web counter
 

I Messed Up. I Was Called On It. Here Are My Amends.

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (28)

Cars-2-03-4.jpg

Update: Damn! I totally fucked this up. I was thinking Cars 2 was headed direct-to-DVD, confusing it with the Cars spin-off, Planes, which is headed direct-to-DVD. Cars 2 will actually be in theaters.

I’m an idiot. Someone revoke my movie blogger license. This is what happens when you drink too much the night before, and you spend all morning in a hungover haze searching frantically for your toddler’s Bert & Ernie shoes.

Benefit of the doubt temporarily restored to Pixar. For now.

Here’s the original, dumbass post I wrote, or you can just skip to the trailer and save me the humiliation.

****

OK. Maybe that’s an unfair characterization. But we are talking direct-to-DVD sequel, and we know Disney’s checkered history with DTD sequels. Kids love them, because kids are not very smart. They have to be told to blow their noses, so you know what kind of audience with which we’re dealing. The movies are usually kind of generic, and putting the Cars characters in the spy world in European locales sounds awfully … direct-to-DVD-y. And while John Lassetter is directing, he’s co-directing with Brad Smith, making his feature directorial debut. My guess is that Lassetter’s name is there in title only.

But then again, they did get Owen Wilson to return. And also Larry the Cable Guy, whatever you want to make of that. Whatever happened to Larry? He was a fun guy to hate. What they won’t be getting is Paul Newman. Not even Pixar has that kind of money.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Rite Trailer | It's Hard To Believe We Need A Place Called Hell | The 2010 Scream Award Winners →









Comments

At the end of the trailer is "Only in theaters". Are you sure this is direct to DVD?

I'm not a fan of sequels in Pixar's case (why tarnish the originals?) but the TS ones were very good. Plus isn't Cars the only Pixar flick where we can reasonably expect the sequel to be better than the original?

Posted by: ed newman at October 21, 2010 9:37 AM

The clip says "In Theaters" so why do you say it is direct to DVD?

Posted by: jen at October 21, 2010 9:37 AM

Hmmm. I thought the first Cars was a bit of a weak link for Pixar - it had gorgeous visuals, but a sub-par script. I don't think I will be rushing to see this sequel.

Still, Waterloo Bridge looks lovely and empty in the concept art up there....

Posted by: Simon at October 21, 2010 9:40 AM

Wait, what happened to giving Pixar the benefit of the doubt until they actually screw something up? Did I miss something? This is still the studio that made Up, Wall-E, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Toy Story 1, 2 & 3, and The Incredibles, right?

Smile, motherfucker! If you can't be optimistic about the next Pixar offering, you may as well pack it up and stop watching movies completely, Dustin. Half the voice cast seemingly died in the past 5 years, so yeah, there will be some new voices. What if they get Christopher Lee or Helen Mirren or Meryl Streep?

This is all good news until they prove it's bad news.

Posted by: Kballs at October 21, 2010 9:45 AM

FIIIIIIINALLY!

You see folks even he admits he's an idiot.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 21, 2010 9:56 AM

Ahhh, ok.
When I first saw the original "Cars" trailer I thought it would have to be awful, but it was fine. This one seems like it could be interesting considering they have the whole world as a stage, but maybe that will be its downfall. Benefit of the doubt: Pixar.

Posted by: jen at October 21, 2010 9:57 AM

Oh, and shouldn't you change the title of the article there too, sporto.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 21, 2010 9:59 AM

They make Bert and Ernie shoes? Are they available in a women's size seven?

Posted by: PaddyDog at October 21, 2010 10:05 AM

I was slightly dubious of the Direct to DVD nature of this sequel (since corrected), only because I remember an interview with Lassetter where he said that once Disney made him an exec of some sort, he made them stop doing all of the stupid DTD sequels of Disney classics because it was weakening the brand and diluting the product.

Posted by: chad at October 21, 2010 10:06 AM

Oh, and shouldn't you change the title of the article there too, sporto.

No, I think it's apt. I hope the whole "secret agent" thing is just a gag.


Posted by: admin at October 21, 2010 10:08 AM

Actually, I think they are still selling out. We just had Toy Story 3. Coming up is Cars 2 and Monsters Inc. 2. Where are the original ideas they were known for?

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 21, 2010 10:10 AM

You know, all the dissing on Cars forces me to say this: it's still a pretty decent movie. It's not as good as Pixar's best work, no, but as a movie it's still head above most of Hollywood's output even though it's not as good as Wall-E or Up. Quit hatin' on it, peoples!

Posted by: mightygodking at October 21, 2010 10:18 AM

You know what I couldn't get past in the original? The fact that they were cars, CARS living in a human environment with virtually no accomodation for their different physical form. Apparently, my line in the sand for willing suspension of disbelief is vehicles. Singing frogs with a side of trumpet playing alligator? No problem! Sentient and metaphysically-yearning garbage collecting robots? No problem. A rat that is a chef? Sign me up! It's a good thing I've never seen a Transformers movie or it might blow my mind. Of course, they wouldn't be sleeping in hotels. They are CARS people! Cars sleeping in hotels. Cars high fiving or going to the drive in. It makes no kind of sense.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at October 21, 2010 10:22 AM

I think the Pixar movie that is most deserving/needing of a sequel is The Incredibles. That is all.

Posted by: Craig at October 21, 2010 10:22 AM

I think ABC has already made a sequal to The Incredibles.

It's called, "No Ordinary Family."

And sadly, Pixar is not involved.

Posted by: anderbot at October 21, 2010 10:34 AM

I have the same problem with the whole 'Cars' thing that Mrs. Julien has: I could never quite focus on the headlight 'eyes' and grill 'mouths' when they were speaking- "Cars sleeping in hotels." "CARS living in a human environment with virtually no accomodation for their different physical form." Yeah, too much suspension of disbelief for me, too.

The CGI is beautiful throughout but distracts even more from these 'vehicle' characters. We don't need another 'Cars' movie.

Posted by: abliac at October 21, 2010 10:35 AM

I'm the same with the suspension of disbelief issue in Cars. I find myself wondering who built the buildings and if it was the cars, HOW they built the buildings. And why they look like people buildings. And how they could have electricity when they have tires for hands and that doesn't lend itself to intricate wiring work. The movie was entertaining but its an incredibly weird premise to get past with no explanation. It's like people made the world and then the Cars became sentient and killed all the people and took over. That's my theory on this series.

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 21, 2010 10:42 AM

You also wrote "I could care less" a few weeks ago...

Posted by: schmerpes at October 21, 2010 10:44 AM

@PaddyDog

You can get them if they go up to girl's size 5; it is equivalent to a ladies size 7. Yes, this means that you can buy those sparkly red or silver or pink shoes at Target in the girls' section for your Halloween costume.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at October 21, 2010 10:50 AM

I'm still disappointed Pixar cancelled Newt. Looking over that artwork, that would have been a beautiful movie to see in 3D.

And I liked Cars (I know I'm in the minority). It's interesting that they're going in this direction. Are they making an animated I, Spy (the movie adaptation also featured Owen Wilson).

What they won’t be getting is Paul Newman. Not even Pixar has that kind of money.

Brilliant. Cold-hearted. But brilliant.

Posted by: Fredo at October 21, 2010 11:28 AM

I am watching Cars with my toddler as I write this, and while I agree it is not their best effort, my son begs to differ. He is obsessed with Lightning McQeen, and can often be heard whispering "Speed. Focus. I am speed." when he's preparing to do something new. We will definitely check out Cars 2, if onlybecause it has to be better than Madagascar 2, right?

Posted by: McSquish at October 21, 2010 12:52 PM

McSquish, I have the same problem with my nephews...they're completely obsessed! I made the mistake of getting one of them a McQueen caps...and he hasn't taken it off since May! I guess I know what I'm doing next summer...*sigh*

Posted by: Joker at October 21, 2010 2:10 PM

I am with McSquish. I have a three year old son. I have seen Cars literally hundreds of times. HUNDREDS OF TIMES. My house is full of Cars-related items. And I don't hate it, so it can't be that bad. I still get teary during the montage about the decline of Radiator Springs. (Suck it!) Personally, I'm looking forward to the sequel. So there.

I don't think Pixar has ever made a BAD film, just ones that are good and ones that are great.

Posted by: cydeleida at October 21, 2010 2:15 PM

Posted by: spoobnooble at October 21, 2010 2:19 PM

Why were you wearing your son's shoes to go out drinking, Rowles?

The only way I could be less interested in this is if it were "Ratatouille 2." Meh. I'll wait for the sequel to the Incredibles.... sigh.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at October 21, 2010 5:56 PM

Cars always felt like something another studio made. Dreamworks at its best. It's not a horrible movie, but it's just subpar for Pixar. You just can't relate to any of the characters--and, if you're not American, you really can't relate to the nostalgic Americana crap that's everywhere in the movie. Plus, it's a terrible shame that we won't be getting an original next year.

Posted by: figgy at October 21, 2010 7:43 PM

Ha! totally with you, Mel.

Posted by: figgy at October 21, 2010 7:43 PM

Precisely what some really good cd players for kids? My cousin is 5 yoa and for christmas I'd like to buy her a music, she loves my nano but I think it would be difficult for her make use of it. Are there any good ones for kids?

Posted by: MP3 players for kids at March 18, 2011 7:02 PM