Planes (DisneyToon Studios)

[pap64]

Here are my two cents on the recent announcement...

I am with everyone when I say that this is indeed a way to expand on the Cars merchandise empire and slowly begin to create merchandise based off of planes, and then move onto the other vehicles and thus maximize profit.

But the fact that they decided to release this in theaters after it was announced as a direct to video affair is very telling. To me at least, this means one of two things:

- That the movie proved to be so good they thought it deserved a theatrical release before the home video premiere. This happened with Toy Story 2, they never expected it to be a movie for theaters first, but it was so good they went ahead with it and it blew people away, for some being better than the first movie. Not saying that Planes is going to be like that (at best it will be like the Tinker Bell movies, at worst a DTV Disney sequel), but if they want to release it theatrically then it must be something special.

- That they want to maximize the profits off of Planes so they decided to release it in theaters where digital 3D screenings go at a premium price, thus elevating the box office take by a wide margin.

Me? I like to think it is a little bit of both. We can't forget that this is still capitalizing off of the success of Cars, but even if it exists to extend the life of a franchise if it proves to be solid and fun, I can support it.

[Mooky]

You were right, Mooky! Do you take checks?

Suddenly, being right doesn't feel so good. But if you insist... I'll take cash please .

[Sotiris]

After Cars 2, I'm not confident Lasseter's involvement is even a good thing.

Yeah but on the bright side how much worse can it get? I'm actually feeling confident it will be better that Cars 2. The biggest issue here is the tarnishing of the Pixar name. Cars 2 already did a lot of damage and most people - including critics - will see this as another Pixar film despite the fact it wasn't actually produced by Pixar.

That the movie proved to be so good they thought it deserved a theatrical release before the home video premiere. This happened with Toy Story 2, they never expected it to be a movie for theaters first, but it was so good they went ahead with it and it blew people away, for some being better than the first movie.

I don't think the Toy Story 2 comparisons are entirely accurate. Toy Story 2 was produced by Pixar and not by DisneyToon Studios and this is the Cars franchise we're talking about which - let's face it - was a stinker from the start.

[Sotiris]

The next Tinkerbell feature gets released this October, and the following year the first Planes feature rolls into Disney's distribution channels. Staffers tell me that the picture will get theatrical releases in some foreign markets. The studio is in the process of developing shorts for both franchises which will (presumably) go on the little silver disks. The thing that I didn't know but was happy to find out? Planes has a small animation crew inside Sonora that is animating key scenes for the first movie.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... tudio.html

[ajmrowland]

^just wait until the reviews before doing so. Lasster's involvement has raised the minimum quality standard for DisneyToon.

After Cars 2 I'm not confident Lasseter's involvement is even a good thing. I wasnt crazy about the first cars, but I tolerated it, its was a good movie, but I was ready to move on as soon as it was over. Cars 2 was already taking it too far. For the first time I couldn't bring myself to finish the commentary. Planes, in theaters without Pixar as a whole working on it? Forget about it. I was slightly more interested in this as a Disney channel only thing, at least I could give it the same compliments I gave Prep and Landing, that it was pretty good for being on tv. But bringing this to theaters raises the bar higher than I think they can deliver. Sure, they did this with Toy Story 2 in a way, but that also wasn't coming off a mediocre sequel.

Even if they manage to come up with an engaging story and characters, I still have the same issues with the whole cars universe that cannot be fixed at this point, the fact that these are machines built by humans to transport humans, yet humans don't exist in this world. It only gets more apparent to me the more we see of this universe.

maybe. To me cars 2 always seemed to be more of a corporate anomaly. The pressure for a franchise the spy movie they wouldve wanted more and the changing of directors.

[dvdjunkie]

Here's my two cents worth.

I don't understand the "hate" for Cars and Cars 2, nor do I understand the comparisons to "Planes".

Most of the contributors here are saying "Cars takes place in a human world but there are no humans"........or at least something like that. This is so dumb it is almost as funny as if you were to say - "I hate "Bambi" because it is the animal world and there are no humans."

Those of you who enjoy animated films need to remember what you are watching. There are tons of examples out there. "Watership Down" comes to mind, immediately. Great movie, no humans involved.

If I were to compare a 'yet-to-be-released' film to anything, it would be pretty silly because I don't judge a movie by what posters I have seen or what teaser trailers I have seen. Now that Disney has announced the theatrical release of this film, I will anxiously await it release and then make my judgment, if any, on the product.

One of my favorite cartoon shorts is from the MGM studios and it is called "Little Johnny Jet" and is sort of "Planes" in reverse. It involves a mother and father prop-driven plane who have a son, who is a jet-powered plane. The cartoon is just shy of 8 minutes long, but I love it and watch it whenever I can because I own it on a DVD Collection called Academy Award Winning Shorts.

Everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes, but to dislike or say that a film is no good because there are no people in it, is rather silly and unfounded. Especially if those same people brag about "Bambi", "The Lion King" or "The Aristocats" being great movies and they don't have any human involvement in them.

If I were to rate the Pixar films, I would put CARS in the Top Three with CARS 2 following closely. Comparing what Pixar does to Disney Toons is really apples and oranges, even though John Lassiter has both hands in the pie, in his involvement in the projects.

[PatrickvD]

Most of the contributors here are saying "Cars takes place in a human world but there are no humans"........or at least something like that. This is so dumb it is almost as funny as if you were to say - "I hate "Bambi" because it is the animal world and there are no humans."

You just skipped over the most important aspect of the criticism. The cars live in a world they could not have built. Who created their buildings, their entire technological society? It makes no sense. The absence of humans automatically creates a giant gaping hole in every scene of these films. Nothing about the world that these Cars live in can be explained.

The reason Thomas the Tank Engine works is because there are humans and we accept the anthropomorphic trains as such because their world is our world. Though a talking train is unrealistic, the fact that he inhabits our world allows us to stretch our imagination into a world where talking trains might exist. The same holds true for Bambi or any other Disney film with anthropomorphic animals. The animals in Bambi are in the forest, in their natural surroundings and we accept that world because it's our world. Even though humans are absent. Which is actually completely irrelevant for the film's credibility (it is important for its quality but that is a different discussion).

But 'the world of Cars' is too big a stretch for my imagination. The film's rules and architectural logic keep referring to the human world, yet humans do not exist. It's a paradox.

Couple that with the fact that both Cars and Cars 2 have some of the worst writing in PIXAR's catalogue and it's not that difficult to see why they're consistently at the bottom among most people's list of favorite PIXAR films.

[Kyle]

Yup.

And there are humans in Bambi. How do you think Bambi's mother was killed? It might not seem like much but they acknowledge the existence of humans.

[PatrickvD]

Yup.

And there are humans in Bambi. How do you think Bambi's mother was killed? It might not seem like much but they acknowledge the existence of humans.

True. And 'Man' is often referred to as one of the great movie villains of all time.

[dvdjunkie]

So I guess you won't like "Planes" because they don't say how they were built. And who keeps them running.

Your comparisons are ridiculous. "Cars" and "Cars 2" are in the same animated world as any other animated film could be. We don't ask how things were built, we just assume that they were.

As for writing, you must not have sense of humor, or at least not one that is sharable in mixed company. I find the humor in both "Cars" movies to be off the charts and not at all predictable.

Why not just wait for next summer and watch "Planes" and then voice your silly opinions about how they don't relate to the human world. It's animation and human or animal, it is animation - it is a cartoon!!!

[PatrickvD]

So I guess you won't like "Planes" because they don't say how they were built. And who keeps them running.

Did you read my post? It's not that they don't say who built them, it's that the universe they created aesthetically and architecturally refers to humans, which in the storytelling do not exist. That is a paradox that makes it difficult to stretch your imagination into accepting this world.

Your comparisons are ridiculous. "Cars" and "Cars 2" are in the same animated world as any other animated film could be. We don't ask how things were built, we just assume that they were.

You call my analysis ridiculous because you don't understand what I'm saying. Cars and Cars 2 cannot be in the same world as any other animated film. In any other animated film, PIXAR or Disney, it's very easy to accept the setting. We know London, Paris or Scotland are real and we're not forced to question how the surroundings came to be.

Even when something is ambiguous like Neverland, it's in a comfortable zone where the audience can go. It taps into human ideas of magic and heaven.

But the world of Cars is filled with things that cannot be there. In Cars 2, Italy for example, is filled with buildings that can't be entered by the Cars and can't have been built by them. Why am I not allowed to question that? It makes no sense. There is no other Disney or PIXAR animated film that has an impossible universe to this extreme extent with no magic to explain it. It just is. And they just ask us not to question it.

As for writing, you must not have sense of humor, or at least not one that is sharable in mixed company. I find the humor in both "Cars" movies to be off the charts and not at all predictable.

I never said Cars or Cars 2 didn't have a sense of humor. The writing is more than just gags. Cars' plot was directly lifted from Doc Hollywood and it didn't even attempt to surprise me. It was by-the-numbers and 15 minutes too long for its own good.

Cars 2's problem was making Mater, the most irritating character into the main protagonist. He's stupid, I get it. I just cannot identify with him, root for him or feel bad for him when his moronic nature gets him into genuine trouble. The whole thing is funny when you're five yes, but I prefer PIXAR films that have multiple layers. At least the original film had themes that would appeal to adults. Turning the sequel into a spy comedy just didn't work in my opinion.

Why not just wait for next summer and watch "Planes" and then voice your silly opinions about how they don't relate to the human world. It's animation and human or animal, it is animation - it is a cartoon!!!

You call my opinion silly without directly addressing my points. I gave a thorough analysis of why I feel that Cars and Cars 2 don't work. 'And 'it's a cartoon' is the most insulting thing I can imagine saying about an animated feature. That is how the direct-to-dvd sequels continue to be excused. 'Oh they're just cartoons for kids and kids don't care'. Most kids won't, but I was 8 when my dad gave me a copy of Return of Jafar and I still remember how, at that age, I explained to my dad that it was inferior to Aladdin and Disney's theatrical films. Some kids can tell the difference. While the Cars films are obviously superior in every single way to the DTV films, when kids are grown up, only nostalgia will keep them coming back to these films.

I'm not saying the Cars movies are horrible abominations. They're probably still above the average animated feature. But the anthropomorphism in the world of Cars is paradoxical. I've explained that this is why I think Cars and Cars 2 don't work and appeal less to adults. The drop-off in attendance for the sequel confirms my theory that PIXAR's older fans skipped it and agree.

[ajmrowland]

Where did that come from?

Well anyway unfortunately most people judge a film based on trailers and posters. We know better but they dont.

[Sotiris]

@PatrickvD: Excellent analysis of the Cars films and universe. I agree with everything you've said.

[Mooky]

Out of all things wrong with Cars movies, I never understood why people tend to focus on humans (or lack of them) in their universe. The films have their internal logic and they stick to it. Is it so hard to imagine one of these scenarios:
- the Cars universe is an alternate/parallel universe
- the living cars are a result of a Divine Intervention
- at some point in human existence (alternate past/distant future), humans created artificial intelligence that gave 'life' to cars, planes, boats, other machines, etc. All human and animal life was then destroyed by a wide-spread plague (it happened in Planet of the Apes). The now-sentient vehicles continued living on their own and set up their own world.

The two movies may be terrible by Pixar- and film-standards, but you can't fault them for their own logic. If people are willing to accept talking foxes and uniform-clad rhinos in Medieval England (who made their clothes? who built their fortresses?), wooden puppets coming to life, cooking rats and humans riding interstellar marine ships, then I really think there should be no issues with the world of Cars.

[ajmrowland]

Out of all things wrong with Cars movies, I never understood why people tend to focus on humans (or lack of them) in their universe. The films have their internal logic and they stick to it. Is it so hard to imagine one of these scenarios:
- the Cars universe is an alternate/parallel universe
- the living cars are a result of a Divine Intervention
- at some point in human existence (alternate past/distant future), humans created artificial intelligence that gave 'life' to cars, planes, boats, other machines, etc. All human and animal life was then destroyed by a wide-spread plague (it happened in Planet of the Apes). The now-sentient vehicles continued living on their own and set up their own world.

The two movies may be terrible by Pixar- and film-standards, but you can't fault them for their own logic. If people are willing to accept talking foxes and uniform-clad rhinos in Medieval England (who made their clothes? who built their fortresses?), wooden puppets coming to life, cooking rats and humans riding interstellar marine ships, then I really think there should be no issues with the world of Cars.

i agree. Though the animations in cars are limiting making one wonder how they built things but not enough to question that they did.

Also mater is very lovable but still cant carry a whole film on his own

[Mickeyfan1990]

Some intriguing news, Planes has been praised in the test screenings (including Dreamworks' Turbo):

http://animatedviews.com/2013/planes-tu ... g-reviews/

"Both DisneyToon Studios’ Planes and DreamWorks Animation’s Turbo are receiving praise following recent test screenings. At WDW Magic, regular forum member “M.rudolf” writes that Planes is testing “thru [sic] the roof,” better than the Cars movies and Wreck-It Ralph. This news likely explains why Planes was promoted to a theatrical release after being made as a direct-to-video title. Meanwhile, a poster at IMDb suggests DreamWorks has another feel-good hit on their hands, with Turbo. “It’s very funny with the same Dreamworks type humor that adults can enjoy as well,” he writes. “Did it change the face of animation? No, but it’s still a fun movie and the animation does look good.” Turbo will race into theaters on July 19, with Planes close behind on August 9."

[jazzflower92]

Some intriguing news, Planes has been praised in the test screenings (including Dreamworks' Turbo):

http://animatedviews.com/2013/planes-tu ... g-reviews/

"Both DisneyToon Studios’ Planes and DreamWorks Animation’s Turbo are receiving praise following recent test screenings. At WDW Magic, regular forum member “M.rudolf” writes that Planes is testing “thru [sic] the roof,” better than the Cars movies and Wreck-It Ralph. This news likely explains why Planes was promoted to a theatrical release after being made as a direct-to-video title. Meanwhile, a poster at IMDb suggests DreamWorks has another feel-good hit on their hands, with Turbo. “It’s very funny with the same Dreamworks type humor that adults can enjoy as well,” he writes. “Did it change the face of animation? No, but it’s still a fun movie and the animation does look good.” Turbo will race into theaters on July 19, with Planes close behind on August 9."

Looks like Planes will be rescued from the scrappy heap.

[PatrickvD]

If this is true, it's pretty embarrassing for PIXAR if Planes is better than both Cars films.

[Sotiris]

If this is true, it's pretty embarrassing for PIXAR if Planes is better than both Cars films.

It's certainly a possibility. Both Cars films have set the bar really low.

Do you think it could be damaging for Pixar or WDAS if Planes was a huge financial success? Considering that Planes was done on a very small budget and all of the animation was outsourced to India, its success could prompt Disney management to reduce the budget of WDAS or Pixar's films by outsourcing animation for their films as well.

[jazzflower92]

If this is true, it's pretty embarrassing for PIXAR if Planes is better than both Cars films.

It's certainly a possibility. Both Cars films have set the bar really low.

Do you think it could be damaging for Pixar or WDAS if Planes was a huge financial success?

Considering that Planes was done on a very small budget and all of the animation was outsourced to India, its success could prompt Disney management to reduce the budget of WDAS or Pixar's films by outsourcing animation for their films as well.

They are now outsourcing to India.I didn't know India was now into the animation business.I mean wasn't it that people outsourced to South Korea.Then again Bollywood has become the capital of movie making.It would be fun if Disney made a Bollywood based movie that was a musical.