• uncle wayne

    and as a TRUE change-of-pace…i never could get past the first 10 minutes of #1!!! (Odd, too, those pixar films are always SO on the money!)

  • http://evananthony.com BaconIsGood4You

    Better than I was expecting but I’m still “eh.” Cars was just so unambitious with its story and characters, it’s hard to get excited for this. Hopefully this will be more than the stereotypical underdog-boy-gets-spunky-girl-saves-day that the first was.

  • Alissa

    Here we go again, I guess it’ll sell toys at least.

  • Jay

    So they went from Doc Hollywood to Dr No?
    I’m sure boys under 12 are going absolutely crazy over this (and maybe boys over 12 who have fond memories over the first one). But this looks like the first Pixar movie that is meant more for kids than adults, and it reeks of a merchandising ploy.

    Will still see it, but for the first time a new Pixar trailer is released and my reaction is “meh”.

    • Mark

      Yeah, the Doc Hollywood thing was weird. The last thing I was expecting from Pixar. I just feel flat after seeing that trailer.

  • Jim

    Mater is right – carry-on luggage is frequently a better option for airport travel, from both a cost and convenience perspective. It’s good that kids learn these things.

  • http://urvybalboa.deviantart.com/ Urvy

    Looks interesting so far. Bummed that Paul Newman is dead hence no Doc Hudson in this one.

    Stil,it’s best to judge this film when it comes out, so this is a Wait-and-See approach.

    • http://beesbuzz.biz/ fluffy

      The death of Jim Varney didn’t stop them from giving Slink a speaking role in Toy Story 3. Not that voice actors are completely interchangeable or anything but voices aren’t particularly unique either (and they’re possible to imitate, too).

      • Funkybat

        I was frankly amazed at how seamless the transition was with Slinky Dog. I have seen TS3 3 times and I still can’t tell it isn’t Jim Varney. And it’s not like it was just a random “country hick” accent either, there is something particular about that voice. If there weren’t the whole “Hey Vern” shtick probably wouldn’t have lasted as long as it did.

  • Anonymous

    The comparision between the plots of the first Cars movie and the 2nd (by what is viewed in the trailer) seem so vast, different and dramatic. To go from tranquil Radiator Springs where Lighting Mcqueen learns some of lifes lessons to spies, world travel and explosions in this sequel?
    The rendering, animation look beautiful, i hope the story is too…i will check it out…:)

  • http://www.spitandspite.com Abel Salazar

    Man, my kids going to want these toys now too :-/

  • Sunday

    Feelin’ mighty similar to Speed Racer here.

  • Klyph

    ‘I should have done carry on!’

    DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP!!!!!

  • davidbfain

    Actually, I thought at first this was a parody mash-up made by cutting together scenes from “Speed Racer” and “Cars”. Sadly, I think I would have preferred that film.

  • Autumn

    Not impressed.

  • Ub Avery

    Is it just me or is anyone else reminded of The Man Called Flintstone.

  • Ridd

    It’ll be interesting to see where they fit in the classic Pixar ‘tugging at the heart strings’ in this. the cars look great though, and I’m loving downtown tokyo

  • http://www.inkandpixelclub.com Sara

    I’m not going to try to judge whether a film is going to be good or bad from just a trailer. But I can fairly say whether I’m excited for the film in question based on a trailer and in this case, I’m not. I thought the original “Cars” was the weakest Pixar film to date; as BaconIsGood4You said, it’s a very safe, inside the box film. And I felt like the cars were just too limited as characters. The animators worked with what they had as well as they could, but the body language you can get out of a car when you’re not really cartooning it up is pretty minimal. I imagine the movie will make the transition from the first film to the current plot smoother, but right now, it feels like the characters have just been dropped into a new genre story because the old one couldn’t support a second movie.

    I’ll likely still go see the film, but I’m not as excited for it as I usually am for a new Pixar release.

  • Mark R.

    Why did they make this???????

    Oh yeah merchandising is driving it – selling toys to kids and I understand there’s a huge profit from sequels – Dreamworks (Panda, Madagascar, Dragons), BlueSky (Ice Age) and even Disney (Princess’ and Pooh) all do it but, it’s a shame… would much rather see something new and fresh before this.

    Lasseter could learn a thing or two from Walt –

    “I do not like to repeat successes, I like to go on to other things.”

    “We don’t make movies to make money.
    We make money to make more movies.”

    • http://sparesparetime.tumblr.com Rybread

      That is exactly why they (Pixar) are making this. Make more money through merchandise to make more movies. This may not be the best Pixar, but if it is a means to make other quality films that we love and have come to expect from Pixar, then I won’t complain.

      • Mark R.

        Please, they’re making this to make more movies?!?!

        They’re doing this to sell toys. plain and simple

      • http://mrscriblam.tumblr.com/ mrscriblam

        if they keep making crap films to make money, they’re going to start making more crap films because they make more money. its happened before and it very well could happen again.

        furthermore, just because pixar has made some really great films doesn’t justify them making a terrible one for the sake of making money, no matter where that money is going.

  • http://www.webcomicsnation.com/dholvrsn/index.php Doug Holverson

    The scruffy orange Gremlin made me snicker….

  • Vzk

    Well, at least next year’s “Best Animated Feature” Oscars will be less predictable.

    • Marco

      Hahaha, that’s what I’m thinking. That trailer… eh.

  • Steve Gattuso

    Actually, this looks like the first time Pixar has gone completely screwball for a movie. That’s not necessarily a bad thing or a good one. We’ll have to see. Three things:

    1. According to IMDB, other returning characters are Luigi, Ramon, and Mack (Pixar without Ratzenburger? Un-possible.) Sally is listed, but only as a rumor.

    2. If you haven’t noticed, that’s Michael Caine as McMissile.

    3. However, if they failed to get Sean Connery to do a voice for this thing, I shall be sad.

    • Keith

      Connery was too busy promoting Sir Billi…

      • Funkybat

        Oh Lord…. I was not aware of “Sir Billi” until now. After viewing the trailer, I kind of wish I had remained in that state of blissful ignorance. What I saw made “Alpha and Omega” look like “Megamind” by comparison….

  • http://chippyandloopus.com/ John Sanford

    That is The VERY BEST …ad for toys I’ve seen all year.

    • Marco

      What I really hate, and tell me what you think — when Lasseter talked about his ideas for a sequel to Cars, it worried me. He talked about Mater driving on the wrong side of the road in Europe, reading signs in Japan, etc. Someone on another board I go to said, “I hope Lasseter doesn’t think that’s clever because those are the most obvious jokes you could make.” And yet, at the end of the trailer, that’s exactly what happened.

      I don’t know what he was thinking greenlighting this. If this is good, I’ll be pleasantly surprised, but I mean… wtf?

  • http://beaudetteblog.blogspot.com Grant Beaudette

    I hope there’s a lot more to this film than the spy stuff.

    I went in to the first Cars expecting very little, but was really charmed by the whole town and the idea of community. (Namely because I’m from a place kind of like that) If all this is just Lightning McQueen & Mater as spies. I’ll be rather disappointed.

  • http://inconstruction Tony

    yawn………

  • Cornwallis

    can’t wait for “Up 2″!

  • http://justforspite.blogspot.com Gene Hole

    will there be an Aston Martin in this one?

    • http://www.sibsy.blogspot.com Sibsy

      There IS an Aston Martin in it – it’s one of the main characters.

  • Chelsea

    It looks a lot more fun than the first Cars, but I too am still puzzled why they even made a second one. I can justify the sequels to Toy Story, or even Monsters Inc. 2… but Cars 2?

    Wait and see I guess.

  • http://www.jeff-pert.com Jeff P

    I’ll see anything with Michael Caine in it.

    • http://www.webcomicsnation.com/dholvrsn/index.php Doug Holverson

      You probably see a whole lot of movies, don’t you?

    • http://sir-talen.deviantart.com/ Royce

      Even “Jaws: The Revenge?”

      • Steve Gattuso

        It’s comedy gold, baby.

  • http://yeldarb86.deviantart.com Mr. Semaj

    Sequelitis. :(

  • http://www.belfry.info Martin Bell

    So what, Pixar make a pure kid’s movie. They haven’t made one since the first Cars, and it’ll damn sure be better than Cats vs Dogs, G-Force and Yogi Bear and and that other crap – and with merch sales it’ll pay for Pixar to make another half-dozen films as good as Up and Wall-E.

    I’ll go see it and I’m damn sure I’ll enjoy it, even if it doesn’t affect me on the level that Up and Wall-E did.

    • Lib

      Terrible films shouldn’t set the standard for kids movies. Saying that Cars 2 might be better than the usual crap is an empty statement; that won’t magically turn it into a good movie if it actually ends up being disappointing for whatever reason.

      Also, nearly all the other Pixar films have been huge hits, so I don’t see why they would need to make this sequel to fund their future projects. It’s not like they are some obscure indie studio always struggling to produce their unmarketable ideas or anything.

      • http://aalong64.blogspot.com Aaron Long

        I was about to post a response almost word for word the same as this one. Pixar isn’t doing this because they have to in order to finance their other stuff, or because they have another story begging to be told with these characters. They just like money.

        Which isn’t necessarily bad– who doesn’t?
        But this film will probably be the definitive end to their winning streak in terms of the critics’ response. Unlike the first Cars, which was stupid, but generally well-received, this looks pretty undeniably juvenile and money-driven.

    • mike

      I’m sure the folks at Pixar are damn sure glad that you’re so damn sure yer gonna see it!… ;-)

  • http://www.belfry.info Martin Bell

    Also, of all the Pixar films to sequelise… where’re The Incredibles?

    • Keith

      Predictably, the Incredibles’ adventures continue… in comic books!

      • NC

        …and don’t forget “No Ordinary Family”

  • http://www.sibsy.blogspot.com Sibsy

    YESSSSSSSSSSS

  • TheGunheart

    Something tells me that the spy routine is actually a minor gag subplot that’s just given full attention in the trailer.

    That said, the first Cars was one of my favorite Pixar movies, and I’m just a little dissapointed to see it apparently going so over-the-top for this round.

    • http://www.thehungryreader.com Krepta

      This. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I find that Pixar movies tend to really subvert your expectations by making trailers that portray the movie as downright DUMB. I was like “oh god, they’ve jumped the shark” when I first saw the Incredibles trailer with Bob trying to struggle into his pants, and we all know how that turned out. I’ll give this the benefit of the doubt.

    • http://www.base14.com Tyler

      That’s a good point. The spy stuff could very well be a minor part of the entire film. Keep in mind the first trailer for Wall-E was nothing but him looking at the sky.. and the trailer for Up only had the flying house.. a sequence that in the final film only lasted about 5 minutes!

  • http://animationinventory.blogspot.com/ Teodor

    If anyone remembered the first comments on the teaser for Megamind…here on Carton Brew?
    They were similar to these comments.

    • http://adreamer49.wordpress.com/ Jacob

      Quite frankly, if Cars 2 ends up being the same quality of story as Megamind, I will be very disappointed.

  • http://www.coveringthemouse.com Kurtis Findlay

    I was telling my wife the other day how much I really liked the Winnie the Pooh trailer and how the story didn’t seem to fall into the typical “and now the fate of the world rests on the shoulders of one man” sequel plot. And then this comes out…

  • Amy

    Okay, so as clearly the only toon nut in the world who LOVED Cars, this looks awesome and I can’t wait to see it.

    Cars made its nostalgia-laden point and Pixar are giving Mater & Mcqueen a popcorn movie. I have complete faith it will be a great popcorn movie. Bring it on.

  • Randy Koger

    NOOOOOOOOOOO!

    Yawn….why bother? Pixar is getting really lazy.
    The first Cars film was just “meh”. This one looks like “ummmm, why?”

  • HB

    Not gonna lie. I chuckled at the “Tow-Mater, average intelligence” line.

    I remember watching a video where John L. is explaining he got the idea for Cars 2 by promoting in Europe & envisioning all these fish-out-of water scenes with Mater around the world. Any of those folk calling this money-hungry, there is no reason in the world an authentic artistic response can’t coincide with something that could feasibly make a profit.

    There is also a trope called ‘Trailers Always Lie’. I hereby invoke it.

  • Mark

    “So they went from Doc Hollywood to Dr No?”

    Not as if doc hollywood was particularly original….it was done BETTER on the Andy Griffith show.

  • http://www.bishopanimation.com Floyd Bishop

    This seems like a waste of talent and resources. I’d much prefer to see new stories and films rather than forced sequels from any studio, especially from Disney and Pixar. I realize you have to make money though, and running the studio can’t be cheap.

    • http://deleted OtherDan

      Coming from a young dad buying these little car toys for (ahem!) his son: I’m looking forward to an Austin Martin, and more characters and cars to come out. Have you seen the little toy cars Floyd? They’re pretty sweet. They’re giving Hot Wheels a run for their money. I wonder what Dan Tanaka thinks about them.

  • http://www.webcomicsnation.com/dholvrsn/index.php Doug Holverson

    So how do the cars hold the cameras to do all those photo flashes in the stadium?

    • http://www.sibsy.blogspot.com Sibsy

      If you had seen the first Cars, you would know.

    • Squawkers

      And what are the metal detectors in the airport checking for, exactly?

  • majic

    To me, this sequel goes completely against the point of the first film, in that Lightning learned that getting to the finish line isn’t everything and that you should enjoy life. Here, he’s racing again? In the beginning?! And he’s going to TRAVEL THE WORLD ON A MISSION BANG POW WACK!!! Doesn’t sound as nearly moving as what Pixar is known for. There could be a more grounded element that the trailer is not showing.

  • Corey

    Well I for one really enjoy PIXAR’s take on a post-apocalyptic world where all humans have died out and everything they made now has a face and can talk.

    I mean, if that’s not the story then I don’t know how else to wrap my head around ‘where do baby cars come from’ or ‘why do cars go to the bathroom’ or ‘do motorcycles exist and do they have faces and talk too?’

    • Tee

      Why are there newspapers? Why do they sleep? Why are there doorknobs and windows? Why are there regional accents? If some cars wear novelty wigs at the racetrack, where did they get this idea? If insects are also cars, does that mean there are dog and cat and canary cars? Why would you have a thresher/combine in a world where there would be no need for agri-business? What makes some vehicles “cows” and others doctors? What does it mean to be a ‘doctor’ in a world of cars? If you can have parts changed and remain “alive” what was the cause of “death” for Tilly’s “husband”?

      Once you spend this much time on pointless world building, you lose the fragile bubble of fantasy these things need to really succeed as anything other than toy commercials. When it comes to world building, you’re in it or you aren’t in it.

      Can’t stand the dumbness of Cars.

      • Corey

        The thing is I don’t usually ask these sorts of things when watching animation. I can usually go with the flow of a fantasy world but… with Cars I just could not…NOT think of these things. Maybe it’s the photo-realism?

        I DID enjoy Cars, not their best work for sure, but this sequel is just going to fill my head with more stupid questions like this!!

      • http://aalong64.blogspot.com Aaron Long

        Yeah, with Cars you can’t just say “don’t worry about that stuff, enjoy the story” because literally everything goes unexplained, and it’s so distracting that you can’t just ignore it. It’s just an incredibly juvenile, limited concept.

    • Nipplenuts McGurk

      THANK YOU! I too, just cannot buy into the “world” of cars. Who actually makes the buildings and technology when no one has hands!? The gas is from “Dinoco” so – the GASOLINE is still from dinosaurs, a carbon based lifeform…but in this world there are no animals…so, were dinosaurs also cars? Since they clearly live in America and not some fantasy ‘car world’ – did Carstopher Carlumbus sail the oceans and discover the ‘new world’? There’s a love story in the movie – do cars fuck!? If so, wouldn’t all the female cars have scuffed paint on their trunks? Where do car babies come from? Can a pregnant car drive or would her belly keep her wheels off the ground?

      …and ….JAY LIMO…GLARGHGHGH.

      Cars is the only Pixar movie I truly hate…

      • Funkybat

        I certainly don’t HATE the universe of cars, but as a continuity nut and technical nitpicker, many of the questions raised above occurred to me. I was laughing out loud at some of the additional ones mentioned here!

        With the universe of Cars, you just HAVE to suspend a lot of the logic and analytical parts of your brain, or you will go nuts. While watching the movie, I just can’t let myself think too much about “why would cars wear wigs if they never had hair?” or “why would they grow food unless they were all biodiesel?” It is an illogical, fantastic universe that exists because most boys and some girls growing up liked to imagine “what if cars were alive?” Having living cars co-exist with human society would actually have been an even more out-there idea, but it would at least explain how the infrastructure was built and where “bay cars” come from, etc.

        In a way, this wacky “popcorn movie” treatment is probably the best thing they could do with the Cars universe. Trying to take anything in that world too seriously is difficult, but if you make it purely “cartoony” it makes more sense, so to speak.

      • http://deleted OtherDan

        Didn’t you guys ever play with toys, or specifically Hot Wheels? When you were crouching down and pretending the cars were driving around in your kitchen with your gigantic fingers grasping the roof, didn’t you pretend the world around the toys was a city or landscape, even though it was just carpet or a table? When those cars came alive in your head, didn’t your existence not make much sense? You were about 1,000 times larger than the car. If you like to watch cartoons, can’t you think like a kid, and let go of all those stupid constraints? Sounds like you two should be documentary lovers. Might I suggest “Loose Change” as a starter course?

  • NR

    Wow… so man bitter, sarcastic, and hateful comments. I hope I never get that way.

    • The Gee

      nah. they’re just jaded. some have expectations that are too great and want to see instant classics. I doubt it is their fault for wanting that, or in some cases for wanting to work on those types of productions. It is sort of built in to animation that there were classics–which people grew up with– and there will be classics–which people can work on, take their kids or grandkids to and see themselves.

  • James E. Parten

    I expect I’ll go to see this, and so will Chuckles–and a lot of other fans.

    Tell the truth, I liked “Cars”, and think it was cheated out of its deserved Oscar by Hollywood’s portsided politics, which favored the environmentalist message that was shoehorned into “Happy Feet”.

    I thought–and still think–that “Cars” had a real sense of Americana to it. Like another of the above commentators, I come from small-town America, although mine was in California, not in the heartland. I can appreciate a real, evocative, slice of small-town life–not that I’d ever really want to go back to it, mind you!

    Going from small-town Americana to a world-spanning adventure might actually be a smart move. Sequels don’t have to be entirely repetitive to work. If they take the opportunity to give their characters some room to roam, it can work out well.

    Of course, this may be Pixar’s proven style–lower the expectations of the viewers with a trailer that does not promise much, then “Wham!”–another gem!

    • dbenson

      That sort of hits it for me. Cars was less about characters than Route 66 nostalgia — which probably contributed to its success as a line of toys. It’s comparable to the low-ebb Bond films: You went to see spectacular locations and hardware rather than characters and plot, and they delivered on those admittedly narrow expectations.

      It would be interesting if Cars II turned out to be a eulogy for a remembered version of Europe, just as Cars I was explicitly about the passing of Roadside America.

  • Tee

    Makes me a little sad, but I’m glad I live in a country where seeing a movie like this is still voluntary. Your move, Dreamworks…

    • The Gee

      There are countries where seeing a movie like Cars 2 is mandatory? Sign me up! To be forced to watch feature cartoons sounds like fun.

      • Tee

        Then you can just imagine that you do live in that world, and you can see every Shrek, Cars, Astroboy, Planet 51, and Yogi Bear that comes down the pike. Enjoy!

  • KB

    They’re really doing a lot in that trailer. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. It’s not like the original set the bar very high.

  • http://clean3d.com Clean3d

    So Sally’s been replaced with a Bondo girl?

  • JMatte

    I’ll admit that Cars was not my favorite Pixar film. I just don’t have an affinity for vehicles. But I do understand the lure of the sequel: the joy to expand on a world, to build upon it. If I can be happy when a book author does it, why not for a film?
    Not all sequels are great, that is very true. But it looks like Cars 2 will be fun, especially playing with one of the most exciting element of the James Bond-Spy movie: the gadgets! Especially the tricked out cars with their arsenals of surprises.
    Car chases too, of course. But that’s a given with these characters.
    I do prefer original and new stories, but I don’t mind a well done sequel. I had fun with the Toy Story serie.

    I still am not very interested in cars in general though, ha ha!
    I also never trust a trailer. They give you glimpses, but the way they sell the true story and feel of a movie is almost always completely off these days.
    See the movie, judge it then.

  • http://tresswygert.blogspot.com Tres Swygert

    What’s the difference between the sequels for Toy Story and Cars? Toy Story really felt that there was a REASON to have a continuation. It felt right. With Cars? It really doesn’t.

    Very skeptical of the trailer (the first time I feel for a Pixar film), and just don’t know how it’ll do. Cars with guns? Hopefully it’ll really spark excitement when it’s time to watch the film…or whenever they release the second trailer.

    • http://elblogderg.blogspot.com Roberto

      I don’t think there were really more reasons to continue Toy Story than there are to continue Cars. Yes, Toy Story’s world and characters are more interesting than Cars’. But that’s all about it. The first Toy Story was completely perfect and it really didn’t need any other installment. Second one did include some new interesting things and more development of secondaries like Hamm or Rex. Third one didn’t add much, it was basically the same conflict of the previous one, just bigger. T.S. 2 and 3 were good additions to the saga but the first movie would have worked just as well by itself.

      If the characters in Cars were not…cars I probably won’t have anything against this saga. I’m just not interested in automobiles and car races to begin with. I also don’t find them interesting as characters. Even pretty inspired car-toons like Tex Avery’s A Cab Family didn’t do too much for me.

      I did like some aspects of the first Cars, especially the story about the little town, and Matter is an ok character. It’s the only one that doesn’t look like a brick with eyes and mouth.

      I’m not very excited about this sequel but I almost prefer this to a Monsters Inc. sequel with a grown-up Boo. Monsters Inc. is my fave Pixar movie and one of the things I liked the most was the subtlety of its ending.

      • NC

        In the Pixar Story it talks about how Disney was making the Toy Story sequel while John was on vacation. There was not “need” for the continuation. When Lasseter came back he saw the piece of crap that it was and then did a complete overhaul. It was more an act of desperation that made Toy Story 2 than an act of love and creativity.

  • Michael

    This looks more like the goofy, unrealistic “Cars Toon” shorts that they show on the disney channel occasionally, and not like the Grade A stuff that we’ve all come to expect from Pixar.

  • The Gee

    I know there is the notion that This Is The One That Fails; the studio is due!

    But, isn’t that game played everytime the studio is going to release a new film?

    By the time it no longer matters, another studio’s film is scheduled to come out and x criteria is laid at its metaphorical feet.

    Try as they might, I really can’t see that they set out to make a terrible movie. I say this having seen flicks where I was convinced that Add More Terrible! was the only thing going through the filmmakers’ heads. It is doubtful that there was just a lackluster effort or a patchworked/cobblestoned effort put into this movie. Like someone wrote above, it looks like a good popcorn movie. And if it is a good, fun movie it is probably best to go into thinking like that.

    Personally, I like spy comedies.* While those were over done in recent years, hey, this is a different angle to it. I mean c’mon, if it were a international spy flick where the main characters were guns or other weapons, you’d be lamenting a lot more, wouldn’t you? You’d be complaining about how much of an annoying hick Mack The Knife was. So, if that originality would not grab ya, maybe you might hold off on condemning this until it is released. Then see if it sucks.

    But, my god. To have to be right about predicting it would suck would suck because there are more important things in life that you could’ve predicted.

    *and if you want to see a movie that must’ve been intentional terrible, which actually audaciously teased for a sequel and which questioned why the movie was even made by the end of it: there is a spy comedy called “The Fat Spy.” It is horrible. “Cars 2″ will blow that away. Believe me, as movies go, there’s a low bar that is easily jumped.

  • Was my face red

    Car chases ARE a great slew of modern (and not so modern) movies so it does make sense that in a world populated with cars you might want to make a movie reference heavy movie about lots of car chases.

    Although the kids wanted the toys, the story of Cars one didn’t have the global appeal other Pixar productions had (we don’t miss backroads America in Europe) so a great global spy adevnture is a wise and safe decision.

    It looks like it’s going to be sleek and shiny and a bit Speed Racer, but films will more genuine soul will probably be found elsewhere.

  • Steven M.

    I’m not sure what to think about this. One part of me thinks the “saving-the-world-thing” in a film about talking cars is kinda silly, but another part of me says maybe this won’t be so bad.

  • http://messytimbo.blogspot.com tim

    i’m actually thinking i’m not gonna watch this film. which is a first for me with a pixar film.

  • Mark Morgan

    I hate to admit it but I have never liked John Lassenter as a director. The Toy Story films were okay, I never liked a Bug’s Life and Cars left me flat. In fact, it wasn’t until Finding Nemo that I ever found a Pixar film that really moved me. From there I’ve liked most of their movies, particularly the ones Brad Bird directed.

    As for this, I dunno. I have to admit it appeals to me more than the first one. I’d rather watch a rip off of “Paris Holiday” than “Doc Hollywood” … in fact, I’d just plain rather watch “Paris Holiday” than “Doc Hollywood” and the same goes for “The Man Called Flinstone”, “The Man Who Knew Too Little”, either version of “The Man Who Knew Too Much” and every other movie that’s recycled the accidental spy plot.

    So yeah, for what it matters, this ain’t original, but it sure does look entertaining.

    Though in defense of the first Cars Movie, while I was put off by the plot and most of the characters, the actual small town stuff was pretty cool. I’m a small town guy myself.

  • http://www.totalmediabridge.com Kevin Johnson

    Everyone, we’re missing the larger point here:

    Owen Wilson is a HORRIBLE voice actor.

    • http://www.bishopanimation.com Floyd Bishop

      I read that in his voice.

    • http://deleted OtherDan

      I don’t agree. I like his dim-witted drawl. It’s well suited for McQueen. Who would you have casted for that character? Will Smith?

  • Brad Constantine

    is “direct to 3d” a viable term yet?…

  • Josh

    Pixar has peaked. Hate to say it, but it’s hard to find stronger evidence that this trailer…

    • http://deleted OtherDan

      I’ll be watching for you to eat crow Josh when their next great film comes out.

  • James Mason

    This is probably the closest Pixar has gone to the “dumb fun” type picture that Dreamworks normally specializes in.

    And really, is no one surprised? No studio can just crank out Oscar bait forever. Films like this are just made to be fun, not much else. I am not expecting Toy Story 3 pathos. Just some goofy hijinks with McQueen and Mater.

    As others have stated, the premise of Cars is probably the most nonsensically appropriate for this sort film.

  • Dan Ang

    I’m going to be optimistic and wait for someone “in the know” to show up and tell us how good it is.

    Okay, here I am. Waiting.

    Still waiting.

    Yep. Anyday now.

    .

    “EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS
    MATT GROENING
    DAVID X COHEN”

  • Funkybat

    As I watched this trailer, part of me couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I mean that in both good and bad ways.

    I think this film will be Pixar’s “Emperor’s New Groove.” The first film where they really just “go goofy” and have fun and make lots of stupid jokes at a frenetic pace, but still have some heart deep down. “Emperor’s New groove” was totally unexpected from Disney Feature, and my friends and I all count it among our favorite animated films int he past 15 years. It was so “un-Disney” but still had great art, just different from what we expected from that studio.

    Pixar has had a consistent tone to their films. After the pathos of Cars, I think swinging in almost the complete opposite direction is actually the best thing they could do with that world. The Cars universe is so illogical and absurd on the face of it, the only way to really go forward is to just have fun and explore ideas about “what if cars did _______?” It’s essentially parody. Cars 2 could be “spy movie, but with cars” Cars 3 could be “family life/family vacation, but with cars” and so on. The fun is seeing the characters we know go through new adventures and exploring the extended universe. (I.E.: now we know that there are airplanes, and that they are *also* alive, just as cars and trucks and trains are.)

    So the good part is that this looks like fun, especially for car nuts who like automotive inside jokes (got a kick out of the villains being AMC vehicles!) The bad part is that this does feel like something of a lowering of standards for what constitutes a Pixar Feature. Up until now, pretty much all of their movies could be considered “works of art.” I would hesitate to say that about many Dreamworks and even some Disney features, even ones I really enjoy. This movie feels more like a good premise for a Cars TV series, where each week they have a new adventure a la DuckTales or something like that. I suspect that I will enjoy Cars 2 more than I did Cars, but I will enjoy it on a different level than I have most Pixar films.

    • http://www.totalmediabridge.com Kevin Johnson

      Mark Dindal directed Emperor’s New Groove, a somewhat underrated visionary of very classic, cartoony, almost Tex Avery-like action, emphasizing frantic pacing and exaggerated movements. What makes him so awesome is how aware of the classic animated shorts he homages.

      If you check out Cats Don’t Dance, you can tell it’s a glorious love letter to the simplistic stories of not only 50s-era musicals, but the very music-from-anywhere pleasures of the old b/w cartoons and Merrie Melodies. He uses animation aesthetics that seem to be discouraged nowadays.

      He also directed Chicken Little; while I haven’t seen it yet, I get the feeling it probably didn’t do well because of the difficulty to produce frantic comic action with CGI. He’s a ‘blink and you’ll miss him’ director, but I think he’s hugely underrated.

  • Blasko

    I’d be okay with Pixar taking a year off here and there to produce work that up to its earlier standards. Their films are starting to feel rushed out of development, and its harder to feel connected with what they do. I keep waiting for Pixar to be brave again — to take a risk on par with Fantasia — but they seem to be stuck inside their own, or Disney’s, corporate brand. Honestly, Dreamworks appears to be the more “cutting-edge” studio at this point, and that ain’t saying a whole heck of a lot.

    But then again, I have to remember that not many people going to these films really want to be challenged — either by narrative or through aesthetics. Too bad, because when something with integrity is created and released, it inspires the imagination, and I just can’t see Cars 2 doing that for my kid, or for others. Oh well.

    • Marco

      I can’t say any of their last four films felt rushed in the slightest. Wall-E and Up were wonderful movies, and Toy Story 3 took many risks, especially for a sequel.

  • Andrew

    I liked CARS. I think its ahead of the time. wait 75 years and it will be viewed differently when the American auto industry is gone in a new direction. it will have a different meaning then.

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com Frank Panucci

    CARS #2 raises even more questions than did CARS.
    The questions are obvious.
    Still waiting for birth/inury/surgery sequences.
    Car optic nerves and so on. Car placenta.
    Are both eyes one big jelly-filled piece?
    What does a car brain look like?

    • http://deleted OtherDan

      Cars are generally born if factories. When they roll out of the factory, it’s kind of like exciting the womb. When they need to have surgery it’s either by a reputable doctor, or Jiffy Lube.
      Car optics are in the headlights. during the day they are absorbing light like your own eyes do. When it’s dark they can’t see well and resort to emitting light.
      The placentia?…Where is Goofy’s mother’s placentia? What is Goofy anyway?
      Both eyes are unique-not jelly, like your own eyes.
      The intelligence of a car varies depending on the model and manufacturer. Japanese cars tend to be quite intelligent and the brains are usually located under the hood: typically called an ECU unit.
      I hope that helps you.

  • Andrew Chesworth

    This movie will have satisfied my expectations if it includes a scene where a car gets electrocuted, revealing a car skeleton.

  • http://www.sibsy.blogspot.com Sibsy
  • OtherDan

    Crazyheads! I liked Cars ( I have always liked cars). I don’t understand the backlash. Anybody feel like arguing with me about the story or characters? I’m up for a good debate-especially, if you view movies as entertainment. The story was solid. It captured the feel of route 66, and pining for those days when life was a bit more relaxed. Owen Wilson is always fun in my opinion. What’s not to like? There are no holes in the story structure, the characters were appealing, there was a good story and character arc., a nice message, an homage….what am I missing?

  • http://thatssokraven.livejournal.com Kelly Tindall

    Car bathrooms. Really. I think I may be stuck in a permanent loop trying to figure out what the hell that’s supposed to be about.

    • http://deleted OtherDan

      If cars were alive and talked, they’d probably have to take a shit. And since cars are cars, that little sight gag of two indistinguishable symbols for Male/Female was just that: a gag-What’s not to get?

  • Nipplenuts McGurk

    Aside from Cars containing plenty of things I dislike – Owen Wilson, Larry the Cable Guy, a boring story, and cars themselves – it doesn’t really offer me anything as a fan of animation. We are basically watching floating heads, and there’s just not that much the animators can do with that. I watched Ratatouille again the other day, and was just enchanted with the way the characters move…it’s really just brilliant character animation (not to mention a great movie as well!). Even if Cars had actors and a story I enjoyed…I think I would still find it boring as a piece of animation.

    • http://deleted OtherDan

      Nipplenut…if you are keen to the nuances of animation-the timing, the staging, the weight, etc., then there is plenty to appreciate. They captured the essence of the various cars by being mindful of how they each should move and react differently according to their characters and physical properties. So much of story structure lies in the cinematography and direction. If you pay close attention to that, I think Cars also hit all the right notes given the story. As far as it being boring…that’s subjective. I don’t think it is. I’m sure life in a ghost town is boring, so maybe that’s what you mean. But, that was quite a contrast to the fast paced life McQueen was leading. It worked for me. By virtue of being cars, and the way they decided to characterize them I can see what you mean about talking heads. But, i think there is enough subtlety in the acting choices that it didn’t come off that way-like Thomas the Train might. Thanks for arguing with me. I loved Ratatouille also-for different reasons. They did a superb job characterizing the movement of rats, just as they did with cars.

    • Funkybat

      I know what you mean re: Ratatouille vs. Cars. I’m someone who has loved automobiles as long as he has loved animation, and I really couldn’t give a rat’s patoot about haute cuisine of Gay Paree (though I do dig French cars and their funky styles!) Still, after seeing Ratatouille, I found myself liking it a lot more than Cars. Remy and Linguini made a great pair, and there was some breathtaking character animation that stayed with me far longer than a lot of what I saw in Cars.

      With Cars, I appreciated the deep reverence for automotive history, American history, and attention to detail. It’s one of the only “Art Of…” books I own for a Pixar film, because so much of the pre-production art is fascinating to me on multiple levels. But as a movie, it’s kind of hard to fall in love with a film where you think the main character is a jackass, even AFTER his redemption. (Which may explain why some people I know just can’t get into The Big Lebowski; If you don’t appreciate The Dude for what he is, the film doesn’t work.) Having Owen Wilson as the voice didn’t help, but his behavior in the first 40 minutes of the film really soured me on Lightning McQueen, period.

      Doc Hudson and Mater the only characters interesting to me who got much development, I found myself wishing to see more of secondary characters who ultimately ended up with only 6 or 7 lines in the whole film. (And it looks like most of them won’t even *be* in Cars 2.)

      • OtherDan

        Funkybutt, you sound like you’ve softened up based on your earlier problem of “suspension of belief”. So, it looks like it boils down to subjectivity with Cars then. Your comparison with “The Dude” seems apt: I Iove both of the movies because I related to the characters-not because I embody them (I hope), but because I know of those character types and see the humor in the personification of them. Cars is one of those stories where it makes sense to begin the story disliking the main character and what he represents. That not only makes sense for a character with a one-track mind, and sets up the whole conflict and character arc for the subsequent acts. I’ve always liked Owen Wilson (Meet the Parents, Zoolander, Wedding Crashers, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Royal Tenenbaums,Shanghai Knights, Marley & Me, Marmaduke…okay not Marmaduke, etc)

        You wanted to see more of the other characters? Then, you should be looking forward to a sequel like I am. Common’ get on the contrarian bandwagon with me!

  • Paul A McCarthy

    Two sequels in a row from Pixar?

    Toy Story 3 was great … and the original Cars was a beautiful film … but this looks unnecessary.

    I’m surprised there was no scene of Lightening McQueen jumping a shark.

    • Paul

      I loved the first cars and it was a pretty family friendly film. I am very disappointed with the trailer for Cars 2. Yes, it looks very well done…However, did they have to add all the weapons and violence. I may sound like an over protective fuddy duddy but I don’t want my kids to see this any more and they have been waiting for this for a while…

  • http://www.artware.mx Arturo

    For the first time in the recent years, i’m more excited for Disney’s film (Winnie the Pooh) than Pixar’s

  • Mark

    I have no doubt this film will be a huge financial success. It looks to be everything its target audience (little boys) wants, and enough others will go see it too, I’m sure. As others have said, it seems unfair to fault Pixar for making a movie that seems to exist almost purely to make an easy buck, when that’s what DreamWorks and Blue Sky have been doing for a while now (interspersing uninspiring-but-lucrative movies between less successful, creatively-riskier-and-sometimes-critical-darlings), whether the studio’s continued existance depends on this practice or not. I liked “Cars” more than most of my colleagues did (even if I thought it was weak by Pixar’s standards) perhaps because I had no expectations for it. Because I, personally, really don’t care about cars at all – or at least not enough to get excited about a movie about nothing but cars. This trailer made me chuckle once, and the rest of it was “Meh. Boxes rolling around past bright colors and lights. Whatever.” So maybe this film will pleasantly surprise me, too. Although I doubt the film could ever be as entertaining as the other posters’ attempts to figure out how the world of “Cars” works – one of my favorite pasttimes! Ha ha!

  • http://www.pr-inside.com/print1649899.htm Rico Mullison

    I think that there is nothing, not even crime, more opposed to poetry, to philosophy, ay, to life itself than this incessant business.