Cars 2 Discussion Thread aka Spoiler Alert!

This is a post about the movie, so if you haven't seen it and don't want it spoiled, don't come in here.

I decided to make a new post for the people who have seen cars. I just saw it a few hours ago and loved it.

So, they really, really, really did a good job making it a Car world. Wow. There was so much stuff I am gonna have to wait for the DVD for all the Easter Eggs.

A few that I noticed and said wow, was when they were all at the pre-race party in Japan. All the "sculptures" on the main floor were something automotive and when they did a full shot of the room, there was a giant Wankel Rotor in the middle of the floor.

Another was the casino scene in Porto Corsa, all the slot machines were gas pumps.

I thought it was funny when Mater was in the French Market and he stopped to see what the one car was selling. When her eyes ended up being the headlights and it scared the hell out of him. It was kind of creepy.

Also, the automotive soundtrack was excellent.

There is so much more to talk about.

I just got back from seeing it and I thought it was awesome. Like you said, so much to look at and look for.

In the last movie they hid things in the lay of the land. They did that some too this time, but they had a lot more opportunities to slip in some things on this one.

I saw it in 3D and there was just enough good 3d stuff that I'd recommend spending the extra cash to see it in 3D over 2D.

As I wrote in the other Cars thread, I actually didn't think the movie was great. It was OK, but definitely not as good as the first one. To me, it was "over the top" needlessly. But from a car lover perspective, it was cool to see all the automotive stuff they put into it. Just like the first movie, they definitely did their homework.

I think they did a good job with all the sounds of the different cars, especially during the races.

I just watched it last night at the 10PM showing. Not a bad movie. I liked all of the voices and figuring out who they were.

Eddie Izzard's voicing of "the baddie" was awesome! Perfect!

I think there was TOO MUCH MATER! He should be a side charachter. I know people like him, but that gets overwhelming.

It was pretty good, not as good as the first. Maybe because it isn't a new idea anymore. But still good. Liked all the automotive references, and hidden bits. But my favourite part of the movie was the car sounds. Especially Finn McMissle. Damn I want a car that sounds like that!

I loved: "Is the Popemobile Catholic?"

I thought it was better than the original. I don't know that it had more of a plot, but the plot seemed to be more complete.

To the people who didn't like it as much, I say it's probably the lost novelty factor. You knew what to expect and the wonder of the talking, moving cars was lost.

I too could have used a little less Mater.

I thought it was good, but I wouldn't take my 2-year old to it. He loves the first one, but the new one is a bit too violent for him just yet. I didn't think the the story was as inspiring as the first one. They tried to make it too complicated -- if I have to explain a kids movies to the kids afterward, then it probably missed the mark. Visually it was good, and yes, I liked the visual details in it, but beyond that it was kind of "meh"...

DustoffDave wrote: I thought it was good, but I wouldn't take my 2-year old to it. He loves the first one, but the new one is a bit too violent for him just yet. I didn't think the the story was as inspiring as the first one. They tried to make it too complicated -- if I have to explain a kids movies to the kids afterward, then it probably missed the mark. Visually it was good, and yes, I liked the visual details in it, but beyond that it was kind of "meh"...

That is just about my take on it. I wish there had been more racing in it but it was cool to see all of the ways they worked car stuff into the world. My wife did not like it because of the violence and was very disappointed in the movie.

I did like the airplane pigeons.

Violence in a cartoon? Blasphemy!! OH WAIT, what about all the Warner Brothers and other cartoons of the last - well since cartoons were invented.

This had much less personal violence than any of the old school cartoons. The violence in this was more of the fun, blowing up stuff type of stuff. And nothing they don't see on any number of TV shows.

And as far as racing, they had a bunch of off track racing. Everytime the bad guys got after them there was a race.

carguy123 wrote: Violence in a cartoon? Blasphemy!! OH WAIT, what about all the Warner Brothers and other cartoons of the last - well since cartoons were invented. This had much less personal violence than any of the old school cartoons. The violence in this was more of the fun, blowing up stuff type of stuff. And nothing they don't see on any number of TV shows.

Well, I can tell you that I observe a difference in my own child (no blanket statement here about all children). He can watch Looney Tunes all day and it doesn't phase him, but when he sees more intense violence (like the big explosions and fast-paced stuff in Cars 2) he gets very worked-up. And no one ever ordered anyone to "kill" anyone else in Looney Tunes. The violence is different.

Now, I'm not a fuddy-duddy when it comes to my kid, but I definitely think that a 2-year old should only be exposed to so much. As a person who has been in war, I can say that he'll have plenty of time in his life to experience all of the violence he'll ever want to handle -- I don't need to serve it up to him now...

Stepping off soap-box now.

Kill the wabbit.

While I fundamentally agree with you about violent cartoons and what your kid turns into after watching them, I'm not in agreement with you that looneytunes weren't violent or didn't contain killing.

Remember that opera version with Elmer killing the Wabbit? The scene where he was holding a dead rabbit and crying "what have I done"? That was worthy of Le Mis.

Mater is a popular character and isn't perceived as being of the highest intelligence. That worked with the story. It set up a lot of jokes at his expense, and made several scenes possible. I don't see Mater being a main character as a bad thing, but it certainly would take someone that didn't expect it for quite a surprise.

Do remember that we're the guys that watch bad car movies just to see the cars. I feel that this may end up being one of those movies. Do also keep in mind that even if Pixar hadn't made this movie, Disney would have. When Pixar allowed Disney to buy them out, they got to maintain their own franchises, mostly "Toy Story" and "Cars". Both of those franchises would have been ruined by the Disney machine. Now Disney Animation is run by one of the founders of Pixar, John Lasseter. As a matter of fact, Cars 2 was made under his direction.

Now, understanding that this movie is a long "Mater's Tale" instead of an extension of the story line from "Cars", would it make any more sense? This movie was wrapped up in a similar manner. It seems that they took something that was an incredibly successful direct-to-DVD franchise and made a movie.

foxtrapper wrote: Kill the wabbit. While I fundamentally agree with you about violent cartoons and what your kid turns into after watching them, I'm not in agreement with you that looneytunes weren't violent or didn't contain killing. Remember that opera version with Elmer killing the Wabbit? The scene where he was holding a dead rabbit and crying "what have I done"? That was worthy of Le Mis.

You're right, I'll concede that one to you. But, I think you'll agree that for whatever reason, there is just something different about the violence in Looney Tunes and the violence in Cars 2 (or any other more modern cartoon with violence, for that matter). I'm not sure I can put it accurately, but there is a difference in intensity...

I agree with carguy that the old Looney Toons cartoons are very violent..as was Tom and Jerry, etc...not to mention the Three Stooges (a real life version of a cartoon). I grew up a fanatic of all those, as did millions of children. Cartoon Network just came out with a new Looney Toons series. My kids, age 7 and twins nearly 4 years old, love the show. I think it's cute, but they are very different from the originals in that most of the silly violence has been taken out. Kind of strange to say, because I'm not advocating showing all manners of violence to children, but I think the old cartoons were much better. As a kid, I knew that when Elmer shot Daffy and it made his beak spin around, it wasn't real. And as a parent, I'm confident enough in my skills to let my kids watch old Looney Toons and explain to them that it's not real.

That said, the explosions and things in Cars 2 didn't really scare my kids. At this point, they know it's all a cartoon, and there was nothing uber violent in it.

As for the rest of the movie, it wasn't that the novelty was gone that made me say "meh". Like dustoffdave said, I think it was just too complicated, especially when compared to the original. And far too much Mater.

As a side note, did anyone like the short Toy Story cartoon they showed before the movie? I thought that was really funny.

Ok, I'm gonna jump back in here because I think one of the biggest things has been looked over. Pixar makes movies geared towards two people, kids and adults. Realize that Pixar made this as a second movie to one that came out 5 years ago. Most kids that saw the first one (in theater and at immediate DVD release) are 4-5 years older now. To me, Cars 2 was geared towards the now older children and still toward adults. If you have a two or three year old that just saw the first, then I would probably wait to see the second for a few years when their mind is in a different mind set. I think one thing is for sure, the movie was definitely geared more towards adults this time.

I will say this however, The MPAA should have rated this PG. I think animation gets away with too much with violence and such. While Cars 2 did not show any direct images of "death" (except for possibly the one spy that got crushed into a cube), there were still guns, explosives, torture, and "fighting" and I think that should be a PG type of movie. However, the MPAA doesn't think so.

The Incredibles and Up were the only two Pixar movies to get a PG rating. I think Cars 2 should have been up there.

According to the MPAA:

G — General Audiences. All Ages Admitted. A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it signify a "children’s" motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.

PG — Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children. A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision. The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture.

Also, I personally didn't find Cars 2 that complicated. I followed along rather well while still trying to look for as many Easter Eggs as possible.

I do think it was a big Mater story. I think that the first movie was geared toward racing more than the second (even though that was part of the plot) and that they wanted to do something other than just racing in the second.

In reply to Klayfish:

I did enjoy the Toy Story short before the movie.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid said: To me, Cars 2 was geared towards the now older children and still toward adults. If you have a two or three year old that just saw the first, then I would probably wait to see the second for a few years when their mind is in a different mind set.

I agree with that, and yes, I'm sure I will let my little guy watch it in a few years when he is able to handle it better. I also agree with you that it should have been PG.

I didn't think the story was that complicated. If Mater had just been himself instead of trying to fit in he would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

just went to see it last night....it was cool, but not as cool as the first one though...the cameos where very amsuing though and the pigions where funny. the black car market was very amsuing....

I've come to the conclusion that the world of Cars and Cars 2 is almost like a playground for the animators. I've felt like it's felt a lot more lighthearted than the other Pixar tales, and it's not afraid to poke fun at itself. I think that's something that the reviewers miss. It's not trying to be a wonderful groundbreaking story. It's just having fun, and that's okay.

foxtrapper wrote: Kill the wabbit. While I fundamentally agree with you about violent cartoons and what your kid turns into after watching them, I'm not in agreement with you that looneytunes weren't violent or didn't contain killing. Remember that opera version with Elmer killing the Wabbit? The scene where he was holding a dead rabbit and crying "what have I done"? That was worthy of Le Mis.

I'm a huge Looney Tunes fan. The violence was profound in those cartoons. Dogs beating the crap out of cats, Daffy getting his face blown off my Elmer Fudd's shotgun, hell--Pepe Le Peu was a rapist!!!

That said, I wonder of those cartoons were more for adults back then. Also, maybe we weren't just so pussified at the time. I grew up watching them over and over, yet I never translated that violence as "OK" or "Normal" in real life. I guess I always knew it was a cartoon.

gamby wrote: That said, I wonder of those cartoons were more for adults back then. Also, maybe we weren't just so pussified at the time. I grew up watching them over and over, yet I never translated that violence as "OK" or "Normal" in real life. I guess I always knew it was a cartoon.

From what I remember, looney tunes and tom & jerry and the like were shorts shown at movie theaters while waiting for people to get settled in. It's why they're all 8 minutes long.

My wife and I were really dissapointed that they didn't find a way to bring in the Top Gear trifecta. They were in England, what a great way to cameo Jeremy, Richard, and James. Missed opportunity PIXAR!!!!

Otherwise a fun movie with fantastic detail to the automotive/racing scene.

I've heard a lot of complaints that it was too much Mater, but it's called "Cars", not just the "Story of Lightning McQueen".

Carlins character should have been retired along with Doc Hudson though.

Cone_Junky wrote: My wife and I were really dissapointed that they didn't find a way to bring in the Top Gear trifecta. They were in England, what a great way to cameo Jeremy, Richard, and James. Missed opportunity PIXAR!!!! Otherwise a fun movie with fantastic detail to the automotive/racing scene. I've heard a lot of complaints that it was too much Mater, but it's called "Cars", not just the "Story of Lightning McQueen". Carlins character should have been retired along with Doc Hudson though.

Who did Carlin voice?