is pixar milking cars?

[1mike1000]

Cars in my opinion is the worst Pixar series. It restricts the demographic to mainly boys and, if you ask me, has somewhat uninteresting characters. But for Pixars worst, it's still a pretty good series.

 

[funguy2121]

For thouse of you who dont know Car has recevied a sequel. This is a bit concerning.
A little backstory. around the time the first toy story was being made, the movie's plot was bery different, It was about a boy having to leave for college and having his toys at home left to wounder what would become of them. For thouse of you who have seen the Toy story
trilogy, you would know that this is the plot to toy story three. The reason for this was that Pixar believed their original plot while good didnt have you care for any of the characters because your suppose to fell bad for them so early on. Because of this they made two very good films to create a connection with the characters.

But cars now has a sequel and I very muched puzzled why. I mean, It hase the lowest ratting on rotten tomatoes Ive seen for a pixar movie(to put you mind into perspective the user rating for cars is lower that the user rating for transformers 2). Add to the fact that they made this

and

Didn't Cars sell incredibly well? And how is ONE sequel milking a franchi-oh. I'm not sure that the Planes thing is real, though, Slah. Anywho, Chunk love Slah. Ruth, ruth, baby.

 

[funguy2121]

Pixar had always intended to make a sequel to Cars. Its pretty much the only one of their franchises other than Toy Story thats really open to it.

And its not "franchise milking" if its only the second movie. I swear, they should just rename the Escapist "Franchise Milking: Pushing the Industry Forward" for the forum's two favorite buzz terms.

"Is NBC milking comedy? Is James Cameron milking effects?"

Add to that, "gimmick" and "irony," two of the most often used and least understood of the Escapist lexicon.

 

[zombie711]

Don't be silly, even if that were physically impossible, it would be highly disturbing material to put in a children's fi- oh, you mean metaphorically.

Err, I guess so. I haven't seen the original, so I can't judge as well but from my experience, any Pixar is good Pixar!

Well not trying to gross you out, but the pizza planet car makes a cameo in cars, which means there's pizza, which means there's cheese which comes from milk. And in the world of cars, the tractors are cows so....... Yeah think about it.

 

[Kenami]

I think this simply could have been answered by asking: Do companies like to make money? Which the answer being: yes.

 

[kzgonuts63]

Is Disney doing what it knows best!? Seriously, almost every single franchise that has been well received by the unwashed masses has been milked almost to death by Disney. They are all machines, as well as anti-Semites. Not that I'm saying they make bad movies, far from it actually, they put a lot of quality into everything that they do. But they want money and have found a winning formula to get it, i.e. make fantastic movies, make money, repeat.

 

[Roofstone]

Ohmigawsh, a company wants money.. : /

Meh, it has to be expected. Cars make them money, so why not milk it dry?

 

[maninahat]

Not especially. They did two sequels to Toy Story first; films specifically about personified merchandise, and no one complained then. So it doesn't bother me that Cars gets a similar treatment. Apparently lots of people enjoed cars, so why deny them a sequel?

The thing about Toy Story was that all three movies were thematically consistent with each other and contained the same cast of characters and the same message (the importance of friendship, love, and loyalty). Plus the characters have, well, character; they're not "merchandise" to viewers, they're beloved characters on par with Mickey Mouse.

Cars and Cars 2 are almost entirely different beasts. Cars was a coming-of-age, small-town-life, bigshot-is-humbled story. It worked pretty well because the story was a simple one. Cars 2 is The Naked Gun, with anthropomorphic cars, a handful of the same characters, and a very poorly-constructed "OIL IS EVIL!" message.

The problems come from quality. Toy Story's sequels were brilliant and built up/paid off a lot of emotional investment; they came out years and years apart because they were being held to a high standard of quality. Cars 2 seems... rushed, and like a deliberate cash-grab rather than the Pixar platinum-standard we're used to.

Alright, it is a question of quality. I'm fine with that. I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement as to which is a better series. Although Cars 2 did come out some five years after Cars so I can't see how anyone could call it rushed, I agree it probably won't have anyway as good a pay off.

They are different kinds of movies. Toy Story is a heart wrenching tale, whereas cars tries to keep fairly light and fuzzy.

 

[clipse15]

I don't remember the exact source, but I believe this is something you could blame more on Disney than Pixar.

Once upon a time, Pixar and Disney had a sort of unwritten deal that Disney wouldn't force them to make sequels for the purposes of marketing and cash grabbing. So long as they made good films, Disney was happy.

But then Toy Story 3 made so much money (5th highest grossing film ever and #1 highest grossing animated film IIRC) and the merchandise for that flew off the shelves. Cars and Monsters, Inc. Also had good merchandise that sold well, and that's probably why they were opted for sequels.

So...I dunno, take what you will from it. I saw Cars 2 and enjoyed it. I'll probably even look into Planes.

Ya except you're wrong. Not about the deal that Disney and Pixar had but wrong about this being Disney's fault. The first Cars film was a huge passion project for John Lasserter and he was equally involved with wanting and the creation of the sequel

 

[Strain42]

I don't remember the exact source, but I believe this is something you could blame more on Disney than Pixar.

Once upon a time, Pixar and Disney had a sort of unwritten deal that Disney wouldn't force them to make sequels for the purposes of marketing and cash grabbing. So long as they made good films, Disney was happy.

But then Toy Story 3 made so much money (5th highest grossing film ever and #1 highest grossing animated film IIRC) and the merchandise for that flew off the shelves. Cars and Monsters, Inc. Also had good merchandise that sold well, and that's probably why they were opted for sequels.

So...I dunno, take what you will from it. I saw Cars 2 and enjoyed it. I'll probably even look into Planes.

Ya except you're wrong. Not about the deal that Disney and Pixar had but wrong about this being Disney's fault. The first Cars film was a huge passion project for John Lasserter and he was equally involved with wanting and the creation of the sequel

You're right. After typing that I did look into it a bit more to see what had been said. Lasseter saw ideas for stuff the characters could do in different countries. So yeah, I admit my mistake there.

I wonder if it's the same case for Monsters, Inc. I know this one is a prequel so maybe they just wanted to delve into the world a bit more (something I totally understand, it was a pretty interesting realm) I do hope though that they don't treat the movie as Mike and Sully first meeting though because the first movie basically said they've known each other since at least the fourth grade. (not to be a continuity snob)

 

[synobal]

Well if they were milking cars I'm pretty sure all they'll get is motor oil and maybe some gas.

 

[Nouw]

No they're not. A sequel doesn't automatically mean they're milking the franchise. There's sitll potential for them to do something new and possibly interesting with it so let them do it!

 

[tonguetied]

I don't think two films in 5 years constitutes as "milking". I mean, it's hardly comparable to Dreamworks' shenanigans with Shrek and Madagascar.

But still, Cars was indeed mediocre at best. Certainly the worst Pixar film. I'd expect Dreamworks to queef something like that out, but not Pixar. So why on Earth they've chosen to make a sequel out of it just utterly baffles me. Especially with all the other amazing films they've made.

 

[Frosted89]

Why all the hate for Cars? I know it's not the best Pixar film but it was pretty good, I know I enjoyed it and I'd hardly consider making one sequel in 5 years as milking a franchise. Besides if you hate Cars 1 and 2 and think Pixar is going down a dark path look at the teaser poster and various other concept art for Brave, seriously that movie looks like it's going to be awesome.

Disney on the other hand is going to milk this franchise in some shape way or form and seeing as how they released a trailer for Planes I'd say that's how they're going to do it, oh well hardly surprising and if they can do that spin off series without forcing Pixar into something they don't want to do, then I'm all for it.