Brave might be Pixar's most original idea but it is not out yet and is programmed (as far as I know) for mid 2012. We will be able ti judge it when time comes, in the meantime there were only sequels...
Now let's quote the WHOLE sentance, ok ?
"The whole idea of giving personality to cars (and then ships, planes and so on) seemed rather stupid to ME from the begining..."
As you can see I did not say that "giving personality to cars is stupid". I said, it seemed stupid to me, which is very different.
However, your list just proves what I said.
Bugs
Monsters
Fish
Robots
These are all living (or sort of) things to begin with and, TO MY OPINION, are easier to relate to.
Mayebe it's the way things were done in both Cars films, I don't know. Bottom line is that Cars was Pixar's worst film (in the box office as well as by critics) and its successor is even worse.
But Toys, man. Toys are not living, nor were they ever, and they're no more a "realistic" choice to give personalities to than automobiles are. (Don't try to slide robots in their, either. They're no different.) When you consider that many people have an emotional connection to their cars that goes deeper than some living things to them, it makes a ton of sense.
But beyond this, storytelling has never required "making sense". It's storytelling. You can do anything, there is no limitation. Limiting the storytelling to living creatures just weakens the potential.
Snarkasm has an excellent point: Buzz and Woody were basically humans, and even Wall-E was vaguely humanoid (head, arms, etc), making them much easier to relate to even when they aren't talking. A car, not so much, it's harder to imagine it talking, moving, and having a personality (relative to toys and robots).
I too thought the idea of Cars was tragically retarded when I first saw the previews for it way-back-when. It looked kiddy and goofy, and talking cars made me think of those Chevron gasoline commercials. I ended up finding it to be a phenomenal movie, made greater by its reference to the historical Route 66 and older cars from its time.
Take a look at the front of just about any car. I challenge you not to see something resembling a face in most of them.
Yep! It's fairly true. That's what ended up being so fun about Cars, is that they took advantage of this to make tiny little details that made the characters fun. For example, the spy McMissile has front grills that look like a typical British moustache. Brilliant!
This also becomes very creepy when Cars 2 had a scene that broke the convention of "the windshields are eyes". In the flea market, Mater sees a young car that had eyes instead of headlights. Very disturbing.
Speaking of disturbing, check this out. If you think about it.... it makes sense: an odd hybrid of organic with mechanical.
0
colapart legend, part devil... all manBalls deepIcrontian
Take a look at the front of just about any car. I challenge you not to see something resembling a face in most of them.
I couldn't find the whole image, but this is the last in a sequence of slowly zooming images of the front of this car, I believe you can see the face here.
I couldn't find the whole image, but this is the last in a sequence of slowly zooming images of the front of this car, I believe you can see the face here.
Comments
Thanks for your comment.
Brave might be Pixar's most original idea but it is not out yet and is programmed (as far as I know) for mid 2012. We will be able ti judge it when time comes, in the meantime there were only sequels...
Now let's quote the WHOLE sentance, ok ?
"The whole idea of giving personality to cars (and then ships, planes and so on) seemed rather stupid to ME from the begining..."
As you can see I did not say that "giving personality to cars is stupid". I said, it seemed stupid to me, which is very different.
However, your list just proves what I said.
Bugs
Monsters
Fish
Robots
These are all living (or sort of) things to begin with and, TO MY OPINION, are easier to relate to.
Mayebe it's the way things were done in both Cars films, I don't know. Bottom line is that Cars was Pixar's worst film (in the box office as well as by critics) and its successor is even worse.
But beyond this, storytelling has never required "making sense". It's storytelling. You can do anything, there is no limitation. Limiting the storytelling to living creatures just weakens the potential.
I too thought the idea of Cars was tragically retarded when I first saw the previews for it way-back-when. It looked kiddy and goofy, and talking cars made me think of those Chevron gasoline commercials. I ended up finding it to be a phenomenal movie, made greater by its reference to the historical Route 66 and older cars from its time.
Yep! It's fairly true. That's what ended up being so fun about Cars, is that they took advantage of this to make tiny little details that made the characters fun. For example, the spy McMissile has front grills that look like a typical British moustache. Brilliant!
This also becomes very creepy when Cars 2 had a scene that broke the convention of "the windshields are eyes". In the flea market, Mater sees a young car that had eyes instead of headlights. Very disturbing.
Speaking of disturbing, check this out. If you think about it.... it makes sense: an odd hybrid of organic with mechanical.
I couldn't find the whole image, but this is the last in a sequence of slowly zooming images of the front of this car, I believe you can see the face here.
And it's having a blast.
That's a DreamWorks smile.