.jpg)
I’ve possibly been a bit unfair towards “Cars” in complaining that it gets a sequel, the forthcoming “Cars 2,” when it’s my least favorite Pixar film. I know “Toy Story 3” was fantastic, but I just wasn’t as excited for it or into it as I have been for years about Pixar, because I’m sad that they’re not being encouraged to further innovation.
Unfortunately for it, “Cars 2” has borne the brunt of my disgruntlement over the whole issue. Its existence incorporates all the things I don’t like about the direction in which Walt Disney Corp. CEO Bob Iger is headed: the lowest-grossing and one of the arguably weakest Pixar films that happened to have the largest merchandising numbers gets a sequel not because the story demanded it or even because audiences craved more of the film, but so the House of Mouse’s products department can churn out more beds shaped like Lightning McQueen.
I actually saw a boy dressed as Lightning McQueen for Halloween last week. That’s exactly what has Iger salivating, that his coveted demographic, boys between the ages of 6-10, has a Disney brand they adore.
Disney’s long had young girls covered with the Disney Princesses brand, but boys for the most part have eluded them. More “Cars” films are merely an excuse for more “Cars” merchandise. It’s not about the art, or even about making movies, anymore.
I should get back to my apology to the “Cars” franchise. The first movie itself wasn’t really that bad; not remarkable, but despite a derivative story I found it cute and enjoyable enough. It doesn’t deserve my vitriol.
I can’t help feeling some bitterness towards the movies themselves, however, when I see things like the recently released teaser trailer for “Cars 2.” It looks fine. However, what little I can gather about the storyline seems more suited to another Pixar film, one that was much better-written and thus more deserving of a sequel than “Cars.”
Apparently Lightning McQueen and his buddy Mater are now secret agents. The trailer basically consists of them standing in a shadowed nondescript room surrounded by long red laser alarms. The dashing spy-theme-style music that whips up over the title card, rather than making me want to go see “Cars 2,” instead fuels my desire to rewatch “The Incredibles” for the umpteenth time.
Why can’t they make a sequel to “The Incredibles,” if Pixar has to go making sequels? That movie stood heads and shoulders above “Cars.” Also, because it’s about superheroes, couldn’t that be just as marketable to boys? Speaking of super heroes, now that Disney owns Marvel, does it really need to make Pixar focus on sequels just to create a brand that appeals to boys? Though I admit that the wheels probably started turning on “Cars 2” long before the Disney-Marvel deal went through.
But I’d rather Pixar not make sequels at all. Even if they must, maybe I’d rather them do that for films I didn’t like as much. “Toy Story 3” was great, but I’m wary of expecting lightning to strike the same place multiple times.
I’d rather leave my memories of some of my favorite Pixar films untarnished, and ultimately if Pixar must make sequels, I’d rather them potentially mess up franchises I don’t care about as much. So “Cars 2,” you have my grudging blessing (not that you needed it). You just probably won’t have my ticket sales.
Related Articles:
Pushing “Up” Into New Territory
Tangled: Hand Drawn vs. Computer Animation
Pixar: Where Math Meets Reality
Underappreciated Disney Films: Lilo & Stitch
Disney Fostering Holiday Greed?
*(This image by CortesLM is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.)
