Both introduce the world to youngsters, but with different modes.

  • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cars 1 and 3 are really good movies and you should watch them if you have not. Cars 3 is my favorite.

    And I don’t even like cars

      • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not awful, but it’s still definitely the black sheep. It’s tone is completely different and it also just feels like it’s just the same characters (but kinda flanderisations of them too) rather than a natural progression of where the story should go next. The throughline between 1 and 3 is much more consistent, even more so if you skip 2.

        2 isn’t a bad film, but it’s not a good sequel in my opinion, 3 however is a great sequel and a good ending point.

        • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I know it goes from “haha funny race” to “there’s this terrorist here that’s killing cars across the world” but guess what? I love that mission impossible shit

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The story in Cars 2 is all over the place and the car universe only makes the whole thing more abstract.

        The story includes car races, terrorism, environmental issues, cold war agents, international stereotypes, hacking, secret world orders formed by victims of production malfunctions, the rejection of old friends and a whole lot of meaningless action and comedy skits.

        And then someone decided to add the queen of England to sum this up as if she even had anything to do with the rest of the story.

        It’s brainstorm of references run wild. Even if you manage to follow along and get all the references, you gotta wonder why anyone wanted you to see this.

          • bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s just pointless is all.

            Cars 1 had something to say about urbanisation.

            Cars 3 had something to say about getting old and dying.

            Cars 2 had some 3d models doing slapstick comedy action while clinging to references to everything imaginable, but nothing to say.

      • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I actually agree with you that the hate is overblown. But in comparison to 1 and 3 it’s definitely not as good. I wouldn’t even say it’s a bad movie, it’s just kinda meh

    • DrQuint@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And neither Cars nor Cars 2 spend a lot of time on edutainment surrounding their setting. The only thing the two have in common is they’re vehicles.

      Oh no, yeah, you guessed it, I didn’t watch beyond 2. I mean, neither sid anyone else after that torture.

      • petenu@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        After Cars 2 I had very low expectations of Cars 3, unsurprisingly. It’s a miracle that I was convinced to watch it. Yet somehow I was, and found it to be bloody good.

  • Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure I understand the “yesterday’s” part. Thomas the Tank Engine predates Cars by decades.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did you really read yesterday as August 21, 2023?? That’s hilarious.

      “Yesterday’s” was used to mean “in a time passed”

      In this way both the train and the automobile were used as characters in children’s programs to associate the mode with a positive experience. (The actual programming or content)

      • Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, I read yesterday (Lightning McQueen) as juxtaposed with today (Thomas the Tank Engine), as if you were implying that Lightning McQueen predated Thomas the Tank Engine and TTTE was a newish show.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what “yesterday’s” means in this context, or more specifically, you flipped the two characters if you wanted to use it like that.

        Corrected it’d be:

        “Thomas the Tank Engine was yesterday’s Lightning McQueen”

      • ZeroCooler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lightning McQueen is more recent than Thomas The tank, so the correct phrase would be “Lightning McQueen is today’s Thomas The Tank…” or “Thomas The Tank is yesterday’s Lightning McQueen…”

        • jasondj@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is a difficult statement to assess.

          Thomas is multi-generational, the main series started in 1984 and ran as recently as 2021.

          That’s like saying “yesterdays kids grew up with Raffi”. That dude is still touring (at least in Canada, but he’s been to the US recently) and still putting out new stuff. In fact, he refers to his “older fans”, who now have their own kids that are getting introduced to Raffi, as “beluga grads”.

          Meanwhile the original Cars movie came out in 2004 but had movie sequels in 2011 and 2017, but there are also spin-offs in the universe including movies, shows and shorts.