Hacker Cinema
Cars 3
2017 · Film · 102 min
Part of Cars Collection
Directed by Brian Fee
Blindsided by a new generation of blazing-fast racers, the legendary Lightning McQueen finds himself pushed to the brink—and suddenly, the champion who once ruled the track is fighting just to stay in the race. With his career hanging in the balance, McQueen must turn to an ambitious young race technician with a plan of her own, draw strength from the legacy of the late Fabulous Hudson Hornet, and risk everything on one last shot at glory.
1 positive7 negative5 neutralfrom 13 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
13 comments on Hacker News
I wholeheartedly disagree. Pixar does not have a monopoly on attention to detail. They're flush with cash and their leadership has decent taste.
There are so many creators putting in intense work, and doing it on low budgets. You can't claim these folks don't have attention to detail. Check out A24, low and mid and low budget films, or independent films and you'll see a wide assortment of highly meticulous storytellers.
Pixar, on the other hand, isn't low or mid budget:
Toy Story - $30 Million A Bug’s Life - $120 Million Toy Story 2 - $90 Million Monsters, Inc. - $115 Million Finding Nemo - $94 Million The Incredibles - $92 Million Cars - $120 Million Ratatouille - $150 Million WALL-E - $180 Million Up - $175 Million Toy Story 3 - $200 Million Cars 2 - $200 Million Brave - $185 Million Monsters University - $200 Million Inside Out - $175 Million The Good Dinosaur - $200 Million Finding Dory - $200 Million Cars 3 - $175 Million Coco - $175 Million Incredibles 2 - $200 Million Toy Story 4 - $200 Million Onward - $175 Million Soul - $150 Million Luca - Unknown but probably around $150 Million Turning Red - $175 Million Lightyear - $200 Million For that amount of money, they had better pay attention to detail.
Miyazaki is doing way more with much less.
Voices of a Distant Star was one person -- Shinkai. That's the kind of thing we'll see more and more of. Small creators reaching audiences and building studios. Gooseworx, psychicpebbles, Vivienne Medrano. That's the algorithm of tomorrow.
AI, as a tool, makes this more possible. One of the first people to do it successfully was Joel Haver, and he's just the first of many to come.
I have a complicated relationship with Cars 2. I'm southern, so Mater as a character represents a lot of stereotypes for better and for worse. They went over-the-top with his "stupid" moments so that he could have an internal character reckoning about tactfulness, while also being the hero of the movie. If they had just made him more normal, he wouldn't have had to be so shamed, and it's the shame aspect that made me feel weird. I just feel like the weakest part of the plot was the fake gasoline conspiracy. I haven't seen Cars 3 yet but my friends have told me "it's the sequel Cars deserved," and I'm hoping they're right.
I loved Cars 1 (theme: It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice) and Cars 3 (a time comes when you need to step aside, make peace with it, use it). I don't understand what went wrong with Cars 2 (theme: Idk, some short story expanded by chatGPT ;) to a long story) but I find it a very bad movie, really unwatchable almost.
I'm not convinced you're putting the blame in the right place. Looking at the last decade or so, most of the original films — Inside Out, Coco, Luca, Turning Red, etc — have ranged from "great" to "incredible". It's the sequels and spinoffs like Cars 3, Toy Story 4 and Lightyear that have fallen flat. I don't know where in the Disney org chart people start worrying about revenue, but from where I sit Pixar still has plenty of spark.
Since you mentioned Cars, there's an interesting thing I noticed when Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri was in theatres. At that time, when I try to search the movie on IMDb, typing "three" (and I have to emphasize that I typed "three" not "3"), IMDb's first search suggestion was "Cars 3" instead of that Oscar winning movie that was playing im theatres at the time. I'm pretty convinced that Disney payed IMDb for that placement or something like that.
I'd argue the only real misses were the cash grab sequels (Cars 2, Cars 3, and I can only assume Lightyear is in that group but looking at RT it seems like both ratings are still "fresh"). The rest of the movies on the post-acquisition list were good, if not great. Critically, I think the worst one on the list is the Good Dinosaur and even that's still generally well liked.
Inside out was good, but not great, IMO.
Counter-counterpoints:
Cars 2, Brave, Monsters University, The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory, Cars 3, Coco, Onward, Luca, Turning Red, Lightyear.
The (not very original) point is: You can no longer count on a Pixar movie being excellent.
Oh good to hear the Cars phase ends because every Friday when it’s his turn to pick for movie night, our three year old picks Cars 3, no exceptions.
Well, it reviews worse than a lot of Pixar movies. Although the idea that all Pixar movies review well is a bit of a selective memory thing too. I observe there's basically two tiers of Pixar movies, the ones that get 9+ out of 10, and the ones that come in at 7 or below. There's not a lot of "OK" Pixar movies, though Incredibles 2 happens to be one of them.
Also, somewhat ironically, I disagree that Cars (Metacritic: 73) is one of Pixar's worst, on the grounds that there are quite a few worse movies from Pixar, not least of which are the two sequels Cars 2 (Metacritic: 57) and Cars 3 (Metacritic: 59) and the spinoff Planes (Metacritic: 39 (!)). Cars is slow, and dripping with nostalgia callouts for people who are now in their 70s or 80s (I asked my father, currently mid-60s, and he said it was even older than anything he was nostalgic for), but it's at least watchable once.
Personally, I used to get substantially better results. It would suggest to me a movie I'd never seen before with a score above 90, I'd watch, and enjoy. Now I'm getting things like kids shows suggested to me. I double checked by history to make sure no one watched one on my account, but they keep popping up with high percentage. I also really like horror and get weird suggestions [1] for similar movies. After I watched Alien it suggested the Great British Baking show. I literally have 0 trust in the new ranking system. They push certain shows way too hard and TV shows I'm watching show up on page 3 of "continue watching".
This is far from my previous stance of "Huh, movie I've never seen before and in a different language? It's 95% so yeah, I'll give it a go."
And before someone says anything, I do vote up and down quite frequently. But can't help but notice that my suggestions were better when I had the more nuanced star system.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/MOt3XlL.png
[1.1] How I'd rate these. Cars 3: not really interested. Liked the first though. Stitches: idk, doesn't look appealing. Teeth: Classic cult film but yeah... Big Mouth: I have ZERO interest in watching this, please stop suggesting. I have downvoted this! Waterboy: I like it, but far from 95%. I'll give it like an 80.
i.e. Why the movies Cars 2 and Cars 3 exist.
People forget that Disney owns a lot of must-see content:
For example, here is the list of top grossing movies of 2016 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls074920894/
Disney had the following films
1. Captain America: Civil War
2. Rogue One
3. Finding Dory
4. Zootopia
5. The Jungle Book
11. Doctor Strange
12. Moana
19. Alice Through the Looking Glass
For 2017 so far (http://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/domestic/all-movies/cumulative/released-in-2017)
Disney has
1. Beauty and the Beast
3. Guardians of the Galaxy V2
11. Pirates of the Caribbean
13. Cars 3
They own the Marvel franchise, the Star Wars, as well as some of the most loved children's movies in history. They also have a ton of children's TV programs.
If Disney really had a subscription service with all their movies and TV shows, I would choose them over Netflix.
The franchise addiction is well known. What changed in 2014 is that studios started publicly issuing product roadmaps. The next half decade of the comic book universes has been mapped out. (Disappointingly, Black Widow doesn't get an origin movie.) A chart: (http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2014/10/CA_Supermovies_10-28-2014-21.jpg) This covers all the way up to the next Green Lantern movie in 2020. (The last Green Lantern dud will have been forgotten by then, like 2007's Spiderman 3).
Disney actually has a Crap Sequels Division, Disneytoons. For decades, they produced direct to VHS/DVD/BD sequels: Cinderalla 2, Mulan 2, etc., which could be found near the checkout in low-end retail stores. When Disney acquired Pixar, Disneytoons was phased out, and a number of designed-for-mediocrity projects cancelled. But it came back to life. Coming soon: Cars 3 and Tinker Bell and the Legend of the NeverBeast.
The only hope for novelty may be another big series in Young Adult books. Not much innovation there right now. The vampire and zombie books continue to come out. (Vampires down, zombies holding steady, based on bookshelf space in stores.) Teen survival stories are big, but they're mostly bad Hunger Games clones at this point. J. K. Rowling did the magical school thing so well that nobody else can compete. Greek mythology seems to have peaked outside the Marvel universe; the endless Percy Jackson trilogy stream is still coming out, but everybody is tired of it. Tom Clancy books are still coming out, even though he's dead and the ghost-writers suck.
As Comics Alliance says, "This is what the next five years of your life looks like."