Can Pixar Prove Me Wrong?

I really dislike when people concern troll about, oh, pretty much anything. I may have made a comment relating to this pet peeve recently, so without further ado, let me introduce my hypocritical side today. Yes, this post is likely going to amount to me being a concern troll, something I truly dislike. What's wrong with concern trolling? Well, if I have to choose a type of Internet troll, I'll take the concern troll, but at the same time, I almost physically recoil when someone starts worrying about something they literally cannot control. Why worry about something you have nothing to do with, right? Well, for the majority of us, it's something to talk about, I guess. Hence today's post.

Let me also say this: I so want to be wrong about today's topic. I want to be as wrong about this as anyone has ever been wrong. I want to be as wrong about this as anyone who ever doubted the airplane, the television, the cell phone, or the iPod. Granted, the issue of whether or not Cars 2 is a major step down for Pixar Animation Studios is nowhere near as gigantic, but it's a topic worth discussing. Still, the point is, I want to be wrong. I want very much to see Cars 2 and be blown away, not only by the animation (which, based on the trailers, is going to be typically excellent), but by the characters and story. On the latter point, I fear already that I'm going to be let down.

But let's be clear about something else: I have worried about the past four Pixar films and been wrong each time. What troubled me with Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up was the strange ambition behind each film's concept. A talking rat who wants to be a chef in Paris? Forgive me if I pause a little at such an eye-catching, yet potentially disastrous idea. A movie about two robots who fall in love, 700 years in the future? That's a bit weird, but--wait, they don't speak English? Wait, there's almost no dialogue of any kind in the first 45 minutes? OK then. Oh, and don't forget about the one character who appears as a human. Like, a real, live-action person. Uh-huh. Last, but not least, a movie about a very old man who lifts his house up by balloons to Venezuela? Now, all of these movies have such arrestingly original ideas, but they also are movies that, with a minute, slight push in the wrong direction, could have spelled the end for Pixar. Instead, these three movies, along with Toy Story 3, made up a mini-Renaissance at the animation studio, proving that Disney's decision to buy Pixar was its wisest move in a long time.

The bookends to this creative zenith are the two Cars movies. Each Pixar movie has at least one iconic scene, something that sets it apart not only from its fellow Emeryville films, not just from other family films, but from other movies in general. Ratatouille has the climactic review from critic Anton Ego, Up has the montage of Carl and Ellie's married life, and Toy Story 3 has the final scene where Andy passes his toys onto a loving child. Though I unhesitatingly place Cars at the bottom of the Pixar releases, it has one of the most jaw-droppingly beautiful singular sequences, placed about halfway through. Lightning McQueen, the cocky race car who needs a lesson in accepting others into his life, is taking a drive around Radiator Springs with Sally, the pretty, smart, and feisty Porsche who functions as the town's lawyer. Their driving is somewhat flirtatious, but the scene kicks off when Sally takes the lead and Lightning follows behind, taking in the natural beauty of the Southwest, full of jagged rocks, lovely greenery, and the suntan color of the landscape. It's a bit cocky for the main character of the film to essentially be laid low by the photorealistic animation on display, but I can't argue when...well, the animation is incredible.

Ostensibly, this scene is the beginning of Lightning's transformation into a decent, unselfish character, but what the scene lacks is a forceful amount of character development. Cars does not lack for flash or childlike charm, but it has a deficiency of character. The biggest reason why Cars doesn't stand out among other Pixar films is the same reason why A Bug's Life is something of an afterthought in the filmography of this great studio: it's not that original. On the surface, Pixar movies are generally meant to place human emotions in something inhuman: toys, monsters, fish, rats, bugs, cars, superheroes, and robots. The notable instance where humans are the leads, Up, manages to not need hyperhuman characters, just a stylized background. The real problem is that Cars and A Bug's Life are so formulaic that you can almost see it. I'm not going to tell you that Ratatouille is some kind of consistent surprise of storytelling (we all know that Remy will get some realization of his dream in the end), but the story moves so swiftly and Brad Bird, the film's co-writer and director, has such confidence in how he's depicting the events that you don't see the next turn in the story around the corner. Because Cars and A Bug's Life are so clearly based on memorable films, implicitly or otherwise, we're not lured into a state of surprise or shock.

You may, at this point, be thinking back in your mind; "Which movies are Cars and A Bug's Life based on?" Thanks for asking, reader. (Yes, I can hear you asking these questions, even if you're only thinking them. The Internet is powerful!) The latter film is heavily influenced (and John Lasseter acknowledged it) by Seven Samurai, the Kurosawa classic, and Three Amigos, which, in itself, is influenced by Kurosawa. The connections are clear--a ragtag band fights off a powerful enemy, lead by a group of warriors (or, in Three Amigos and A Bug's Life, a group who says they're warriors)--so the movie's entertainment is only on the surface. Animation fanatics may get a kick out of the leaps and bounds taken by Pixar in terms of bringing the world to life, and how they used the Cinemascope format, but this story has been told time and time again. Pixar does their best to put a fresh spin on it, but the movie's only so successful. And then there's Cars, which is based, almost to a T, on Doc Hollywood. Yes, friends, the 1991 comedy starring Michael J. Fox and Julie Warner. (Remember, back in the early 1990s, when she was one of the up-and-coming leading ladies who was supposed to take the mantle from Michelle Pfeiffer?)

Yes, Cars and Doc Hollywood share a surprising amount of similarities. In both movies, the lead character is a hotshot at his profession. In both movies, the lead character sees his local ties (in the former, Lightning's sponsor; in the latter, Dr. Ben Stone's city of residence) as a hindrance dragging him down. In both movies, the lead character crashes his red sports car in a small town, and is sentenced by the local judge to community service before he can leave. In both movies, the lead character falls in love with a woman who practices law. In both movies, the lead character has to make a decision about heading to Los Angeles or staying in a small town. Now, don't get me wrong: Doc Hollywood is not the most original film ever made, and many aspects of the movie are as old as cinema itself. But the two movies are strikingly similar (I'd heard a joke about the two being alike a long time ago, but until I watched Doc Hollywood last summer, I didn't realize that the filmmakers could probably sue Pixar and have a damn good case). The difference between Cars and A Bug's Life is simple: John Lasseter acknowledged that the latter was a tribute to a previous film. No one has done so with Cars.

So, for that reason and a few others (Larry the Cable Guy), Cars is not a movie I've ever loved. I've seen it quite a few times, and while I appreciate what Lasseter was trying to do in terms of truly embracing small-town values, it's never hit me on the same level as the four films that followed it did. On the other hand, I've always freely admitted that if the movie was released when I was about 6 or 7 years old, I would love it more than life itself. Probably the only way to make the movie better if it had been about dinosaurs and cars, honestly. So it doesn't surprise me to see that Cars, while not the most successful Pixar film at the box office, is the biggest merchandising cash cow Disney has had in years. (And I do mean "biggest," as a Hollywood Reporter article today said Disney expects the franchise to make $10 billion in merchandising by the end of this year. TEN BILLION DOLLARS.) From a business standpoint, how could anyone not want to make a second Cars movie? Frankly, why not just announce that there will be a third in the series? We all know that press release is coming down the pipe.

But here's where I concern troll a bit: is this movie, Cars 2, going to be...you know, good? As I said, I've doubted Pixar in the past, and I was wrong. Frankly, I have my doubts about Monsters University, the prequel to Monsters, Inc. coming in 2013. The plot--that Mike and Sully met in college and, guess what, they hated each other--is all well and good, but I'm just predisposed to loathing prequels, since they remove suspense from the story, because we know what will happen further down the line. But I'm less worried about that, because I thoroughly enjoyed Monsters, Inc. back in 2001. I'm more emotionally tied to the characters than I am with Lightning McQueen or Mater, so I'll be more tolerant of that continuation. Some parts of Cars 2 intrigue me. The idea of using the cars in a car chase makes so much sense, it's almost baffling why there wasn't such a sequence in the first movie. Having Michael Caine in the movie (I presume as a mentor, based on the scenes I've seen) is a good way to get me more interested, too. But then I look at the cast list and see some of the character names, and groan all over again. This is the final nail in the coffin for me with the Cars movies: they are two steps removed from being DreamWorks movies.

Remember Shark Tale? Don't work too hard at trying to rack your brain, the movie's not worth it. If you don't remember it, the movie is essentially a mob movie with fish. Yes, what Finding Nemo was missing was a crime family! I bring Shark Tale up not to mock the story, but to criticize its animation and uncreative names. For example, the movie features the voices of Will Smith, Martin Scorsese, and Angelina Jolie, among others. If you can't identify their voices, don't worry: the animation helps out, since Will Smith's character looks like Will Smith, Scorsese's looks like Scorsese (replete with the bushy white eyebrows), and so on. What's more, there is a cameo from Katie Couric, who plays Katie Current. Get it? Get it? This Flintstones-style in-joke is so cheap and pandering that it drives me crazy. And if you watch Cars and Cars 2, you'll find the same cheap, pandering jokes. He's not Bob Costas, he's Bob Cutlass! That's not Darrell Waltrip, that's Darrell Cartrip! In the new movie, for example, you can hear the voice of Brent Musburger playing a character named Brent Mustangburger. Lasseter himself apparently makes a voice cameo, as John Lassetire. What's the point of this kind of joke? It's not even worth a full laugh, and the many kids who will flock to this movie don't get it or care. None of these kids are going to see Cars 2 will snicker knowingly when they hear Darrell Waltrip's voice, but see a different name. Hell, a hefty amount of the adults in the audience won't even get it, if they don't watch Nascar. But the jokes remain.

My concern is this: when I think of Pixar, I don't think of laziness. When I think of most DreamWorks Animation films, I think of laziness. There are exceptions in the case of the latter--though it's not God's gift to animation, How To Train Your Dragon is quite good--but DreamWorks is typically just to make money. While I know Pixar isn't a nonprofit, they typically tell great stories that do not reek of needing to make money. Cars 2 reeks of needing to make money. Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 didn't feel that way, even if the original film didn't seem to cry out for one or two sequels. I want Pixar to continue its winning streak. More to the point, let's be clear about something else: while I'm no fan of Cars, it was still the best animated film of 2006. It's just that, compared with the other films from Pixar, it's a very weak link. I'm honestly concerned that Cars 2 is going to make Cars look like Ratatouille in terms of quality. I want Pixar to prove me wrong. Maybe, if I lower my expectations, I'll be pleasantly surprised come June 24. Allow me to doubt that until the film opens.