John Lasseter's Cars 2 is apparently Pixar's first sub 60% rated movie on Rotten Tomatoes. Currently rated at 34%.
And then what will the reception of Cars 2 do to the mindset at Pixar, if anything? The company is well-known for adjusting to material that doesn’t work, famously scrapping versions of films even when they’re pretty far along (such as the pre-Brad Bird version of Ratatouille) and working at a story until they get it right. The decision to make sequels for Cars and Monsters, Inc. has met with criticism and resistance, and even Pixar seems to be aware that people want the company to make original films rather than sequels. Just see the marketing ramp-up for Brave, a slightly darker-than-usual Pixar film, which most audiences will discover for the first time when a teaser runs in front of Cars 2. Will the rotten rating of this weeks opening push the balance back towards films like Brave?
http://www.slashfilm.com/cars-2-pixars-rotten-movie/
So what went wrong?
John Lasseter isn't that great a director?
ReplyDeleteGenius producer/pioneer/visionary maybe. Though perhaps i'm saying this because the Pixar films I like the most are the ones he hasn't directed.
Finally. I was looking at past winners of the Animation award at the Oscar's. 6 out of 8 was Pixar. It would be nice to see more alternatives for feature length animation.
ReplyDeleteI watched 'Cars' for the first time a few days ago, and I pretty much hated it, some slick editing aside - oh, and the idea of 'tractor-tipping', which was a lovely bit of extended logic. Hopefully, Pixar will simply use the lukewarm/negative reception to this sequel to bolster its determination to face down the business model that demands sequels (and diminishing returns). Cars was definitely an example of 'turd polishing' - it looked great (indeed, all the stuff they did with lights and lighting in that movie was beautiful), but the story was.... yawn, and it's near impossible to give a shit about an emotional relationship between two cars; unless you're Jeremy Clarkeson, perhaps. Thanks for posting, Simon. Anyone out there LOVE Cars?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was that they were cars that it was difficult to empathise, I think they just fell short of developing the characters enough for us to really care. WALLE is a good example of this; if you can make the audience care for a relationship between a rusty trash robot and the egg thing that was EVE, then the same thing can likely be done with anything. It just didn't really happen with Cars.
ReplyDeleteI am indifferent to the first film and barely remember the plot, but what particularly stands out when thinking back is the visuals of the Monument Valley-esque environments, and yes, the lighting. What I wouldn't give to be able to take renders like that :p
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow long rant...
ReplyDeleteTbh the news this hasn't been well received doesn’t surprise me.
ReplyDeleteI think the main the problem with this film and the previous one is that it does step away from what Pixar does best and that give the audience a thought and then show you that idea come to life on the screen.
Let me explain take Toy Story this was built around the whole idea of what if your toys where alive and it was well executed, the idea formed the story the toys have feelings and emotions that lead to the events that happen in the film.
Bugs life was the perspective of the world from a bug again interesting concept
Monsters Inc what if the monsters real and had their own world, Again idea forms the story
The Incredibles, what if superheroes were real and forced into retirement.
The list goes on...
I think that Cars films stands out as the odd one in the Pixar filmography what is the idea in film? That cars with faces are funny or that fast cars are nice to look at... see not that great a message.
I will say that I've never seen Cars just because the visuals style and that fact that it’s about Cars just really really puts me off. Every time I see one of the characters all I can picture is this rubbish animated series from the early 90's
http://www.china2galway.com/CV%20Oscar%27s%20orchestra.jpg
(These are just my thoughts on the Pixar films )
Don’t get me wrong I think sequels can work; Toy Story 3 was an excellent film why? Because it had a good message and story to tell.
I think the film industry heck every industry is being so safe with their money at the moment all we seem to keep getting fed is Sequels, Remakes and Reboots. The last film I saw that was any good that wasn't a S,R or R was How to train your dragon but they ruined that now with a sequel on its way.
In closing don’t do a sequel or a movie unless you have a good story or an idea to put out there, otherwise all you end up with is Aladdin 5: Jafar fills out the Census form
Deleted the first one due to an error
Personally, I feel that "bugs life" gets a bit too much credit - it is after all basically "the seven samurai" performed by bugs.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the weird inventions
then again, it was one of their earlier works
Nice comment, Dan (Sperrin), and Dan (Rolph), for me, Finding Nemo is the overrated one. Favourite Pixar movie? The Incredibles. It doesn't put a foot wrong, and I love the message, which is 'not everyone is special'. Both Wall-e and Up have weak 3rd acts; I just HATE the dogs in planes bit in Up, because this is the movie in which we've been moved by the realities of infertility and death, and then, oh look, flying dogs in planes... I could feel my suspension of disbelief puncture at that moment. With Wall-e, it's all the fat Americans on the spaceship - it's the humans. I don't give a s**t about the humans, and that's a problem!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete- The Problem with a Golden Age?
ReplyDeleteWe've just gone through a 'Golden Age' of Pixar in much the same way that we did with Disney (30's - 50's). Unfortunately, a symptom of the 'Golden Age' syndrome is the ‘overrating’ of product. In truth many of the animated films that Disney made during their golden period were/are unjustly considered to be classics. This is also true of Pixar.
- Sequels: A Pixar decision or a compromise?
In the early days of Pixar it was a given that sequels wouldn't happen. It was their mantra. It's only the relationship with Disney (the cash machine) who has forced Pixar into this territory. In the case of Toy Story 2 & 3 these were 'reclaimed' straight to DVD Disney visions that Pixar would not let be released. Instead they reworked them into better films because Toy Story is Pixar's brand identity. If Toy Story fails then Pixar fails. That’s the nature of brands in the public consciousness.
However, when Disney and Pixar formed their second partnership in 2007(ish) there was always going to be a struggle around sequels. For Pixar sequels are about maintaining quality but for Disney a sequel is an integral part of their method of keeping products (toys and games) alive. So cut to 2011 and the Pixar sequel mantra has changed to...
"Our sequels will be a different genre so we don't repeat ourselves"
Unfortunately the future of Pixar will undoubtedly be made up of this compromise. They will be made to make sequels (A Monsters Inc 2 is on its way).
Obviously, none of this excuses the drop in quality and the reaction to Cars 2. Cars was not a great film, it's a reworking of Doc Hollywood (starring Michael J. Fox). It did have funny moments though (Tractor tipping) and a broad appeal to children (Cars with faces sell).
Disney has made a lot of money from Cars toys, which is the leading factor in why this film got made and why its genre changed. It's a script born of children playing in their bedrooms with toys (Cars as action heroes and spies) - Ironically, instead of being about a child playing in his bedroom with toys (Toy Story). It’s designed to further the appeal and sell product. In doing so Pixar has compromised its originality in favour of cash. As with all creative companies when this happens it becomes the death of quality – Think ‘Apple’ in the early 90’s.