buttons instead of arms, etc.) Physically speaking, as the animators allude to in that article posted above, cars are way more different from people than bugs, or toys, or robots are. To make this idea work, it seems like it requires some stretches that are fairly random and/or nonsensical. (pedals? plz explain)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:37 (twenty years ago)

honestly what this really all reminds me of is the presentation in Big where the guy has developed the toy that's a robot that turns into a building.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:38 (twenty years ago)

There are no stretches larger than 'sentient automobiles.'

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:39 (twenty years ago)

shakey mo is still otm!

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 17:42 (twenty years ago)

I was only half paying attention but gas stations were described as diners and the cars would step on the pedals (think of a garbage can pedal) to pump the gas. It was being narrated by John Ratzenberger as a part of the tv presentation of Toy Story so I wasn't really focusing.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:06 (twenty years ago)

I kind of want to see this movie now almost solely because of the sheer amount of unnecessary cognitive dissonance it's causing Shakey! But then I remember LtCG and FUCK THAT SHIT.

― Dan (Unfunniest Motherfucker Alive) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:10 (twenty years ago)

NO NO THEY'RE LIKE KITT

― chaki (chaki), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:17 (twenty years ago)

it seems pretty silly and jaded to me to not even be able to imagine a situation in which this could work without involving humans. This movie is going to fail because you just can't quite suspend enough disbelief to think that this universe could make for a good movie?

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:39 (twenty years ago)

I am buying Dan a Larry the Cable Guy doll for his birthday.

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:44 (twenty years ago)

no one bothered to explain to shakey that a movie called "nacho libre" self-evidently makes fun of stereotypes and/or people who hold them, so why are we bothering to explain that a movie about a universe of sentient cars self-evidently requires a complete and total suspension of belief?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:46 (twenty years ago)

I am buying Dan a Larry the Cable Guy doll for his birthday.

Do a deal where you buy me a Keanu figurine and you'll have made us both so happy. (I mean, I *am* assuming he would welcome the doll because he could then completely destroy it.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:48 (twenty years ago)

When I went to Kentucky last year they were selling Larry the cable guy dolls at every gas station.

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:50 (twenty years ago)

Shakey, none of us have seen the movie, so none of us can tell you in intricate detail as to how cars can be anthropomorphized enough to make a feature film featuring human-y cars. No one here besides ethan seems to understand what your point is. You don't like cars! Ok! If you really, really can't get past the idea that cars can be humanized a la Fievel or Yogi Bear or any number of non-human cartoon characters, then I'm not sure why you're even on this thread because you're arguing with a bunch of people who apparently are willing to, on some level, accept the idea that sometimes, in cartoons, human characters are actually robotics or animals, and we're willing to at least WAIT TIL THE MOVIE COMES OUT before we judge it for "not explaining" this fact. If you just don't understand the basic concept of an upcoming release, why on earth are you concerned about it?

Also guys buy one copy of the Velveteen Rabbit.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:51 (twenty years ago)

if theres no people then who made the cars? humanized animals make sense because animals really exist & could still exist even in a world with no people - cars were invented & are constructed only by humans (or those robot arms) and their presence makes no sense in a world that is devoid of people unless this is some kind of weird post-holocaust mad max scenario where only machines survived

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:53 (twenty years ago)

Did you know that bananas don't wear pajamas?

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:56 (twenty years ago)

Ned can do whatever freaky thing he wants to with a Keanu doll, but if someone gives me a Larry the Cable Guy ANYTHING I will seriously shit.

(xpost: okay you're kidding, right?)

― Dan (Grah) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:56 (twenty years ago)

i mean seriously, toy story works because people still create the toys, own them, play with them, etc, the film just supposes that when people arent looking they come alive!! it could be our actual world &we just dont know about it because they dont start talking until we leave the room!! but a world with no people, populated by living, talking automobiles who occupy buildings seemingly made for humans, wtf is that?? why do they have steering wheels?? what dictates the size of their doors?? i thought the exact same thing as shakey & it really does fuck up the premise of the movie unless youre so completely uncurious you dont bother engaging with a film beyond whats immediately presented to you

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:56 (twenty years ago)

I wonder if they make Larry the Cable Guy pajamas.

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:58 (twenty years ago)

Somehow I don't think it's a character flaw to not be curious about a Pixar movie starring Larry the Cable Guy.

― Dan (PRIORITIES) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:58 (twenty years ago)

ie I can't tell you how/if they explain the origin story of android cars, but I'm willing to wait til/if I see the movie before I blast it as being nonsense for not explaining this...

xpost oh bravo, bravo, yes, clearly being willing to accept the premise of a children's film THAT NONE OF US HAS SEEN YET about talking cars makes you an uncurious dolt.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:58 (twenty years ago)

xxpost -- With buttflaps, to help prevent against bootyflakes.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:59 (twenty years ago)

git-r-doze!!

― and what (ooo), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:59 (twenty years ago)

I think its funny that most people on the thread are happy to equate a car with an animal, even tho the two things could not be more different physically.

Ally I thought maybe someone on this thread might have seen a pre-screening or a preview or a plot synopsis or something.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 18:59 (twenty years ago)

only someone "completely uncurious" would be unable to get their head around a movie without an obvious plot or backstory.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:00 (twenty years ago)

These are all valid points. However, they're points one should make after seeing the movie, hanging out with one's friends, while high (preferably).

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:00 (twenty years ago)

Nah, best I can tell is ppl have read some articles about it and seen the trailer. I don't even know when this thing's coming out.

xpost haha lemin otm.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:01 (twenty years ago)

ILXors in not-so-borderline-autistic-dikplay-frenzy non-shocker

― Dan (WTF Guys) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:02 (twenty years ago)

Clearly, God made the cars. The lady-car was created with one of Owen Wilson's headers.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:03 (twenty years ago)

Waking Cars

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:04 (twenty years ago)

Dan what are you even referencing?

I think it's obvious that the cars are a separatist cult who move away from the humans.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:05 (twenty years ago)

haha - that would be awesome

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:06 (twenty years ago)

I cannot grasp the thought processes that require one to demand an explanation of the invention of cars in a fictitious world where cars appear to be an organic being. It remains a cartoon. These cars exist because someone fucking drew them.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:07 (twenty years ago)

I think it'd be a good new direction for Pixar!

(Guys I don't really like Toy Story, srsly. My fave Pixar is prolly Finding Nemo)

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:08 (twenty years ago)

see, guys, the cars exist in the spaces where humans don't!

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:08 (twenty years ago)

Dan what are you even referencing?

"HOW ON EARTH COULD THESE ANTHROPOMORPHIC CARS EXIST? IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE? WAPNER IS ON AT SIX, MAYBE HE WILL TELL ME?" etc etc

― Dan (IE, I'm Being A Dick) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:08 (twenty years ago)

I was totally confused and thought you were yelling at gabbneb which made NO sense to me, sorry. Fuckin xposts!

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:10 (twenty years ago)

We need Carl Sagan to explain the Cars universe. Or Stephen Hawking.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:11 (twenty years ago)

Woah... So, like, who drew us???

― Dan (Lenin OTM) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:13 (twenty years ago)

Jesus Is My Animator

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:14 (twenty years ago)

"Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true..."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:15 (twenty years ago)

pixar's new movie is set in a invisibles/neverwhere type world between world! holy shit!

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:15 (twenty years ago)

OMG what if Cars is really a Transformers movie but Pixar is trying not to ruin the surprise!?!??111!/!?!omg!

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:17 (twenty years ago)

This movie's version of Earth is what they had written down in the Hitchhikers' Guide Unedited Edition until Zaphod Beeblebrox actually came down and visited and nearly got killed trying to greet a fast-approaching Datsun. It is a fairy tale about our planet told by space aliens who classify the humans as domesticated animals.

Happy now?

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:19 (twenty years ago)

Maximum Overdrive -- note the add for Cars in the Plot Summary.

― BrianB (BrianB), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:20 (twenty years ago)

Maximum Overdrive just got added to the top of my Netflix queue.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:26 (twenty years ago)

Ally I thought maybe someone on this thread might have seen a pre-screening or a preview or a plot synopsis or something.

Plot: Owen Wilson, a famous stock car driver gets the shaft in backwoods town on Route 66 and has to do community service repairing the road before he's allowed out of town. He falls in love with a lawyer car who teaches him the morale of the story. He has a final race against the evil bad rival car and the race probably involves both Paul Newman (an old stock car) and Larry the Cable Guy (tow truck). John Ratzenberger (rig) has a bit part as always.

It will probably be better then I think but it probably won't have 'escapé' written anywhere.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:34 (twenty years ago)

lawyer car?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:36 (twenty years ago)

Oh here we go again.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:36 (twenty years ago)

you guys have ruined Tranformers forever!

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:39 (twenty years ago)

Plot Summary for
Cars (2006)

Lightning McQueen is a cocky, rookie race car. Speeding on his way to a big race, he crashes into Radiator Springs, destroying lots of the inhabitants belongings. In order to make up for what he did, the cocky roadster is sentenced to community service. Though he will do anything to get away from the work, McQueen must learn to respect and bond with the Radiator Springs inhabitants in order to get out of the town and back on the racetracks.

― Dan (What An Assy Movie Premise) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:40 (twenty years ago)

McQueen!!

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:43 (twenty years ago)

that premise reads like Northern Exposure - WITH CARS! (I hope that was actually the pitch given to the studios...)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:45 (twenty years ago)

Owen Wilson provides the voice for Flouncy DiDragster, a tricked-out Mini Cooper S with 'tude!

― Dan (Bondage Flick) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:45 (twenty years ago)

ACTUALLY ANY OF YOU COULD HAVE READ THIS FURTHER UPTHREAD WHEREIN JIMMY THE MOD EXPLAINED IT ALBEIT IN A SLIGHTLY OBLIQUE FASHION.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 19:57 (twenty years ago)

None of us have actually seen Doc Hollywood.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:01 (twenty years ago)

I saw "Dr. Detroit", does that count?

― Dan (Please Say Yes) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:02 (twenty years ago)

Well, ok. But only if you also saw Dr. T and the Women.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:04 (twenty years ago)

YAHTZEE

― Dan (Sadly, I Did Not See "Dr. Giggles") Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:05 (twenty years ago)

Dr. Strangelove? Doctor Zhivago? Dr. No?

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:08 (twenty years ago)

5,000 Fingers of Dr T!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:10 (twenty years ago)

(xpost) Yes! No. Yes!

Also I've all the Dr. Doolittles!

― Dan (Woot) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:11 (twenty years ago)

I'd like to see a Pixar car film based on The Island of Dr. Moreau.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:11 (twenty years ago)

Walt Disney's I Spit On Your Grave

― Dan (Theme Song By Ashley Parker Angel) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:13 (twenty years ago)

I love you all.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:16 (twenty years ago)

I've watched Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:17 (twenty years ago)

I have watched and own far too much Doctor Who.

― Dan (PETER DAVISON ROXOR) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:19 (twenty years ago)

taking sides: http://drwhotht.phenominet.com/d5-trans.gif vs. http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/portraits/jane_seymour.jpg

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:21 (twenty years ago)

Way to stack the deck there! "Taking Sides: goofy Britisher in cricket gear vs GORGEOUS NAKED WOMAN"

― Dan (Like She Ever Looked Like That On The Show) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:22 (twenty years ago)

haha sorry, it was unfair.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:23 (twenty years ago)

I will always stand up for the rights of goofy Britishers in cricket gear.

― Bluebell Madonna (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:23 (twenty years ago)

I was gonna say, that's def the hottest pic I've ever seen of Dr. Quinn...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:24 (twenty years ago)

Even the hardcore Whovians would have to think twice about that Jane Seymour picture.

― Dan (Although They Would Probably End Up Masturbating To Both) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:24 (twenty years ago)

Ethan's childlike sense of wonder on this thread is making me tear up a little.

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:25 (twenty years ago)

That pic of Dr. Quinn kinda looks more like "Dr. Kate Moss" to me but you can tell it's her on account of the wonky eye.

TMI re: masturbatory Dr. Who habits.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:26 (twenty years ago)

http://www.offstagetheatregroup.com/index11.htm

― Dan (I'm Just Saying...) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:33 (twenty years ago)

A dark and strange world, that.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:44 (twenty years ago)

those people are miles and miles cooler than DC's own Capitol Club, though.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:45 (twenty years ago)

http://www.offstagetheatregroup.com/index11pics/15.JPG

― Dan (You Say "Tomayto"...) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 20:53 (twenty years ago)

these cars are dumber than a bag of hammers

― chaki (chaki), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 21:01 (twenty years ago)

Apparently there is a VW hippie wagon who brews his own biodiesel in his backyard.

He's based on an actual Route 66 character

Had things turned out a bit differently, the millions who will see the movie "Cars," which opens here June 9, also would have left the theater familiar with the name Waldmire.

The characters in the movie, made by Pixar/Disney, are animated cars. One of them is a 1960 VW minibus. The minibus has an attitude straight out of Haight-Ashbury circa 1968 and is voiced by George Carlin. It sounds like Carlin's Hippie-Dippy Weatherman bit, only with wheels.

The character is named "Fillmore" after the famous rock-concert venue. Originally, the production crew wanted to name the minibus "Waldmire" after Bob Waldmire, a traveling artist and a free spirit in his own right. But a man has his principles, and Bob stood firm on his. He refused to give Pixar permission to use his name.

Bob puts the "traveling" in traveling artist, moving frequently along Route 66 from here to Arizona, and he is not in Springfield all the time. But I found him last week at the converted school bus he lives in when he is in town. There is no phone there. Visitors have to just show up and hope he's around. I got lucky.

The school bus sits next to Bob's own VW minibus, which is covered with anti-establishment stickers, including a peace symbol and marijuana leaf. Next to that is his 1965 Mustang, which features a map of Route 66 Bob drew from the hood to the trunk. He has driven the '65 over every drivable inch of 66. The sticker on its bumper proclaims him a "Peacemonger."

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:00 (twenty years ago)

Cthulhu forbid that anyone here should see this movie...

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009YXAW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

WHA? HOW THE FUCK DOES A TOASTER AND DESK LAMP TALK???!?!

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:06 (twenty years ago)

and their presence makes no sense in a world that is devoid of people unless this is some kind of weird post-holocaust mad max scenario where only machines survived

i love this so much... imagine that was the big reveal at the end of the movie?!

god, thinking about "surprise" movies gets me way too excited

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:07 (twenty years ago)

there are people in the Brave Little Toaster.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:11 (twenty years ago)

fuck - I just remembered that one of my bandmates actually already saw Cars a couple weeks ago! I'll just ask her how the film explains/deals with the no-humans thing when I see her tomorrow.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:14 (twenty years ago)

YES THIS IS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING? I'm not yelling at you I'm just like wtf I have been writing in esperanto here or something apparently.

I know this won't be helpful, but you come across as the ultimate blend of Dirty Harry + Gilbert Gottfried so I usually tune you out.

― The Jazz Guide to Penguins on Compact Disc (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:16 (twenty years ago)

WHA? HOW THE FUCK DOES A TOASTER AND DESK LAMP TALK???!?!

With exuberance.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:27 (twenty years ago)

I never realized Jane Seymour was a fox once upon a time.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:35 (twenty years ago)

next: Cars on ice!

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 7 June 2006 23:49 (twenty years ago)

i always thought it was totally common knowledge that jane seymor was hot. she was a bond girl!

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 June 2006 01:58 (twenty years ago)

ultimate blend of Dirty Harry + Gilbert Gottfried

One day I hope to mellow out into a cross between Stephen Root's character from Newsradio and Lewis Black.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 03:05 (twenty years ago)

Words can't express how completely cold every trailer for this movie has left me. They might as well call it Movie Expressly Made To Keep Dan Perry Out Of Movie Theatres. It isn't even a visceral reaction, more bemused "why the hell would I want to see that?" puzzlement.

I'm sure others have said something about this (I skimmed the thread) but all Pixar trailers look crappy and underwhelming to me. While most bad-to-mediocre movies have trailers that make them look better than they are, Pixar has had the exact opposite problem.

― Cunga (Cunga), Thursday, 8 June 2006 03:59 (twenty years ago)

Jane Seymour is still a total babe, wtf.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Thursday, 8 June 2006 12:28 (twenty years ago)

dan did you see dr doolittle 3 with kyla pratt??

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 12:46 (twenty years ago)

I'm sure others have said something about this (I skimmed the thread) but all Pixar trailers look crappy and underwhelming to me.

OK at this point I'm actually literally busting out laughing. I don't mean to single you out Cunga but you're just about the 15th person who has said this!

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 13:31 (twenty years ago)

"Why aren't you people reading the ENTIRE thread about talking cars before spouting off with your immature claptrap?"

― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 14:33 (twenty years ago)

THERE'S A DOOLITTLE 3?????

Where the hell have I been????

― Dan (Mind Blown) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 14:41 (twenty years ago)

Hahaha it's not even about reading the entire thread, hell I haven't. But I mean within the last 50 posts! I don't mind, it's just making me laugh rather hard at this point--I mean seriously hasn't anyone considered doing a find on "trailer"?

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 14:44 (twenty years ago)

doolittle 3 is straight-to-video

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 14:52 (twenty years ago)

norm macdonald returned for it!!

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 14:53 (twenty years ago)

Okay, I feel better. Strangely enough.

― Dan (HI DERE NETFLIX) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 14:53 (twenty years ago)

Shakey's valiant struggle here will live on in the hearts and mouths of every child who exits the theater and asks, "Mommy, where do cars come from?"

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:43 (twenty years ago)

carginas

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:44 (twenty years ago)

the worst part of the trailer is the disturbing joke about the lady car's lower-back tattoo

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:45 (twenty years ago)

Is it followed by a "junk in the trunk" joke?

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:46 (twenty years ago)

somebody post the youtube of chris parnell fucking a car

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:48 (twenty years ago)

it's not followed by a junk in the trunk joke but it really should be. maybe in the actual movie!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:49 (twenty years ago)

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/98/pics/98emercury2.jpg
A fine automobile is something to be admired - even adored. It's an extension of you. You love your car so much, you want to share your most intimate moments with it. Well, now you can. Introducing the Mercury Mistress, the world's first car that you can actually have sex with.

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:49 (twenty years ago)

why do cars live in buildings built for people?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:50 (twenty years ago)

omg I've never seen that Chris Parnell thing holy shit

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:52 (twenty years ago)

Anyway, I think Ethan's close to being onto something about the problem with this premise, which is that most such things kind of enable kids' imaginations by telling them where this magical world might exist in relation to them -- they can kinda pretend that's really what their toys do when they're gone, or that there are friendly ant or monster dramas going on all around them, whereas with this it isn't even just that there's some mystical faraway land of anthropomorphic cars, it's that America has somehow undergone some kind of primate holocaust. Kids will see cars every minute of every day and it will be hard for them to imagine any real-world sentience going on there.

HOWEVER I think what Ethan and Shakey are forgetting is that little boys play with toy cars! So in that sense this isn't a huge leap from Toy Story. Little boys play with cars in kind of anthropomorphic ways, even -- they're not really interested in the drivers, just in the different types of cars as personalities in and of themselves -- and so presumably they wouldn't imagine this as an actual universe (and wonder where cars come from, and where human went). Ideally it would look to them like their car-and-truck toy playtime has suddenly come to life.

Thus the end surprise should be a GIANT GRUBBY CHILD-HAND that descends from the top of the frame and starts fiddling with the cars right up until its mother calls it to dinner.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:55 (twenty years ago)

Tom to thread to start screaming crazily about how he's already said what nabisco just said but without 50 extra words in 5...4....3......

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 15:56 (twenty years ago)

you know what movie dealt with the living talking car thing well was who framed roger rabbit!

its a shame they were too lazy to bother with the cartoon/human interaction that made that movie & toy story so great, think of all the great stuff you could wring from humans driving these living, sentient, talking cars - peoples cars could represent their personalities and resent not getting enough check-ups and stuff like that. every other film named on this thread as an example of some 'impossible' world has still had the dynamic ive basically described, which is a slight variation on our world. the closest thing to the premise of this film is when like autistic janitors end up filling notebooks with thousands of pages of made-up history for some alien world in a language only they understand, its just so far removed from any sense of legitimate creative vocabulary that i really cant buy into it

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:00 (twenty years ago)

i mean, imagine toy story, if it had been in these empty surburban houses, still built for humans & dwarfing the toys, but the toys were the only ones inhabiting them, and they had to make breakfast in the kitchen on human-sized appliances & drive human sized cars around the neighborhood & interact with each other in the complete absence of anything but other children's toys, with no explanation of who made them or for what purpose - wouldnt that be a little creepy?

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:02 (twenty years ago)

the only problem is cgi humans still look so awful and creepy

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:05 (twenty years ago)

except in incredibles i guess

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:05 (twenty years ago)

yeah they dont HAVE to be creepy

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:05 (twenty years ago)

this movie would be much more interesting if it were about the No. 1 Bass Pro Shops Chevrolet team and the No. 9 Dodge Dealers/UAW Dodge team

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:07 (twenty years ago)

i wonder if there are any big city scenes to set the context for the small town - wtf will be going on there?!? this movie seems dead & claustrophobic as fuck, like silent running if only the robots were on it

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:08 (twenty years ago)

Possibly the problem is that it'd be harder to do interesting cartoony character-design on cars and then still have humans getting into them -- the cars would sometimes need detail on a human scale, but for most of the film you'd want to be zooming out to a kind of car-scale where the cars seemed human-sized. (If that makes sense.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:09 (twenty years ago)

I think Charlie Brown's teacher does a muted horn voice over for the human characters in Cars. You don't see them but you know they're there because of the wah wha wha wa wah wah noises.

― BrianB (BrianB), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:10 (twenty years ago)

I never saw "Robots"; did they have mythical human creators?

What about "Valiant"; did they interact with people?

I don't buy the thesis that human intervention is required to make the premise valid.

― Dan (Also FUCK LARRY THE CABLE GUY) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:10 (twenty years ago)

maybe its a sequel to
http://dvd-new-release.net/the.day.after.tomorrow/the.day.after.tomorrow.down.jpg

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:11 (twenty years ago)

wtf is valiant??

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:12 (twenty years ago)

The great thing is that in about ten or twelve years there will totally be stoned-ass guys sitting around college dorms having exactly this conversation.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:13 (twenty years ago)

wtf is valiant??

Be glad you don't know.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:14 (twenty years ago)

but robots work as a substitute for people in a way that cars do not (ie, robots can be easily designed to mimic human functions in a believable way). for one thing, its entirely reasonable to assert that a robot can make another robot. But how does a car make another car?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:15 (twenty years ago)

"Dude, remember Cars? Dude, have you ever thought about how fucked-up that shit was, man? It's like ... dude, what did they do to all the humans, man?"

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:15 (twenty years ago)

horrible movie about passenger pigeons in wwii

(there were humans in it)

(xp re valiant)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:15 (twenty years ago)

Please don't make me google "cars fucking".

― Dan (I'm At Work Here) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:16 (twenty years ago)

TALKING ABOUT PIXAR KILLS MOVIES MAN

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:17 (twenty years ago)

(Nabisco, the movie's out in a week! I think you meant "days" where you said "years".)

― Dan (Let's Face Facts) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:17 (twenty years ago)

Wait wait, I've got it! Cars takes place in a dystopian future-America where cars have become sentient, and have rounded up all humans and deployed them to the mid-east as soldiers and/or independent contractors in the service of their unquenchable thirst for oil!

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:17 (twenty years ago)

mad maximum overdrive

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:18 (twenty years ago)

truck everlasting

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:18 (twenty years ago)

i own the copyright on those titles btw

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:19 (twenty years ago)

I love you.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:19 (twenty years ago)

It's like The Matrix, only with cars and petroleum.

Or maybe, if you looked underneath those gas-station diners, you'd find endless rows of humans being sucked of their energy through a high-tech lifeforce-to-gasoline conversion system.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:20 (twenty years ago)

ROFLZ at nabisco (I love the post-people-apocalypse scenarios suggested here, but we all know they won't suggest anything nearly that interesting/creepy)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:20 (twenty years ago)

seriously if this movie ends with humans showing up at the end in any capacity i will see it 10x

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:21 (twenty years ago)

what if larry the cable guy talking about how he put on 1700 lbs for the role WASNT A JOKE

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:22 (twenty years ago)

And what if he actually fucked a car.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:24 (twenty years ago)

whoa man

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:25 (twenty years ago)

AT THE END OF THE FILM IT WILL BE REVEALED THAT EVERYTHING HAPPENED IN A "SNOWGLOBE" OWNED BY AN AUTISTIC CHILD

IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS

EITHER THAT OR IT'S A FABLE BASED ON THE LIFE OF JOSEPH SMITH

OK?

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:26 (twenty years ago)

at the end all the cars morph into predator ships

except owen wilson who morphs into the batmobile

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:28 (twenty years ago)

I hear there's a scene where they go to a dealership and pick a new driver out of a showroom cage - charlton heston cameos.

― BrianB (BrianB), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:32 (twenty years ago)

I want you all to go to die in a fire and go to fucking hell

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:44 (twenty years ago)

I feel like I'm at a party where I don't know anyone and people are having this impossibly lame conversation around the fridge and I'm trying to inject myself into it because there's nothing else going on and everything I say is apparently striking some invisible forcefield of silence three inches from my face

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:48 (twenty years ago)

I love you too.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:48 (twenty years ago)

arent most of yall the same ppl who thought 'the village' had a wholly unbelievable plot?

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 16:52 (twenty years ago)

Tom I just re-read all yr posts and I don't see anything where you explicitly address the workability/unworkability of the premise - apart from a joke about the Hitchhikers Guide and the assertion that kids anthropomorphize cars...? and that the plot is stolen from Doc Hollywood...?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:00 (twenty years ago)

i hate for shakey to keep being otm

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:10 (twenty years ago)

Shakey, where you have addressed the workability/unworkability of cars talking/thinking/feeling/fucking/etc?

Doc Hollywood is the best movie ever

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:12 (twenty years ago)

arent most of yall the same ppl who thought 'the village' had a wholly unbelievable plot?

I just thought "The Village" was badly-acted and really fucking obvious; the premise itself was fine.

― Dan (Nice Try) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:14 (twenty years ago)

it was fun!

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:16 (twenty years ago)

To say nothing of how I feel about glorifying or humanizing cars and car culture, which I am definitely not down with...

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), June 7th, 2006.

why do cars live in buildings built for people?

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), June 8th, 2006.

and I'll say it again: LAWYER CAR?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:17 (twenty years ago)

I'm not at all interested in the workability/unworkability of the premise discussion. I think everyone who has made the comment about that topic being best left to bored stoners after they've already seen the film is OTM. I think ethan has some good points about how the larger human environment was leveraged in the other Pixar films sans Incredibles, but I'm not interested in passing judgement on that topic either until I've seen the movie and how they actually handle everything.

I think I'm probably one of the last people on earth who would criticize a film for having a "wholly unbelievable plot" or whatever, unless we're talking about the movie Nude Spock posted about 9/11.

Anyway my die and go to hell post was in response to Ally in response to nabisco way upthread, I was just playing along with that half of the crowd, you guys can go back to repeating yourselves ad infinitum though about how automobiles and people must coexist and there's no other acceptably practical concept of the universe, therefore this film should implode backwards in time and/or we must assume that it is a product of an antimatter dimension and is a grave threat to all known existence

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:19 (twenty years ago)

thanks for clearin that up Tom.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:21 (twenty years ago)

ts: bored stoners vs angry stoners

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:22 (twenty years ago)

http://hometown.aol.com/volkswagenherbie/images/herbie%20pic1.jpg

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:22 (twenty years ago)

OK, I think it's time now for everyone to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR1Mm5uC_8A

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:23 (twenty years ago)

I've never even seen the Village!

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:26 (twenty years ago)

if you guys are so bored, why don't you write the nanotechnology-takes-over-and-makes-sentient-cars-(Welcome-to-Onstar!)-and-kills-humans-with-microbugs-backstory so it's comprehensible to the under-14 demographic (and supports product tie-ins at Chevy and Napa)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:28 (twenty years ago)

it was pretty good ally!

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:34 (twenty years ago)

Don't listen to him, Ally!

― Dan (Worse Than "Unbreakable") Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:38 (twenty years ago)

so bad

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:40 (twenty years ago)

ethan if you make me watch the village and it makes me all RED RUM with how dumb it is I'm going to call you so many bad names on this messageboard

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:42 (twenty years ago)

I'm not going to watch it because the "TWIST" was already spoiled for me and I have it on good authority ("good authority": I stripper I hung out with exactly twice) that knowing the twist in advance makes the movie, which she liked, "totally crap probably," and I don't wanna risk the disappointment.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:44 (twenty years ago)

(Also, talking shit about a movie you've seen isn't quite the same thing as talking shit about a movie you haven't seen unless of course you aren't seeing it specifically because of a particular actor.)

(xpost: TOM JUST TRUST ME, IT SUCKS; THE ONLY ENTERTAINING BIT IS WATCHING THE BLIND CHICK BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF SOMEONE WHICH I ADMIT WAS PRETTY DAMNED ENTERTAINING.)

― Dan (FUCK LARRY THE CABLE GUY) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:45 (twenty years ago)

kitt is a car that also talks

― chaki (chaki), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:45 (twenty years ago)

Unbreakable is BY FAR the best MNShamalam or however you spell his name movie.

The "blind girl" in the Village cracks me up.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:46 (twenty years ago)

that blind chick can beat the shit out of me anytime

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:47 (twenty years ago)

Okay really, Samuel L. Jackson does not save every movie he's in.

― Dan (Come On Now) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:48 (twenty years ago)

The addition of Samuel L. Jackson would've made Little Women starring Winona Ryder and Christian Bale 100x better, though, admit that much, Dan.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:50 (twenty years ago)

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/2000/images/unbreakable3.jpg

"ACTING!"

(xpost: Ethan ew.)
(xxpost: Only if he said "These muthafuckin' women are muthafuckin' little!" Ally.)

― Dan (Slow Typing Day) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:52 (twenty years ago)

Yeah and then an old woman shoots Christian Bale

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:54 (twenty years ago)

I love this thread.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:56 (twenty years ago)

Dude still needs to make Unbreakable 2 and make Bruce Willis wear a cape.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:57 (twenty years ago)

Die Hard in the Water

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:58 (twenty years ago)

M. Night Shamaylan's Die Hard

― remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:59 (twenty years ago)

Bruce Willis is really THE TERRORIST

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:59 (twenty years ago)

Sam Jackson sees dead-ass mothafuckas.

― remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:00 (twenty years ago)

Bruce Willis on a Plane

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:00 (twenty years ago)

Bruce Willis on a snake?

― remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:01 (twenty years ago)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

― remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:01 (twenty years ago)

This all just needs to be put together in something called Movie, and at the end the Battle Royale cast kills everyone.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:01 (twenty years ago)

I want to see a movie with just a plane and some snakes and no people anywhere.

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:02 (twenty years ago)

it doesn't have to be feature-length

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:02 (twenty years ago)

Who does the snakes' voices?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:02 (twenty years ago)

Hey what do you guys think about Meerkat Manor, I mean there's no humans in it so it's pretty creepy and fucked up.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:02 (twenty years ago)

Did the snakes build the plane or what?

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:03 (twenty years ago)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40873000/jpg/_40873486_meerkat203b.jpg

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:04 (twenty years ago)

TOM: is as close as you're gonna get.

From an imdb.com review:

There's some good snake POV shots, the best of which comes when Oliver Reed opens the door of a liquor cabinet (ooh, big surprise there) and the nasty serpent lunges out at his face. The most tense and creepy scene comes as the mamba slowly slides up Reeds pant leg, slithering inexorably up towards his crotch...but I won't ruin the rest for you.

― remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:04 (twenty years ago)

aaawwwwwwwww

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:05 (twenty years ago)

Did the snakes build the plane or what?

Actually the plane is made of snakes.

― Dan (Snakes ARE A Plane) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:05 (twenty years ago)

LOL Thomas's youtube link is well worth checking out, BTW

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:06 (twenty years ago)

http://www.yuanlei.com/nintendo/rockman3/sn-2.png

― remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:07 (twenty years ago)

is it as good as the kitten playing with the laptop? there's no humans in that either. Where did the laptop come from?

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:08 (twenty years ago)

cars built it.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:08 (twenty years ago)

See also Thomas the Tank engine, with its umpteen number of anthropomorphized trains. Yes, these trains do exist to carry people and/or things and work along with conducters and station masters, but its the individual trains, each with their own name and characteristics, that little boys (and maybe some little girls?) are interested in/identify with.

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:10 (twenty years ago)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1156571/photo_48_hires.jpg

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:23 (twenty years ago)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1156571/photo_31.jpg

ok, we got Richard Petty's Plymouth Superbird, but what else?

if there's a 1970 barracuda(preferably bright green/yellow & black) in this flick, i'm totally seeing it

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:31 (twenty years ago)

OH GOD WHY DOES A TRUCK WEAR EAR PROTECTION

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:32 (twenty years ago)

Is that a couple of police cars back there in the first still giving the automotive equivalent of a beatdown?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:32 (twenty years ago)

oh wait:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_(film)#Voice_cast

...
# Lou Romano: Snot Rod (Plymouth Barracuda)
# E.J Holowicki: DJ (Scion xB)
# Elissa Knight: Tia (Mazda Miata)
# Lindsey Collins: Mia (Mazda Miata)
# Mike Nelson: Not Chuck (pickup truck)
# Edie McClurg: Minny (minivan)
# Richard Kind: Van (minivan)

OK I'M SEEING IT NOW

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:33 (twenty years ago)

carsthemovie.com has a ton of the cars on it with all sorts of meaningless trivia

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:33 (twenty years ago)

meaningless trivia

Sweet!

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:35 (twenty years ago)

Is that a couple of police cars back there in the first still giving the automotive equivalent of a beatdown?

if they have moustaches i'm definitely gonna watch it.

― scnnr drkly (scnnr drkly), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:35 (twenty years ago)

# Mike Nelson: Not Chuck (pickup truck)

Er, wait.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:40 (twenty years ago)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1156571/photo_03_hires.jpg

GUESS WHAT LINE HE'LL SAY IN THE MOVIE, DAN

CMON, GUESS

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:41 (twenty years ago)

well hung?

― Atreyu!!! (x Jeremy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:42 (twenty years ago)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1156571/photo_13_hires.jpg

CHEECH

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:43 (twenty years ago)

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1156571/photo_15.jpg

BUT NOT CHONG

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:44 (twenty years ago)

the closest thing to the premise of this film is when like autistic janitors end up filling notebooks with thousands of pages of made-up history for some alien world in a language only they understand

haha writing "this film" when you meant "this thread" and/or "ILX"

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:44 (twenty years ago)

Wait, so in the Cars racing scenes, those are other cars in the stands, right?

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:45 (twenty years ago)

mike nelson!!!!!!!!!!

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:57 (twenty years ago)

his car should have a u-w stout bumper sticker

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 18:58 (twenty years ago)

WAIT A MINUTE

from the wiki voice actors page

# Mario Andretti: Mario Andretti

!??!!!?!?!!!!??

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:06 (twenty years ago)

figuring this out is my 'so not gonna happen'

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:07 (twenty years ago)

He plays a car who happens to be named Mario Andretti; I don't see the issue here.

― Dan (Heh) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:22 (twenty years ago)

oh yeah, you guys know that the two guys from Car Talk are in this, right?

(as is Jeremy Piven)

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:24 (twenty years ago)

The whole movie is clearly a metaphor for the AIDS crisis.

― Eppy (I'm serious) (Eppy), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:25 (twenty years ago)

his car should have a u-w stout bumper sticker

Hahahaha.

"I heard the Cubs lost again..."

Wait, so in the Cars racing scenes, those are other cars in the stands, right?

THE GREAT MYSTERY.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:27 (twenty years ago)

i'm wondering if cars live in the skyscrapers shown in the background of that low-rider shot

― kingfish du lac (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:28 (twenty years ago)

But why would cars watch other cars race? WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION?

― Dan (Mind Blown) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:29 (twenty years ago)

Why do people watch track and field meets?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:29 (twenty years ago)

(Every car in the stands will be an old Volvo station wagon.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:29 (twenty years ago)

I don't think Dan was being serious, per se.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:32 (twenty years ago)

I'm totally seeing this movie

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:40 (twenty years ago)

It would be sad if those were humans in the stands. Like we were just keeping a vast segregated American wasteland of sentient cars and then luring them into competition for our amusement.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:41 (twenty years ago)

xpost yeah its already given me more joy than any other movie this year

― and what (ooo), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:41 (twenty years ago)

http://fp.images.autos.msn.com/merismus/gallery/c460990a.jpg

I'd hit it.

― milo z (mlp), Thursday, 8 June 2006 19:49 (twenty years ago)

http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Dell/7306/thomas/james.jpg

― Øystein (Øystein), Thursday, 8 June 2006 20:01 (twenty years ago)

yeah i can't wait for click/clack. there's gonna be some hilariously bad meta-jokes here, peoples.

― lemin (lemin), Thursday, 8 June 2006 21:16 (twenty years ago)

Theodore Tugboat would totally beatdown Thomas The Tank Engine.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0780623290.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 8 June 2006 21:25 (twenty years ago)

pixar really does rule so hard. i almost feel bad for non-pixar movies. they look soooooooooooooooooo bad in comparison. over the hedge? that sad nemo-rip-off? oof. so ugly. does anyone know what technology they have that makes their stuff look 4000 times better? or do they just have every mad computer genius in the world locked up forever. i really wanna know. rufus is gonna flip for this.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 8 June 2006 21:42 (twenty years ago)

bay area weed

― chaki (chaki), Thursday, 8 June 2006 21:47 (twenty years ago)

Quite right.

I don't think Dan was being serious, per se.

WHY MUST YOU DESTROY DREAM

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 8 June 2006 21:56 (twenty years ago)

I just reread the whole thread and am a little bemused at how all of my posts appear to be invisible to everyone except for me & Andrew Farrell.

-- TOMBOT (tombo...), June 7th, 2006.

gabba gabba we accept you
one of us

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 8 June 2006 23:27 (twenty years ago)

Curtis I didn't know you were so close to 30

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 June 2006 03:30 (nineteen years ago)

So there's a hippie car in the movie as a concession to it's theme of glorifying car culture? I hope he gives a lecture to the other cars on how their "food" is destroying the environment. Then again, if they live in a world where only cars exist, WHY WOULD THEY CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 9 June 2006 08:42 (nineteen years ago)

you know what movie i ended up loving? Hot Wheels: World Race. I bought the video for Rufus when he was sick once, and it was highly entertaining. Very dreamy.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 9 June 2006 09:13 (nineteen years ago)

Woah I just had a flashback to a cartoon series / toy line from the 1980's with high-tech looking semi-anthropomorphic vehicles. Kind of like transformers that didn't transform I think.
There were probably a lot of cartoon/toy pantheons that fit that description but this is going to drive me crazy until I find the one I'm thinking of.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 9 June 2006 09:52 (nineteen years ago)

So there's a hippie car in the movie as a concession to it's theme of glorifying car culture?

I think I just sprained my eyes, they rolled so hard.

― Dan (Ow) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 9 June 2006 09:59 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder if his homebrewed biodiesel gets other cars high and tada! alternative fuel sources are demonized.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Friday, 9 June 2006 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

Does Tuomas rhyme with Momus?

Anyways as ILX's A-#1 car dork I am actually not really planning on running out and seeing this immediately (in part for the same reason Dan ain't; fuck a Cable Guy -- I'm just glad they didn't get Carlos Mencia to do the lowrider's voice). Maybe if they have a constantly wired and sniffling De Lorean or a PT Cruiser with Down's or any sign of an AMC Gremlin in the supporting cast I'll go see it.

Also, holy shit, I vaguely remembered seeing that "What on Earth" cartoon when I was like 4. Amazing stuff.

― Stupornaut (natepatrin), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

Tuomas, I think ONE movie glorifying car culture in ten years is okay, I mean I'm sure someone else would've just made it if they didn't, it's for the ART and shock value!

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:43 (nineteen years ago)

is Dan I thinking of Gobots...?

I talked to bandmate who saw a pre-screening of this and she says the cars just exist in this human world with no humans and everything is magically automated or something (ie, gas pumps, doors, etc.). It isn't dealt with explicitly. She also said this is the worst of the Pixar movies. She's a film editor for ILM, has done lots of work with/on the films of PDI, Pixar, etc.

I'm stickin to my guns that this idea is stupider and much less engaging than pretty much all their other premises.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

a film editor for ilm!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

Industrial Light and Magic yo

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

Okay, saying that this premise is dumber than their other ones isn't quite the same thing as saying this premise is totally untenable and HURTS MY BRANE OH NOES, which is how you've been coming across on this thread! If that's your real position, I agree with you (see my first post on the thread).

I'm on the verge of posting that anyone who willingly gives Larry The Cable Guy money is contributing to the downfall of America and should be deported so maybe I should get off this thread.

― Dan (GAH HATE THAT FUCKER) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:52 (nineteen years ago)

(well it does hurt my branes, cuz just thinking about it makes me run over questions that basically have no answers)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:55 (nineteen years ago)

i know shakey i was making a FUNNY.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:55 (nineteen years ago)

I R SLOW

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 14:56 (nineteen years ago)

ONE movie glorifying car culture in ten years

I hate to be a pooper but I think such films as the Fast/Furious franchise, Gone in 60 Seconds, and at least 20 heart-stopping edge-of-your-seat minutes of every action movie ever fit into the "glorifying car culture" mold.

xpost that's easy for you to say Mr. Dan "No Kids" Perry

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:03 (nineteen years ago)

Lukas: Dad, why won't you take me to see Cars?
Moi: Because, son, one of the voice actors is a painstaking douchefluid. Go back to Jedi battling your cousin.

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:04 (nineteen years ago)

SEE? Easy!

― Dan (I Will Be A Terrible Father) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:05 (nineteen years ago)

I want to see it for all of the Route 66 ephemera.

In fact, I want to annoy all the Tuomas-esque car haters here and see it AT A DRIVE-IN! (the Mission Tiki in Montclair!)

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:07 (nineteen years ago)

"Worst of the Pixar movies" still allows for it to be better than 90% of celluloid

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, really. i already know rufus will love it. i'm sure i won't hate it.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

um, nick, I love ya but A) I was referring to Pixar films only which was kinda obvious dude B) plz to read the other thread where Ethical Vegan Tuomas admits to using a pig heart in some faux sacrifice but 'only once in ten years' so it's ok!!!

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:20 (nineteen years ago)

Pixar pretty much went downhill all the way since Luxor Jr.

― JTS (JTS), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:47 (nineteen years ago)

OMG WHY U BRAEK PIGHAERT!?

― pigheart wrapped in bacon, but only once in ten years, so it's okay (nickaliciou, Friday, 9 June 2006 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

"Ethical Vegan Tuomas admits to using a pig heart in some faux sacrifice"

WTF?!?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

abortion is the sacrament

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

I wish I was making up the pig heart thing but I'm not and I'm totally going to use it every time Tuomas comes all on sanctimonious from now til the end of my time on ILX.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

link thread plz (actually I'm just curious what neo-pagan coven Tuomas belongs to)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:06 (nineteen years ago)

Would this have pissed you off?

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

well I'd cut him some slack - c'mon, it was high school. I'm sure everyone did some things they aren't proud of/can't adequately defend ethically as a young 'un.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

(course I eat meat so I gots no real moral objections to the use of dead animal parts)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:23 (nineteen years ago)

Haha no generally I agree with that statement, don't get me wrong.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Friday, 9 June 2006 16:39 (nineteen years ago)

Guide to Route 66 stuff in "Cars"

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Friday, 9 June 2006 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

Disney/Pixar's Fun-for-the-whole-family style of humor is so fucking lame ... whenever i'm in the theater during one of their previews -- you know how they always end it with some stupid punchline then somebody near u is all HAHAHAHAHA LOL!!!! and u just think "holy shit, embarrassing" cuz it aint funny and the little kid theyre taking to the movies is just gonna repeat it about a million timez in the car on the way home

― /4 LFG PST (blastocyst), Friday, 9 June 2006 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

http://static.flickr.com/51/162745902_53eaad3f45.jpg?v=0 and u know this dude is gonna be REAL FUNNY (-;

― /4 LFG PST (blastocyst), Friday, 9 June 2006 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

They make me laugh.

― Atreyu!!! (x Jeremy), Friday, 9 June 2006 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

haha I just read three separate reviews of this movie at lunch and all of them called out the Doc Hollywood thing.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 June 2006 18:44 (nineteen years ago)

And the trailer for the next Pixar movie (Ratatouille) hits the net...

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Friday, 9 June 2006 18:48 (nineteen years ago)

so has anyone seen it?

ratatouille is the one i'm excited for.

― kyle (akmonday), Sunday, 11 June 2006 14:25 (nineteen years ago)

Kinda boring for kids, isn't it? The only Pixar I've seen was the Incredibles, but they all seem to have had some measure of action and adventure to keep the little ones interested - this one, not so much.

Kind of touching (total sucker for the way the final race ended), the Monument Valley CGI is wicked awesome, Larry the Cable Guy is actually pretty funny (I guess he's OK if you keep him away from standup comedy?). Movie cliche built on movie cliche, but it works.

― milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 13 June 2006 01:24 (nineteen years ago)

I saw it yesterday, and liked it a LOT more than I was expecting. The slapstick comedy level was higher up than in other Pixars, but the CGI (backgrounds, neon, ample amounts of art deco everywhere) was just stunning.

― LOL Thomas (Chris Barrus), Sunday, 18 June 2006 04:55 (nineteen years ago)

I had completely forgotten how Pixar does those shorts before the feature, and the one for this movie (One Man Band) is absolutely one of the most awesome things ever.

Also, this film was very pleasant, totally NOT a romantization of speed glorious speed NASCAR culture, and in fact might just encourage huge swaths of those same NASCAR esconced American families to try out ol' Route 66 for themselves.

― you can email me if you wish to challenge the truth (nickalicious), Monday, 26 June 2006 12:15 (nineteen years ago)

Also, it was really cute that there were bugs that were teeny tiny little VW Beetles with wings.

― you can email me if you wish to challenge the truth (nickalicious), Monday, 26 June 2006 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

Also, I start lots of posts with "also", I just realized.

Also also also, there were some exciting previews: Monster House! How To Eat Fried Worms! Charlotte's Web! Ratatouille! And some not-so-exciting ones: Santa Claus THREE, ugh. Something else that somehow looked even more painfully retarded, double ugh.

― you can email me if you wish to challenge the truth (nickalicious), Monday, 26 June 2006 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Wow, I can't stand 'car culture', and NASCAR racing and what-have-you bores me rigid, but I just loved this film to bits.
Unabashedly lump-in-throat sentimental (regarding Route 66, '50s Americana etc) and heart-warming and funny and lovely and predictable in all the ways you want it to be and entertaining and seriously GORGEOUS to look at.

Way way way better than Monsters Inc, Bugs Life and... what other not-great Pixar movies are there? I'd put it above Nemo, as well. (but below Toy Story 1+2, and The Incredibles).

I didn't like the pre-feature short though :(

― David Orton (scarlet), Monday, 31 July 2006 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

two years pass...

http://cartoonoveranalyzations.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/insidelightning.jpg?w=450&h=263

― and what, Tuesday, 26 August 2008 18:19 (seventeen years ago)

Saw this recently, after avoiding it due to boring-looking subject matter. Much, much better than I'd expected, though maybe a bit overlong. Not quite up to Nemo level greatness, but close. (Wish they'd put the eyes in the headlights, though.)

― contenderizer, Tuesday, 26 August 2008 18:57 (seventeen years ago)

HOW DID THE CARS MAKE ALL THE BUILDINGS?

― chap, Tuesday, 26 August 2008 20:59 (seventeen years ago)

one month passes...

still haven't gotten around to seeing the thing, but that's a pretty good soundtrack, excepting the james taylor excrescence (oh i get it - two-lane blacktop - haha very funny, can we have mary-chapin carpenter back now?) and a couple of mrholland-isms among the pretty good faux-copland of the score.

― gabbneb, Friday, 26 September 2008 06:09 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.