New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Tim Briody: It's fine, really. The Cars films to Pixar are like the crazy relative that nobody talks about when discussing the family. Sure, the Toy Story movies were fantastic and I'm personally partial to Finding Nemo, but it seems that Pixar's history and reputation are solid enough now that you can have a great discussion about the company and their films and never mention Mater.

Joshua Pasch: Tim's right in the sense that the public wont hold this one offense against Pixar. But they'd be wise not to make it a habit. If Monsters U isn't as strong as Pixar's typical fare, then I think people will start to take some level of issue. Moreover, I hope the creative teams at Pixar aren't changing their approach/values in crafting these films.

Bruce Hall: It's like Spielberg. We put up with crap like Hook and War of the Worlds because he makes films like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, too. On a personal level, I despise Jurassic Park (even more overrated than Jedi, if you ask me) and A.I., but it's okay; Spielberg also makes phenomenal stuff like Jaws and Close Encounters. I would rather not see Pixar get into this habit but let's not be unfair - they can't all be gems, even for Spielberg. Even for Pixar. I think people like us - who think about movies in greater depth than casual audiences - may have been spoiled by the consistently high quality of Pixar's output. And casual viewers are less likely to identify animated films with the studios that created them - like we do. So, I believe any harm done will be limited to the Cars franchise itself. I also think that Pixar proper will experience no long term damage provided they make an effort to continue creating the types of films that made movie geeks fall in love with them in the first place.

Matthew Huntley: No, I'm personally not okay with it, because a powerhouse production house like Pixar, with billions of dollars in grosses, doesn't need a blatantly commercial film like Cars 2 to pay for more ambitious projects. The much better received Toy Story 3 alone made over $1 billion, not to mention hundreds of millions dollars more in home market sales, so to excuse Cars 2 because it helps pay for higher quality movies doesn't seem right. They should be making good movies regardless. I agree with the rest of the group, though, that no long-term damage will come as a result of this latest blunder. The only thing we won't be seeing is the tagline, "From the studio that brought you Cars 2," when they promote their next movie.

Edwin Davies: In the short term, I can see it being damaging to Pixar in an intangible way since it represents their first serious mis-step. They've marred their perfect record, and they can't ever get that back. In the long term, though, anyone annoyed by this (like I clearly am) will learn that, hey, it had to happen sometime, and if they can keep the same ratio of 1 bad film for every 11 good or great films, then I can live with that.

I agree with Matthew that Pixar doesn't need to make blatant cash-grabs like Cars 2 because even films like WALL-E, Ratatouille and Up, which are far more ambitious and difficult than anything any other studio is putting out, make them a ton of money. Consciously aiming lower to make a quick buck is not something I am comfortable with Pixar doing.

Continued:       1       2       3       4