thedriveintheatre

The motion picture event of the summer every Pixar fan and animation enthusiast has been waiting for is almost upon us (well, it’s out tomorrow, actually).

Over the past months, I have ranted and raved about Pixar and this sequel to one of my most beloved films in equal measures. Now that I have had the wisdom of a couple of trailers, several posters, and countless, countless turntable videos behind my opinion, here are 5 things that I will be anticipating when I walk into the theatre this weekend.

1) It will be a spy movie.
… and not a parody of a spy movie. I keep stressing this on the various fan forums and social media sites I take part in, and I can’t stress it enough. Part of the reason for this expectation is because John Lasseter, director of the film and CCO of Pixar, said it so himself.

Watch this video from 2:11 and hear it from the (proverbial) horse’s mouth.

John Lasseter Gives Cars 2 Sneak Peek

Had he not thrown down that gauntlet so unequivocally and earnestly, maybe I would’ve had lower expectations. But there you have it, a promise that he made to the viewer, if not in a written contract, at least in a verbal assurance. So when I’m watching the adventures of debonair spy Finn McMissile and reluctant hero Mater, I want danger, excitement, maybe even a little sexual innuendo. I want Goldfinger, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, License to Kill, Goldeneye, or Casino Royale. Or for non-Bond examples, Body of Lies, Ronin, Spy Games, the Bourne trilogy. Or for non-Bond examples which are not serious dramas, Mr & Mrs Smith, Mission Impossible 1 and 3, or True Lies. Not Austin Powers, Johnny English, I Spy, Carry on Spying or From Beijing With Love.

I want the heroes to bleed, to cry, to know what it feels like to be a real secret agent with few friends and many enemies. Not get squirted by bidets, fall into septic trucks, or eat wasabi thinking it’s ice-cream. Which leads on to…

2) There will be few slapstick jokes and pop-culture references.

Pixar is good with this. Or rather, most of the time. While they are not as blatant with the pop-culture parodies as the majority of Dreamworks’ films, they are not immune to the juvenille scatalogical variety. Just refer to the ‘Butt’ joke from Finding Nemo, or Boo needing to answer the call of nature in Monsters Inc, or Russell needing to answer the call of nature in Up, or Mr Potato Head being surrounded by the products of the call of nature in a sandpit in Toy Story 3 (mercifully told rather than shown).

I have decided not to expect a total absence, since as I have mentioned, we have already seen a few from the trailers. And Pixar, when it does physical humour, can be brilliant, like in Ratatouille or Wall-E. But one of the most cringeworthy aspects of the first Cars movie was the over-the-top references to pop-culture and commercial advertising. Perhaps that was the intention, which I can totally appreciate. But if you want to be serious, tone down on the over-the-top dream sequences and fart jokes.

3) The antagonist will not be a straw villain.

Or worse, any of its sub-variants like Strawman Political, Strawman Hypocrite or Strawman Emotional. Nothing annoys me more than a villain who is evil simply because he’s ‘evil’, or has some weak Freudian motivation for his acts.

One of my biggest disappointments with Pixar’s last movie ‘Toy Story 3’ was with the villain Lotso’ motivations. He enforced the entire totalitarian regime of Sunnyside simply because of some internal conflict which didn’t serve any immediate interests. Why didn’t he just find another owner to spite Daisy, if only in his mind? What purpose will it serve him to walk into a daycare centre, and impose his worldview upon others? What does he stand to gain (besides perpetuating his own paradigm of owner love)? As Rex in the HISHE parody pointed out, “if there were anyone who should be furious, it should be Big Baby or Chuckles. They didn’t get replaced at all!”

I also had a similar problem with Nigel from Rio. Because he was abandoned from his role as a star in a TV show, he decides to take it out on every other bird in Rio simply so that they can become ‘just like him’! This is weak motivation. Meaningful motivations are those which satisfy the lowest rungs on Marslow’s Heirarchy of Needs. Money. Food. Power. Survival.

Lord Shen had a great motivation. He wants to kill pandas because they pose a threat to his existence. Hopper had a great motivation. He wants to keep the status quo of the ants feeding him so he and his swarm would never go hungry. Dr Facilier had a great motivation. He wanted political power over New Orleans as their new ruler. Like another great Disney villain, Scar. And so on.

It would be nice if Professor Z had some childhood backstory of being bullied as a lemon, and his mum hated him, and all that jazz. But it would be great if he wanted to control the world’s oil supply by eliminating his competition, or make a profit by short-selling on Allinol stocks and sinking their share prices through his terrorist attacks. Something like that. A grand scheme need not necessarily have weepy backstories as the reason. Sometimes, it could be just about the money.

One last point. The villain needs to perform something truly despicable that tell us that he means business. On this aspect, I’m confident Pixar will deliver, because I read the opening scene from one of the movie adaptation storybooks, and if it is the same as in the movie, then I’m very proud that Pixar went with that. All I can say is that if the movie storybook is correct, Professor Z does something very nasty to another car that will show how evil he really is…

4) There will not be loads and loads of characters.

Yes, it is indeed a trope. This is another thing that has worried me, especially with the endless character turntables and posters released over the last few months. One problem with sequels is that they feel they need to introduce an inordinate number of new characters to expand the cast. But often, this results in less time being devoted to the original principals and especially the protagonists who will undergo their character arcs.

I have read reviews which say Mater will be the primary protagonist of this film, and it’s a great role-reversal from the first when Lightning was the focus. I have said before that the themes are the exact mirrors of each other; the first was about a city slicker who experiences the slow-paced life of small-town Americana, the second is about a country bumpkin who experiences the bright and wonderful diversity of cultures around the world.

What worries me is that they will not be as focused on developing the protagonist here as they were with the first movie. That amidst all the shennanigans and tomfoolery, Mater will be overshadowed by his new fellow agents Finn and Holley. And while the first had no antagonist (only an annoying rival played by Keaton), this one has a notable villain who will drive a lot of the plot proceedings. A lot of fans have also expressed concern over the screentime of the Radiator Springs’ cast, especially Lightning’s love interest Sally, and this is another cause for concern.

5) There will be heart and soul.

The main reason why so many people around the world love Pixar is because it has utter devotion towards beautiful, poetic, and meaningful storytelling. Its themes are universal and human, even if the characters are not. We are moved by the characters’ journeys, we see ourselves in them, and we want them to succeed and save the world/get the girl or guy/live happily ever after.

A lot of Pixar’s rivals used to not pay much attention to their stories. They thought it would be fine to just throw in stereotypical archetypes, get a bunch of celebrity voices, and chuck in a few pop-culture references and fart jokes to make a good movie. And of course, while they made have made mint, especially with sequels, they weren’t as successful critically. Plus, they were killing their soul for the sake of money.

Now the tables have turned. Long-time rivals Dreamworks and Blue Sky have produced wonderful, all-ages movies that have touched the hearts and resonated with the souls of many animation fans who once doubted them. How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda 1 & 2, Rio. Newcomers like Animal Logic and Industrial Light & Magic have also amazed to varying degrees with technical masterpieces like Legend of the Guardians and Rango.

On the other hand, Pixar is losing its grip on the throne it once sat at the top of the Western animation industry. It is starting to rely on sequels and spin-off shorts (Toy Story 3, Toy Story Hawaiian Vacation, Cars 2, Cars Toons, Monsters University), TV shows (to be produced by Pixar Canada) and tie-in merchandising (most notably Toy Story and Cars). It scrapped a much-anticipated project, Newt, only for its CCO to make a remark (whether in mirth or malice) at its rival Rio for being the reason of its cancellation. The studio had a few high-profile departures such as Lou Romano, Jan Pinkava, and Brenda Chapman because of its oligarchic creative committee The Brain Trust’s refusal to trust its director’s version. Meanwhile, noteworthy talents such as Chris Sanders, Nico Marlet, Peter de Sève, Brenda Chapman and Lou Romano (the last three being former Pixarians) are joining its rival studios, while former neurotic leaders such as Katzenberg are adopting a more laissez-faire approach.

Pixar is devolving into the studio its ‘enemies’ once were, and in this blogger’s eyes, Cars 2 is its chance at redemption (although there’s also Brave next year). And it can do this by not just having a fun movie which you just sit through, cut it some slack, go in with a ‘positive mind’, enjoy your popcorn, wipe your backside, and leave with no memories. Pixar must deliver a movie that expands and improves on the first movie, stand up to the harshest criticisms, change the minds of the cynical and doubtful (like Pixar has done many times before), and move a person not just to a mild sense of amusement and entertainment, but to a deeper level of emotional intensity, be it fear, happiness or pathos.

When I walk into that theatre within a few days time, I will be doing so with an amount of trepidation and excitement you can never imagine. This film will be the culmination of not just my love affair with the studio (since Cars was the movie that made me became an outspoken Pixar fan), but with the forums I have been in (since this may be the last year I will actively participate as I will be starting a job soon). It will also be the lowest point I have ever experienced as a fan; I have never felt so disenchanted and disillusioned with the studio’s current state of affairs, and with some of its more intolerant and close-minded fans I have encountered over the past year.

I have never before doubted a Pixar film for five years. This will be the first. When I walk out of that theatre, I want to be proven right on all the points I have mentioned, and proven wrong for ever losing faith in one of the greatest studios in the world.