Why is Cars 2 the Way it is?

Submitted by CasuallyCarrots t3_123vtrb in movies

OK, look, maybe close to a rule 8 problem so if it is I am sorry, but I just want to know...

What happened with Cars 2??

For some background, Cars is a Pixar film series where cars (and other vehicles) are alive. Obviously, as cars, racing is a huge sport. I recently started introducing my kid to Pixar and despite being a huge fan of Pixar, I was never interested in Cars despite loving Owen Wison. Well, my daughter loves cars, I like Pixar, it can't be that bad, so I guess it's time to watch them. Cars 1, it's fine. It lacks some of the punch other Pixar movies have, but a fine enough story. By some act that in hindsight has made me believe there is indeed a god, I saw Cars 3 next by mistake which was honestly pretty good (and I definitely appreciate it more today than I would have if I had seen it sooner now that I have my daughter). Well, if seeing Cars 3 by accidentally skipping Cars 2 made me think there might be a god.... Cars 2 convinced me there is at least a devil.

So the intro of Cars 2 is a Cars-themed spy thriller on an oil rig. Legit thought it was a pre-movie short Pixar used to be famous for. Until it shows a murdered crumpled agent Car, a chase scene with blow torch weapons trying to kill the agent, and thug cars plunging to their deaths. Okey... dokey...? Then the agent gets away and you realize.. nope, this is actually the movie. They literally show a torture scene in the film where the bad guys have captured an American agent, and show his death on screen. (OK, it's reflected in a TV screen, but still). There is hardly any racing, just a convoluted plot to tie in a conspiracy theory that someone is sabotaging the fuel (and again, murdering/severely injuring race cars). They even plant a bomb trying to kill all of Lightning McQueen's pit crew! I finish the movie and absolutely believe I just got trolled by Pixar, especially having already seen Cars 3.

I'm not some prude or anything, but seriously what happened with Cars 2 compared to the entire rest of the series? Car murder, violence, torture, terrorism...? A spy thriller with Larry the Cable Guy? I have just never seen such a strange transition for a sequel, especially for what I would argue is mostly a kid's movie. I tried some basic searching, but honestly, most of it is just speculation about going for selling more toys or capitalizing on Larry the Cable Guy's goofy character. Is there more to the story than that? Restore some sanity to the Cars 2 movie living rent-free in my mind right now.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kingzilch t1_jdwj0fy wrote

You called it, basically: there are parts of the country where they like "Larry The Cable Guy," and they love car racing. They watched the first Cars a lot, and they bought the toys. So Pixar made Cars 2 to cater to them, and to make the money for better, more heartfelt films like Inside Out.

7

doc_55lk t1_jdwjif6 wrote

Disney wanted to capitalize on the spy thriller genre. Not that deep.

Cars is more enjoyable to watch if you're a car enthusiast. There's tons of Easter eggs and references in all 3 movies. It may not really speak to you, but imo it's a solid love letter to those who live and breathe cars.

4

Tiny-Web3879 t1_jdwjkxs wrote

The cool thing about Pixar is to make it not the same film, most sequels/prequels put a side character as the lead. Cars 2 was maybe the worst version of that and it made me laugh that it was so bad Mater got demoted all the way to a zoom call for number 3.

3

CasuallyCarrots OP t1_jdwkqrr wrote

Replying to Tiny-Web3879 (#2,397,397)

That's a really excellent point about the character trade-off. Definitely speaks to Finding Nemo versus Dory.

Larry also isn't my favorite persona either so that probably does not help the situation, but I also noticed the lack of original cast in Cars 3 too.

2

CasuallyCarrots OP t1_jdwlbl2 wrote

Replying to kingzilch (#2,397,319)

Good points. Even for more of a 'sellout' movie, Cars 2 just feels so far off the mark it makes me feel like I am the one taking crazy pills.

Even Cars 3 feels like it would be better at marketing towards car people as it has everything from the small local dirt derby races, nostalgia/legacy racers, and sticking it to big corporations that take the heart out of things for profit. Definitely makes Cars 2 feel cheap in that context with how short-sighted its design and execution went.

3

TheJoanne t1_jdwlq5z wrote

Because if not for the money, the sequel was absolutely unnecessary to the point where screenwriters couldn't create anything decent to a story that was already perfect and complete.

1

CasuallyCarrots OP t1_jdwmaa4 wrote

Replying to doc_55lk (#2,397,384)

It's just such a huge departure from the theme of the first one. A movie where everyone is a car and racing is the initial framework? Sure fits well. A follow-up where everyone is a car and... there is a terroristic threat against green(er) energy? The hell?

Any insight on if the was a "Well we have Michael Caine so let's do a cars-based British spy thing" versus "We have a cars-based British spy movie let's get Michael Caine"?

1

QuothTheRaven713 t1_jdwmaef wrote

For why Mater was the main character, the reason is because when John Lasseter went on a tour around the world he'd keep finding himself wondering what Mater would do in that situation.

As for the spy angle, no idea.

EDIT: Spy angle came from Lasetter loving the genre.

2

CasuallyCarrots OP t1_jdwmwf5 wrote

Replying to TheJoanne (#2,397,705)

I am not sure I totally agree they couldn't come up with anything more. In my own opinion, I think Cars 3 is even better than 1.

Even if someone disagrees with that, if someone liked Cars 1 or Cars 3 it's a safe bet they would probably say the other is also a good movie, so they definitely had more creative space to use after Cars 1.

3

CasuallyCarrots OP t1_jdwnw8h wrote

Replying to ChrisCinema (#2,397,885)

Man thanks for that article, I hadn't seen it, and gives some insight.

Poor guy, missed directing some of his older franchise and comes back to direct Cars 2, netting the lowest feature film ratings out of all of Pixar's work.

2

doc_55lk t1_jdwqqea wrote

Replying to CasuallyCarrots (#2,397,779)

It is. That's probably why Cars 3 was about racing again, and carried almost nothing over from Cars 2.

Again, it's probably just Disney's failed attempt at trying to capitalize on the spy thriller genre.

3

Kiethblacklion t1_jdwrbg0 wrote

I feel that Cars 2 definitely would have been better if it just focused on the challenge of McQueen adapting to European style racing rather than the James Bond story for Mater (on a side note, I did enjoy Michael Cain's performance....maybe they should have just done a straight up Spy Cars for him to star in).

The Mater's Tall Tales shorts are much more enjoyable than Cars 2. Goofy stories, told by Mater, that are entertaining and not to be taken seriously or part of the main story.

10

Iconoclassic404 t1_jdwrguc wrote

This is just my opinion, but I feel like the Cars franchise was Pixar's "Jump The Shark" moment. Maybe it is just me, but I feel like the company that made a great movie about real life toys shifting over to making a movie to easily sell toys with what is basically a done to death plot and meh characters really turned me off to the company for quite a while.

2

CasuallyCarrots OP t1_jdwun5z wrote

Replying to Kylon1138 (#2,398,486)

I wasn't saying every car is a racecar, but Cars 1 starts off with the main plot being about a arrogant racecar trying to win the race, and when he ties his entire goal is getting back to racing.

That initial act is replaced when he is forced to slow down due to his own actions, and it was refreshing that the plot develops more into a "stop and smell the roses" style movie.

2

RockJohnAxe t1_jdxks8l wrote

Cars 1 is amazing and cars 3 is the perfect sequel to it. Cars 2 had way too much gun shooting for my kids at the time.

Cars 2 really is a weird fever dream.

3