Here's my basic defense of Pixar, especially in the years up to Wall-E (ish) The theme of the movies isn't simply "What if X had emotions?" but rather "How does X feel about fulfilling their purpose?" The toys want to be played with, the bugs want to survive winter, the monster in your closet wants to scare you, and the racecar wants to win the race. That's the driving question behind almost all of Pixar's creative output. I think that's why they're cars in Cars: they had the premise first and didn't think about whether the story needed humans to tell it.
Them being cars = fun and I think made it a lot more interesting to watch than seeing normal people work through the same problems. It was different and allowed for various jokes and interesting things that wouldn’t have been there if they weren’t cars. Yes they still could have been humans but it would’ve have been as fun to watch in my opinion.
I don't have much of a problem with the characters being cars just for fun. My issue is more that the movie doesn't do as much with the concept as I feel it should have. Outside of a few puns, some admittedly clever character designs and some honestly not very well thought out worldbuilding, there's not much outside of that, at least in the first movie. What is there is pretty few and far between and the sequels have their own problems.
@@stuartbarron7117 I feel like if Cars 1 leaned further into car centric world-building, there’s a chance it could’ve lost itself The crux of the whole thing is that it’s a nerdy tribute to real vehicles, and vintage Americana in Route 66 - with a simple message about being humble and seeing value in strange places So if the story was tooled in a similar fashion to Robots (with a focus on new vs old machines), and the environment was tailored for sentient car access, it might not as strongly resemble the real place it’s paying tribute to If you want to be REALLY literal: real life America is already engineered for car access lmfao Although not many know that the original pitch for a Car movie at Pixar was totally different: It followed an electric car, who was overwhelmed in a gross, smoky world full of fossil fuels And eventually becomes accepted by a small town who reject him at first, after beating a mean gas guzzler in a race or something It places a higher emphasis on the “being cars” part with the difference in fuels - which you felt was lacking But I also don’t think it’s a better premise for it, either lol Really, the biggest problem Cars has is the fact it became a franchise Cars 2 and 3 have a bunch of new locations that force you to think about the world, in a way it was never intended to be seen A number 1 case of “make it up as you go”
“Why are they cars?” Why shouldn’t they be? The movie basically celebrates car culture and somethings wouldn’t work if they were people. Like lighting getting lost because why would lightning be in the trailer during transport?
I like that you were respectful about the fact the cars are cars, but I have to agree with the masses that, I think the cars being cars was mainly done as a creative choice, it makes the world feel more interesting than just, if it was people you know? still this was a solid take and I respect you for that.
Well, there is a genuine reason as to why the characters are Cars that stems from real life. A lot of Pixar's staff (especially John Lasseter) had an extreme passion for cars. I know many people (including PhantomStrider and one of the guys here) hate the concept of the characters being cars and the franchise in general, but I think one of the main reasons is out of passion and pure enthusiasm for motor vehicles. I myself developed one while simultaneously watching the movie as a youngster. I also just had thoughts that the franchise was pretty overhated actually. I have had a huge amount of love for the series ever since I was like 8 months old before it became one.
"one of the main reasons is out of passion and pure enthusiasm for motor vehicles" You hit the nail on the head here. The movie isn't so much a sports movie as it is a love letter to car culture and car enthusiasts. A perfect example is the emotional climax and turning point for Lightning: going on a cruise through the town and environment for no other reason than to just have fun (look at Sally's quote: "Cars didn't drive on it to make great time, they drove on it to have a great time). And his turning point is listening to the downfall of Radiator Springs and all the little road trip towns people would pass through and visit and how once those towns got bypassed by major interstates, they all but disappeared to all but the locals.
@@alexandergilles8583 MrEnter and others don't seem to give the first movie enough credit. It inspired a successful and at times very wholesome franchise. Mater is also one of those charmingly adorkable characters you laugh at when you get the chance. I also can't help but admire the franchise's creativity with the vehicle-inspired animals. I mean, think about it. tractors as cows and deer (John Deere tractors), dump trucks as elephants, mini-cars as bugs and rodents, trains as snakes, and planes as birds. What's next?
The plot woud simply not movie forward if they were people driving cars Because McQueen wouldn't have gotten lost because theres no realistic reason why the driver would be asleep inside his car, inside the trailer. At the bare minimum he would be in the cap with truck driver, and thats not likely either
Um, have you watched shows about anthropomorphic vehicles like Thomas the Tank Engine? No one nitpicked about why are there talking trains in the show. And they also coexist with humans.
Perhaps the biggest reason the cars behave so much like humans is because they *are* the humans. And throughout Cars, we see certain vehicles behaving like animals (bulldozers, tractors, Frank the combine harvester) because the animals mutated into car versions of themselves.
I think Cars shows a lot of creativity with the "anthropomorphic cars" premise. Cars 2 absolutely didn't need to be a Cars movie. That would've been better with humans, but Cars 1? Anthropomorphic cars work in this one. -How would you show that one scene where Lightning jumps on top of another car as he zooms to the finish line? That wouldn't work with a human. -How would a human have the speed to race down a highway and search for a tractor trailer that's carrying him? He wouldn't. Thus, you don't have Cars the movie. -Why would a human sit in the back of a tractor trailer? He wouldn't. He would sit on a plane to the next race while his truck driver drove to the location of the next race, you don't have Lightning fall out of the trailer and accidentally end up in Radiator Springs, and thus, you don't have Cars the movie. -How could a human have the size and brute strength that'd be needed to pull a 6 or 7-ton cement mixer? He wouldn't have that strength, but a 900 HP NASCAR could because those things are big, powerful cars. Lightning towing the cement mixer to repair the town's road is a major part of his character development and the movie as a whole. -How much less expressive would the characters be if, instead of cars with giant, googly-eyed windshields, you have humans driving them? You wouldn't be able to see their emotions as easily. But, in a way, I kinda understand where this guy is coming from, too. Pixar tells a kinda generic, predictable (albeit fun and entertaining) story line about a big wig learning the importance of humility, despite the insane premise. The goofy autos dramatically raise the movie's entertainment value, hence why it was important to make them goofy-looking cars instead of humans because then the movie would've been way less fun. But, they still could've done something more unexpected or unusual with the concept. For example, I think a movie with anthropomorphic cars that delves into our obsession with automobiles and our society's dependence on them could explore our relationship with the technologies that we create.
"Bro, why are they even cars?" Hear me out, because it's fun. And people like fun. As for Cars 2, everyone agrees that the film should have dropped the spy plot and just been about McQueen. My idea for how we can thematically tie this back into talking cars is to make the World Grand Prix a sort of test to pit different racing car models against each other on different tracks to see which is the best. And the whole thing becomes this metaphor for different racing philosophies as different characters face off on the road. Basically, a tournament arch in movie form. This is still a story that doesn't need talking Cars as characters and could be told with humans, but it at least brings us back to the vibe and style of the first film.
Ironically, Cars 2 is one of my favorites. Sure it doesn't make sense that a movie about living cars is a spy movie and them not using the fact that they are cars much. But as a kid, and now as an 18 year old, I really don't care that it doesn't make sense as I love it, in fact them not being humans is what makes it better in my opinion because I would not even care to watch it if it was just humans lol.
It is just a logical step in animation: your making a childrens racing movie so why not make the characters cars? Do not get too creepy like the people who try to pretend they replaced humans. It is a fantasy not everything has to be a depressing documentary.
I've always believed that the problem isn't just "they could have been humans", but also the fact that they don't really consider the worldbuilding implications of everyone being cars. They just took our world, put some living cars into it, and then didn't change anything else. At least Monsters Inc made an effort to demonstrate what everyone being monsters means for the world they live in. We don't question the premise because it makes sense, and feels cohesive. Meanwhile with Cars, everyone seems oddly obsessed with figuring out how and why cars are alive, because the movie doesn't give us any better answers. It's sloppy worldbuilding like this that leads to the godawful Cars anatomy theories you see everywhere, or Pixar Theory.
Asking “Why are they cars?” is equivalent to asking “Why are the bugs in A Bug’s Life bugs?” Because they can be. It doesn’t HAVE to be necessary to the story. Making the characters cars personifies the metaphor of living life in the fast lane, similar to A Bug’s Life’s metaphor of nature’s natural order and the food chain of society. And in Cars 3, they HAVE to be cars for the story to work. Lightning’s struggle of becoming obsolete and not getting any faster wouldn’t work with a human, who would just get a new car to enter the race.
Love all cars movies including 2 along with ten of the Mater’s tall tales shorts mostly because cars is what got me into liking Pixar while the second one I liked that it was the first one from Pixar other than Toy Story to become a sequel and franchise. I also liked that the theme was irrelevant for once because it doesn’t happen that often in animated sequel movies (which is what the people were trying to do and if it didn’t do that great, of course they go back to the original theme for making a third one). Any cars characters that are my favourite would be the two main characters, Lightning McQueen and Mater followed by the four spy cars, Finn McMissile, Holley Shiftwell, Tomber and Rod Torque Redline, also the cars versions of the guys from Toy Story, monsters inc, and a bug’s life and Todd the pizza planet truck. Even though most of the characters from all three were great, but I decided to pick those ones for my favourites. Also love the cars movies (including ten of the Mater’s tall tales shorts) from Pixar next to the lion king movies from Walt Disney and DisneyToon studios along with Toy Story, a bug’s life, Toy Story 2, monsters inc, finding Nemo, the incredibles, ratatouille, the little mermaid, beauty and the beast, Aladdin, incredibles 2, Toy Story 3, a Toy Story toons short, dumbo, the Aristocats, Fantasia 2000, the emperor’s new groove, Kronk’s new groove, brother bear 2, the princess and the frog, Zootopia, Ralph breaks the internet (like seeing what else goes on in the wreck-it Ralph world and by itself), Encanto, meet the Robinsons and enchanted. Oh yeah and the cartoon special of Dr. Seuss’ how the grinch stole Christmas and the live action movies of Dr. Seuss’ how the grinch stole Christmas and the cat in the hat and robots.
Honestly, I think people who hate these movies just for having cars instead of humans is incredibly biased and hypocritical, because I can see other movies that do similar things, yet they praise them, but pan Cars. Now, I do somewhat get your point about the premise not having anything to do with the plot, but it frustrates me how butthurt people are to call it a bad movie just for that.
Well the obvious reason they had to be cars is because Pixar was still struggling to animate humans. If they did this with people driving cars, it might work, but it could hardly be a kids movie. Now thet I think of it, I would actually love to see a live action Cars movie, targeted at a more mature audience.
To be honest, I'll still defend Monster's University as a good movie. It has a surprisingly nuanced message and solid character development. In general, I think the director, Dan Scanlon is an underrated asset for Pixar as I also really liked Onward even though some people had mixed feelings on it.
I did think of a version of Cars with Nintendo characters(you know, more human like). But there're some funny scenes that are really hard to express by human characters, such as McQueen hopping to the finish line, McQueen's tongue, McQueen falling out of Mack's hauler, McQueen pulling bessie... and so on. It just feels too realistic when using human characters instead of cars. I think that's what makes Cars special.
I’m going to go with the cynical guess (being only half way through your video at this point) that the reason they made them cars is because human characters wouldn’t have netted as much in merchandising.
The monster inc continuity error isn’t one I just thought it was a saying even before the prequel It like “it been a million years” “Donkey years” “The Dino were still alive” It just saying say a long time ago So “since the fourth grade” Just mean a long time ago It be rather strange if Mike knew when James started to be jealous especially when James isn’t it was a narcissist joke.
All three movies could have been about humans that like to drive different types of cars but only the first and third movies would have been as good if not better had the cars been driven by people. Cars 2 would have been better than what we got but still the weakest film in the trilogy. All three movies are about racing, and the second one would only be as good as the first ones if Mater became a race car instead of a spy car.
The plot woud simply not move forward if they were people driving cars Because McQueen wouldn't have gotten lost because there's no realistic reason why the driver would be asleep inside his car, inside the trailer. At the bare minimum, he would be in the cab with truck driver, and that's not likely either
cars 2 shouldn't be judged that harshly and with that i mean you judge it so harshly that it flips over like ghandi in civilisation. it's not a bad movie because a spy plot was a bad idea, it's because the whole movie centers on a comic relief that already would have a hard time carrying and then made everything so much worse by making it kinda racist and ableist, lemmings are way too close for comfort to disabled people, it reminds me a lot of thomas the train lore seeming off to modern viewers because they want the trains to be percieved more as trains and less as people than something like cars where most people assume more humanity. but in cars 2 there are very out of place character and evil minion deaths that seem tonally weird and mater acts very insensitively to everyone he meets and belongs more in a subreddit story that you question if it's fake than a kid's movie. cars was always fine, just one of the simpler ideas and then it got hit by the sequel curse. having a spy movie about mater could probably work if cars 2 was just made smarter, there's plenty of weirder sequels that have worked like puss in boots 2 what if he has death anxiety or wait has anyone ever noticed shrek 2's plot sounds like it shouldn't work and would be a weird sequel but then they put in the work to actually make it great? weird huh.
Why are they cars? It's easy to make toys out of cars. That's it. Then they essentially wrote a racing movie but took the drivers out. I genuinely dislike that franchise, if it wasn't clear.
Well I like the Cars franchise. I think it's really cool and creative. If you don't like it that's fine I just have liked it ever since I was little. Edit: I don't think the franchise was just made to sell toys. Yes, it's been continued throughout the years partially because of the massive amount of toy sales (with myself being one of the many buyers), but the other part is that it's just as successful as Pixar's other projects.
Why does everyone always come at the cars franchise for selling merch? Sorry to break it to you, but every kids movie is gonna sell toys. With that logic the toys in Toy Story are only toys to sell toys.
@@Jay-oj4hj yeah true, I personally okay if one of the movie reason to exist is to sell toys, as long they put their soul into it. Just look at LEGO Movie and LEGO Batman movie, movies that are clearly for selling LEGO, yet the team put their souls into it, surprising many peoples becayse of how good and detailed the movies were, that can be enjoyed by both adult and kids alike.
Cars is a great movie with a wonderful atmosphere - and a lot of that is done by the DESIGN. Of course you can say the story would work if they were humans. But it would be a very boring, forgettable movie. Why? The story is good, it is fitting and interesting, but if it would be told without the design elements it would be rather flat and "told a 1000 times" - so nothing special, even if the story is not bad. The worldbuilding is the best part of the movie! The VW Käfer (=beetle) bugs are always making me smile. Does the world make sense in our universe? No, not really. But in its bubble it absolutely works. I don't need to know who built the cars, I don't need to know if this is post-apocalypse and AI driven cars have taken over. It is a wonderfully designed, entertaining movie about a race driver that has to overcome his ego - but told in a visual way you have never seen before. Yes, you should not take it to seriously - just enjoy it! (btw I love the third movie!)
"Cars is not necessarily a bad movie." "I think the first movie is decent." These are quotes directly copied and pasted from my script. Do with them what you will.
Cars doesn’t deserve the hate. There doesn’t necessarily have to be a reason for cars to be cars in this universe. Sure they could have used humans, but the creators of cars made the movie as a love letter to nascar, and to route 66. It was about a racecar learning to slow down and to enjoy the simplicity of life. It’s also about a hotshot learning to care for others as we see lightning mqueen do at the end of the movie.
Here's my basic defense of Pixar, especially in the years up to Wall-E (ish)
The theme of the movies isn't simply "What if X had emotions?" but rather "How does X feel about fulfilling their purpose?"
The toys want to be played with, the bugs want to survive winter, the monster in your closet wants to scare you, and the racecar wants to win the race. That's the driving question behind almost all of Pixar's creative output. I think that's why they're cars in Cars: they had the premise first and didn't think about whether the story needed humans to tell it.
That's a brilliant take actually. I think you nailed it!
"That's the *driving* question..."
I see what you did there
@@IsaacHND "Like with Cars" - Noodle 2022
Them being cars = fun and I think made it a lot more interesting to watch than seeing normal people work through the same problems. It was different and allowed for various jokes and interesting things that wouldn’t have been there if they weren’t cars. Yes they still could have been humans but it would’ve have been as fun to watch in my opinion.
I don't have much of a problem with the characters being cars just for fun. My issue is more that the movie doesn't do as much with the concept as I feel it should have. Outside of a few puns, some admittedly clever character designs and some honestly not very well thought out worldbuilding, there's not much outside of that, at least in the first movie. What is there is pretty few and far between and the sequels have their own problems.
@@stuartbarron7117
I feel like if Cars 1 leaned further into car centric world-building, there’s a chance it could’ve lost itself
The crux of the whole thing is that it’s a nerdy tribute to real vehicles, and vintage Americana in Route 66 - with a simple message about being humble and seeing value in strange places
So if the story was tooled in a similar fashion to Robots (with a focus on new vs old machines), and the environment was tailored for sentient car access, it might not as strongly resemble the real place it’s paying tribute to
If you want to be REALLY literal: real life America is already engineered for car access lmfao
Although not many know that the original pitch for a Car movie at Pixar was totally different:
It followed an electric car, who was overwhelmed in a gross, smoky world full of fossil fuels
And eventually becomes accepted by a small town who reject him at first, after beating a mean gas guzzler in a race or something
It places a higher emphasis on the “being cars” part with the difference in fuels - which you felt was lacking
But I also don’t think it’s a better premise for it, either lol
Really, the biggest problem Cars has is the fact it became a franchise
Cars 2 and 3 have a bunch of new locations that force you to think about the world, in a way it was never intended to be seen
A number 1 case of “make it up as you go”
"Why are they cars"
Why is anything anything. Because it can be.
cars 1 is a masterpiece!
Because cars don't care what humans think is impossible
“Why are they cars?”
Why shouldn’t they be? The movie basically celebrates car culture and somethings wouldn’t work if they were people. Like lighting getting lost because why would lightning be in the trailer during transport?
I like that you were respectful about the fact the cars are cars, but I have to agree with the masses that, I think the cars being cars was mainly done as a creative choice, it makes the world feel more interesting than just, if it was people you know? still this was a solid take and I respect you for that.
Well, there is a genuine reason as to why the characters are Cars that stems from real life. A lot of Pixar's staff (especially John Lasseter) had an extreme passion for cars. I know many people (including PhantomStrider and one of the guys here) hate the concept of the characters being cars and the franchise in general, but I think one of the main reasons is out of passion and pure enthusiasm for motor vehicles. I myself developed one while simultaneously watching the movie as a youngster. I also just had thoughts that the franchise was pretty overhated actually. I have had a huge amount of love for the series ever since I was like 8 months old before it became one.
"one of the main reasons is out of passion and pure enthusiasm for motor vehicles"
You hit the nail on the head here. The movie isn't so much a sports movie as it is a love letter to car culture and car enthusiasts. A perfect example is the emotional climax and turning point for Lightning: going on a cruise through the town and environment for no other reason than to just have fun (look at Sally's quote: "Cars didn't drive on it to make great time, they drove on it to have a great time). And his turning point is listening to the downfall of Radiator Springs and all the little road trip towns people would pass through and visit and how once those towns got bypassed by major interstates, they all but disappeared to all but the locals.
@@alexandergilles8583 MrEnter and others don't seem to give the first movie enough credit. It inspired a successful and at times very wholesome franchise. Mater is also one of those charmingly adorkable characters you laugh at when you get the chance. I also can't help but admire the franchise's creativity with the vehicle-inspired animals. I mean, think about it. tractors as cows and deer (John Deere tractors), dump trucks as elephants, mini-cars as bugs and rodents, trains as snakes, and planes as birds. What's next?
The plot woud simply not movie forward if they were people driving cars
Because McQueen wouldn't have gotten lost because theres no realistic reason why the driver would be asleep inside his car, inside the trailer. At the bare minimum he would be in the cap with truck driver, and thats not likely either
That concept of showing Doc gradually getting to racing again does sound like it would work even better with Doc as a human.
I don’t care what anyone says I like the Cars franchise and I always will.
Um, have you watched shows about anthropomorphic vehicles like Thomas the Tank Engine?
No one nitpicked about why are there talking trains in the show. And they also coexist with humans.
Good point
Exactly, if you wanna say a blue train can talk, then why not a red race car, or a brown (formerly blue) tow truck?
Until Magic Railroad changed our perspective about that very idea...
@@TheLazyFusspot_3428 That movie can go die! But who knows? Maybe I will watch that new movie coming out in the future.
@@mooseman3027 If you think about it, Thomas only has 11+ minutes of screentime despite MR having his name plastered on it.
Perhaps the biggest reason the cars behave so much like humans is because they *are* the humans.
And throughout Cars, we see certain vehicles behaving like animals (bulldozers, tractors, Frank the combine harvester) because the animals mutated into car versions of themselves.
I think Cars shows a lot of creativity with the "anthropomorphic cars" premise. Cars 2 absolutely didn't need to be a Cars movie. That would've been better with humans, but Cars 1? Anthropomorphic cars work in this one.
-How would you show that one scene where Lightning jumps on top of another car as he zooms to the finish line? That wouldn't work with a human.
-How would a human have the speed to race down a highway and search for a tractor trailer that's carrying him? He wouldn't. Thus, you don't have Cars the movie.
-Why would a human sit in the back of a tractor trailer? He wouldn't. He would sit on a plane to the next race while his truck driver drove to the location of the next race, you don't have Lightning fall out of the trailer and accidentally end up in Radiator Springs, and thus, you don't have Cars the movie.
-How could a human have the size and brute strength that'd be needed to pull a 6 or 7-ton cement mixer? He wouldn't have that strength, but a 900 HP NASCAR could because those things are big, powerful cars. Lightning towing the cement mixer to repair the town's road is a major part of his character development and the movie as a whole.
-How much less expressive would the characters be if, instead of cars with giant, googly-eyed windshields, you have humans driving them? You wouldn't be able to see their emotions as easily.
But, in a way, I kinda understand where this guy is coming from, too. Pixar tells a kinda generic, predictable (albeit fun and entertaining) story line about a big wig learning the importance of humility, despite the insane premise. The goofy autos dramatically raise the movie's entertainment value, hence why it was important to make them goofy-looking cars instead of humans because then the movie would've been way less fun. But, they still could've done something more unexpected or unusual with the concept.
For example, I think a movie with anthropomorphic cars that delves into our obsession with automobiles and our society's dependence on them could explore our relationship with the technologies that we create.
"Bro, why are they even cars?"
Hear me out, because it's fun. And people like fun.
As for Cars 2, everyone agrees that the film should have dropped the spy plot and just been about McQueen. My idea for how we can thematically tie this back into talking cars is to make the World Grand Prix a sort of test to pit different racing car models against each other on different tracks to see which is the best. And the whole thing becomes this metaphor for different racing philosophies as different characters face off on the road. Basically, a tournament arch in movie form. This is still a story that doesn't need talking Cars as characters and could be told with humans, but it at least brings us back to the vibe and style of the first film.
Your channel was brought to me by the algorithm just today. Just wanted to say I enjoy the videos very much you deserve much more followers!!!
Ironically, Cars 2 is one of my favorites. Sure it doesn't make sense that a movie about living cars is a spy movie and them not using the fact that they are cars much. But as a kid, and now as an 18 year old, I really don't care that it doesn't make sense as I love it, in fact them not being humans is what makes it better in my opinion because I would not even care to watch it if it was just humans lol.
It is just a logical step in animation: your making a childrens racing movie so why not make the characters cars? Do not get too creepy like the people who try to pretend they replaced humans. It is a fantasy not everything has to be a depressing documentary.
Thomas the Tank Engine would also like a word too...
_Unfounded cries of dictatorship claims, hot off the press_
They are cars cuz they wanna make them cars, not everything needs a deep reasoning just watch the thing or move on damn
I've always believed that the problem isn't just "they could have been humans", but also the fact that they don't really consider the worldbuilding implications of everyone being cars. They just took our world, put some living cars into it, and then didn't change anything else. At least Monsters Inc made an effort to demonstrate what everyone being monsters means for the world they live in. We don't question the premise because it makes sense, and feels cohesive. Meanwhile with Cars, everyone seems oddly obsessed with figuring out how and why cars are alive, because the movie doesn't give us any better answers. It's sloppy worldbuilding like this that leads to the godawful Cars anatomy theories you see everywhere, or Pixar Theory.
Vroom Vroom
I'm in my mum's car!
Asking “Why are they cars?” is equivalent to asking “Why are the bugs in A Bug’s Life bugs?” Because they can be. It doesn’t HAVE to be necessary to the story. Making the characters cars personifies the metaphor of living life in the fast lane, similar to A Bug’s Life’s metaphor of nature’s natural order and the food chain of society.
And in Cars 3, they HAVE to be cars for the story to work. Lightning’s struggle of becoming obsolete and not getting any faster wouldn’t work with a human, who would just get a new car to enter the race.
Cars (2006) actually reminds me of another film with a very similar premise but totally different execution called Downhill Racer (1969)
Love all cars movies including 2 along with ten of the Mater’s tall tales shorts mostly because cars is what got me into liking Pixar while the second one I liked that it was the first one from Pixar other than Toy Story to become a sequel and franchise. I also liked that the theme was irrelevant for once because it doesn’t happen that often in animated sequel movies (which is what the people were trying to do and if it didn’t do that great, of course they go back to the original theme for making a third one). Any cars characters that are my favourite would be the two main characters, Lightning McQueen and Mater followed by the four spy cars, Finn McMissile, Holley Shiftwell, Tomber and Rod Torque Redline, also the cars versions of the guys from Toy Story, monsters inc, and a bug’s life and Todd the pizza planet truck. Even though most of the characters from all three were great, but I decided to pick those ones for my favourites. Also love the cars movies (including ten of the Mater’s tall tales shorts) from Pixar next to the lion king movies from Walt Disney and DisneyToon studios along with Toy Story, a bug’s life, Toy Story 2, monsters inc, finding Nemo, the incredibles, ratatouille, the little mermaid, beauty and the beast, Aladdin, incredibles 2, Toy Story 3, a Toy Story toons short, dumbo, the Aristocats, Fantasia 2000, the emperor’s new groove, Kronk’s new groove, brother bear 2, the princess and the frog, Zootopia, Ralph breaks the internet (like seeing what else goes on in the wreck-it Ralph world and by itself), Encanto, meet the Robinsons and enchanted. Oh yeah and the cartoon special of Dr. Seuss’ how the grinch stole Christmas and the live action movies of Dr. Seuss’ how the grinch stole Christmas and the cat in the hat and robots.
7:23, Cars is a good movie
Wild guess, they decided their kids' racing movie could handle animated car characters
Honestly, I think people who hate these movies just for having cars instead of humans is incredibly biased and hypocritical, because I can see other movies that do similar things, yet they praise them, but pan Cars. Now, I do somewhat get your point about the premise not having anything to do with the plot, but it frustrates me how butthurt people are to call it a bad movie just for that.
I don't regard the Cars movies as particularly great Pixar films, but I will say that they always succeeded in entertaining me :)
Well the obvious reason they had to be cars is because Pixar was still struggling to animate humans. If they did this with people driving cars, it might work, but it could hardly be a kids movie.
Now thet I think of it, I would actually love to see a live action Cars movie, targeted at a more mature audience.
At least all three Cars movies are better than Cars on the Road.
1:19, true
To be honest, I'll still defend Monster's University as a good movie. It has a surprisingly nuanced message and solid character development. In general, I think the director, Dan Scanlon is an underrated asset for Pixar as I also really liked Onward even though some people had mixed feelings on it.
@@stuartbarron7117 I agree with all of that
I did think of a version of Cars with Nintendo characters(you know, more human like). But there're some funny scenes that are really hard to express by human characters, such as McQueen hopping to the finish line, McQueen's tongue, McQueen falling out of Mack's hauler, McQueen pulling bessie... and so on. It just feels too realistic when using human characters instead of cars. I think that's what makes Cars special.
In the Cars universe, is racing just like running a marathon?
I’m going to go with the cynical guess (being only half way through your video at this point) that the reason they made them cars is because human characters wouldn’t have netted as much in merchandising.
4:16, I’ll finish watching this video first
A wise choice.
@@stuartbarron7117 Thank you.
@@stuartbarron7117 I have now watched the other video
The monster inc continuity error isn’t one
I just thought it was a saying even before the prequel
It like “it been a million years”
“Donkey years”
“The Dino were still alive”
It just saying say a long time ago
So “since the fourth grade”
Just mean a long time ago
It be rather strange if Mike knew when James started to be jealous especially when James isn’t
it was a narcissist joke.
Don't let this success pressure you from turning away from non-Pixar stuff
I just don't like the shoddy world building that only justified to sell toys
All three movies could have been about humans that like to drive different types of cars but only the first and third movies would have been as good if not better had the cars been driven by people. Cars 2 would have been better than what we got but still the weakest film in the trilogy. All three movies are about racing, and the second one would only be as good as the first ones if Mater became a race car instead of a spy car.
The plot woud simply not move forward if they were people driving cars
Because McQueen wouldn't have gotten lost because there's no realistic reason why the driver would be asleep inside his car, inside the trailer. At the bare minimum, he would be in the cab with truck driver, and that's not likely either
Nah had to stop watching at the Monsters University slander. Fine if you don't like it but that movie is in Pixar's greats🤷♂️
cars 2 shouldn't be judged that harshly and with that i mean you judge it so harshly that it flips over like ghandi in civilisation. it's not a bad movie because a spy plot was a bad idea, it's because the whole movie centers on a comic relief that already would have a hard time carrying and then made everything so much worse by making it kinda racist and ableist, lemmings are way too close for comfort to disabled people, it reminds me a lot of thomas the train lore seeming off to modern viewers because they want the trains to be percieved more as trains and less as people than something like cars where most people assume more humanity. but in cars 2 there are very out of place character and evil minion deaths that seem tonally weird and mater acts very insensitively to everyone he meets and belongs more in a subreddit story that you question if it's fake than a kid's movie. cars was always fine, just one of the simpler ideas and then it got hit by the sequel curse. having a spy movie about mater could probably work if cars 2 was just made smarter, there's plenty of weirder sequels that have worked like puss in boots 2 what if he has death anxiety or wait has anyone ever noticed shrek 2's plot sounds like it shouldn't work and would be a weird sequel but then they put in the work to actually make it great? weird huh.
Bros just a hater
That was mean I’m sorry
Why are they cars?
It's easy to make toys out of cars. That's it. Then they essentially wrote a racing movie but took the drivers out.
I genuinely dislike that franchise, if it wasn't clear.
Well I like the Cars franchise. I think it's really cool and creative. If you don't like it that's fine I just have liked it ever since I was little. Edit: I don't think the franchise was just made to sell toys. Yes, it's been continued throughout the years partially because of the massive amount of toy sales (with myself being one of the many buyers), but the other part is that it's just as successful as Pixar's other projects.
Sorry man
Manh famous franchise exist to sell toys as well, just look at star wars and Marvel
Why does everyone always come at the cars franchise for selling merch? Sorry to break it to you, but every kids movie is gonna sell toys. With that logic the toys in Toy Story are only toys to sell toys.
@@Jay-oj4hj yeah true, I personally okay if one of the movie reason to exist is to sell toys, as long they put their soul into it.
Just look at LEGO Movie and LEGO Batman movie, movies that are clearly for selling LEGO, yet the team put their souls into it, surprising many peoples becayse of how good and detailed the movies were, that can be enjoyed by both adult and kids alike.
You must be fun at parties
Stop it, give more love to Cars 2.
Ive never seen a video from you before, but its very frustrating seeing people not understand why you made this video lmao
ofc it doesn't actually NEED a reason for them to be cars, but it'd be cool if it did! and pointing out that it doesn't isn't an issue
Cars is a great movie with a wonderful atmosphere - and a lot of that is done by the DESIGN. Of course you can say the story would work if they were humans. But it would be a very boring, forgettable movie. Why? The story is good, it is fitting and interesting, but if it would be told without the design elements it would be rather flat and "told a 1000 times" - so nothing special, even if the story is not bad. The worldbuilding is the best part of the movie! The VW Käfer (=beetle) bugs are always making me smile. Does the world make sense in our universe? No, not really. But in its bubble it absolutely works. I don't need to know who built the cars, I don't need to know if this is post-apocalypse and AI driven cars have taken over. It is a wonderfully designed, entertaining movie about a race driver that has to overcome his ego - but told in a visual way you have never seen before.
Yes, you should not take it to seriously - just enjoy it! (btw I love the third movie!)
This video in a nutshell: Cars = bad movie
"Cars is not necessarily a bad movie." "I think the first movie is decent." These are quotes directly copied and pasted from my script. Do with them what you will.
Cars doesn’t deserve the hate. There doesn’t necessarily have to be a reason for cars to be cars in this universe. Sure they could have used humans, but the creators of cars made the movie as a love letter to nascar, and to route 66. It was about a racecar learning to slow down and to enjoy the simplicity of life. It’s also about a hotshot learning to care for others as we see lightning mqueen do at the end of the movie.