A.R.M. ([info]kinkyturtle) wrote in [info]cars_pixar,
@ 2006-08-23 04:22:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: tired
Current music:Weird Al - Don't Download This Song

Thoughts about the world of "Cars"
When I first saw the teaser trailer, Pixar's "Cars" did not look like a movie I'd like. The teaser shows two main elements: Mater and racing. I've never been interested in racing, and... well, let's just say I don't have a very high tolerance of redneck "culture". But then [info]babsbunny told me she absolutely LOVED it, and she invited me to see it with her and [info]sqrlly, and I ended up loving it!

Reviews of the film have been mostly positive; rottentomatoes.com gives it a rating of 76% fresh. Most of the negative reviews of the film tend to be along the highly subjective lines of "the plot's not interesting" or "the characters aren't appealing". My only comment about such things is "well, I disagree". Oh, and some reviewers felt the plot was similar to Doc Hollywood. Not having seen that movie, I can't comment on that. :}

But I've had some interesting thoughts pop up from some comments I've been reading, and I decided to illustrate them.


One criticism I've been seeing a lot, typified by this quote from Sean of filmjunk.com: "The film really drags towards the middle." I think I know specifically why some people are saying this: they're racing fans who were lured to the film by the promise of racing, and they can't tolerate anything slow!



Also, some people don't like the windshield eyes; they think Pixar should have stuck to the Aardman method of putting the eyes in the headlights. Me, I could accept the characters either way, though I do think windshield eyes at least are more logical.



A few critics don't like the idea of a world populated entirely by cars. Manohla Dargis of The New York Times refers to "the story's underlying creepiness, which comes down to the fact that there's nothing alive here: nada, zip." Funny, I thought the whole point was that the cars themselves were alive. The lack of humans didn't bother me, although I think it'd be interesting to imagine a world in which humans coexist with talking cars. What would our relationship be? If it were the same as it is now, I guess cars would be our slaves.



I think that would be unpleasant, because hey, slavery always is. There'd be people whipping their cars, holding up the title and shouting "I OWN YOU", stuff like that. And the inevitable violent uprising would be horrific.



I don't like to imagine such things. I'd hope that cars would have civil rights. Would they be paid servants?



Even in this case, your typical garage would be a dreary place for a car, unless you fixed it up with a TV or other such comforts and amusements. Or maybe houses would be built to accommodate both humans and cars, and the car would live inside with the people, and only go into the garage to sleep. Maybe the family car would be just that—a family car.



And when you grew up and went off to college and got a new car, the two of you could be buddies!



Garages could be built with a large car-sized door leading into the house as well as the one leading outside.



And when you got a job, your car would take you to work every day. You wouldn't even have to do the driving!



But where would your car spend the day while you were working? I figure most places of business would have car clubs instead of parking garages, where the cars could hang out all day. There'd be TV, videogames, a bar for serving fuel and oil, and a phone so cars could contact their riders (I figure that'd be the word instead of "owner"; your car calls you its "rider").



And by the way, something that struck me as odd about the movie was that for a movie about cars, it left out a big part of the driving experience: the interior of a car. We never saw any steering wheels, dashboards, seats or any of that. Just one vague metaphorical mention of "as hot as a black leather seat on a summer day". What's inside these cars? Pixar deliberately kept it vague by "greying out" the windows. Some people think this is appropriate, saying they wouldn't want to see the cars' "brains". Except, wait a minute... brains? Organs? I'm not sure I like the idea of cars having organs inside instead of passenger cabins equipped with seats. I'd hate to think that if a car somehow found me stranded in the world of Cars, he wouldn't be able to just pop his door open and offer me a ride.



But what would the view look like? If you got inside a car, would you see a reverse two-dimensional image of the eyes, like KT did in my "McQueen ride" cartoon? Would you see the back sides of a pair of huge car eyes? If I were writing a script about this, I'd imagine some sort of screen thingy inside the car so you can see exactly what the car sees. Or maybe it'd simply work like a two-way mirror. Either way, you'd be able to see out.



And while I'm on the subject of humans plus cars, I came up with a weird fantasy idea I think it'd be fun to explore: What if, when you got into the driver's seat of a car, you merged with it?



I hope this post has been food fuel for thought.




(Post a new comment)


[info]pure1magination
2006-08-23 01:21 pm UTC (link)
I LOVE THAT LAST THOUGHT. Love it to bits. But how would you get out again? Ya know, un-merge?

FOr the rest of them, very good points. I especially love the violent uprising. Love it a LOT. And I've been thinking about this same exact thing recently, but decided that thinking too hard about this movie will lead to madness.

(Reply to this)


[info]junoluver
2006-08-23 03:17 pm UTC (link)
Haha, I love overanalyzing family entertainment. :D You got a lot of cartooning skills going on in here too, by the way. I love the last concept, and the thing about cars having organs was something a few were discussing over at the Cars Fans Unite board, it was rather amusing to see it in comic form. And the comic on windshields vs. headlights. I agree that the cars were intended to be alive in the movie, thus making THEM the people. Humans aren't required, and to be honest, I think talking cars are more appealing than most humans anyway. As for the critics who disliked the characters, I think they just can't connect to a character that isn't a talking fuzzy animal or looks human. And those who thought the plot dropped out in the middle, they just don't get it. The movie's biggest developments were in the middle - it was McQueen's change from brash, self-centered attitude to a confident but kind one. Little kids got squirmy in the theater towards the middle because little kids don't pay that much attention to plot. It takes brains to understand emotional development over "Fast and the Furious" action. The point of Cars is that despite being able to rocket down tracks at 200mph, there is more to life than the finish line; it's the people around you and what you do on the way that matters. With that aspect in mind, Cars is rather brilliant in my humble opinion. *sticks tongue out at critics*

Because I feel like discussing the windshields vs. headlights deal, I feel that Pixar was very smart to prefer windshields. First off, every good cartoonist knows that eyes are a major form of expression, and since cars can't show as much body language (although they definitely do in Pixar's Cars, they ARE limited), focus has to be on facial expression by far. Windshields are larger and allow for more free expression. In addition, eyes located on the windshield make the front of the car like a nose, which to me is preferrable over the headlights, which more or less frame the mouth and make the car look like it has a squashed face and gigantic forehead. I felt the windshield eyes worked very well as opposed to headlight eyes.

Hah, whoo. Okay I'm done now.

(Reply to this)


[info]harpie_siren
2006-08-23 04:12 pm UTC (link)
Yay for overanalyzing cartoons!
I like your Idea of a world where Humans and Cars coexist and your art is to cute!

And about the cars organs? I think they'd be under the hood for obvious reasons, the engine = the organs.

(Reply to this)


[info]hannahclover
2006-08-23 05:00 pm UTC (link)
Haha, kudos to you! You brought up some points I have never thought about, and your drawings are delightful.
Personally, I think it would be wonderful if we coexsisted with cars with a mind of their own.

Thanks, you made a brilliant film seem a little more ingenious to me :)

(Reply to this)


[info]destroyah_des
2006-08-23 05:25 pm UTC (link)
These are great. I never read what critics say because I rarely agree with them and prefer to make up my own mind if I like a movie or not. I think them complaining about no humans and all cars is dumb. It's supposed to be about Cars, hence the name of the movie. It's not called Humans. I like your comics. I like sick humor and organs falling out when you open a door is funny. On the note of cars living with humans indoors they'd kill people because of the carbon monoxide exaust in a closed room. That would make a funny drawing. "Oh no, I killed another one. I need a new rider." Kind like I need a new gold fish.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]harpie_siren
2006-08-23 05:32 pm UTC (link)
Well maybe these Cars don't produce CM ...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]destroyah_des
2006-08-23 06:58 pm UTC (link)
Yeah that could be, but then the joke wouldn't be funny.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]harpie_siren
2006-08-23 09:20 pm UTC (link)
True. . .

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kinkyturtle
2006-08-24 12:12 am UTC (link)
Well, we know the cars can creep around like four-legged animals without using their engines, so I guess they'd be required to shut their engines off indoors and do that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]soralin
2006-08-23 06:16 pm UTC (link)
LOL. That's ridiculously funny but very insightful. I'm adding that to my memories.

(Reply to this)


[info]_x_blackroses_x
2006-08-23 07:39 pm UTC (link)
(Blast, I kept hitting the wrong 'reply' button for this and deleting it...XP)

That is one thought-provoking post! I was laughing from the first pic, but it's all very true...

What IS inside those cars?! XD I like to think there's storage space instead of organs. :p And as to the eyes, I'm liking either the 'two-way mirror' idea or that "merge with the car" concept. Quite thoughtful! And boy, would I love for the cars to drive ME!

I hope there is lots of talk about all this kind of stuff (surely they were considering all of this when they created the Cars world..?) on the DVD!

(Reply to this)


[info]xellinamazoku
2006-08-23 09:14 pm UTC (link)
Awesome! All very good points. The comic with the cars guts spilling out made me laugh.

(Reply to this)


[info]octan
2006-08-23 11:44 pm UTC (link)
Now I have to ask, have you seen "Susie the Blue Coupe" (the old Disney short that inspired the film)? Because that had humans and living cars in the same world, although I don't remember much about it.

Also I've never heard the eyeball-headlight thing attributed to Aardman; were they the first ones to do it that way?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kinkyturtle
2006-08-24 01:22 am UTC (link)
I've heard of "Susie the Blue Coupe"; I can't remember if I've seen it, because it's been a long time.

I don't know if Aardman started it, but they certainly popularized it with their Chevron commercials.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zoom_gas
2006-08-24 12:18 am UTC (link)
Aw, I like the idea of the cars being members of their human family...that's really cute.
Also, my dad and I have a theory about the 'Cars' universe...
two words: Nuclear Holocaust.
Sounds grim, I know, but it could be one of those types of things that wipes all humans off the earth, leaving the machinery to somehow evolve, I suppose?
Also, it would explain the fact that the cars listen to 'human' music...like Jimi Hendrix and Hank Williams...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kinkyturtle
2006-08-24 01:41 am UTC (link)
My theory is that the world was first populated by horses. They invented carts, carriages, chariots, and so on to carry their... horse-related items around. Then the carriages came to life and invented horseless carriages. By the time the horses realized their own inventions had made them obsolete, it was TOO LATE!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rdfox
2006-08-24 01:12 am UTC (link)
Heheheh. You know, the idea of the violent slave uprising was, to some degree, explored in the truly horrible mid-80s horror film "Maximum Overdrive." (The best part was the AC/DC soundtrack... I honestly considered it potential botfodder.)

As for the windshield/headlights thing, John Lassetter decided right at the start of writing that they'd use the windshield for eyes instead of the headlights; according to the Wiki entry, he felt that using the windshield made the cars look more anthropomorphic, whereas the Aardman-style ones look more like snakes.

I like the idea of the "car club" instead of the parking garage, but there's just one thing... wouldn't it make more sense for the cars to be playing a HUMAN-racing game? ;-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kinkyturtle
2006-08-24 01:26 am UTC (link)
Oh yeah, I heard about that comparison. Dog vs. snake, I believe it was expressed as.

But why wouldn't cars want to play a car racing videogame? Especially suburban cars who never get the chance to race for real.

Ooo hey, y'know what I'd like to see? A parody of "Grand Theft Auto" where the cars come to life and try to keep the guy from breaking into them, by driving away from him or trying to run him over or something.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]harpie_siren
2006-08-24 11:40 am UTC (link)
I wonder what would the relationship of one of those people who are way to overprotective of their Car, and thier Car, be like?

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…