Ulterior Motives Are Everywhere!

I'm not usually going to spend time writing about the mainstream media's reaction to Disney, Pixar, or anything related to either company, but every once in a while, a guy has to blow off some steam, right? This article from tomorrow's New York Times by Brooks Barnes is, at best, lazy. At worst, it's somewhat infuriating. The basic concept, in case you'd rather not read it to get the full context, is that the article is a mini-profile of John Lasseter, head of Pixar and one of the top executives in the Walt Disney Company, on the eve of the Blu-ray release of Cars 2, which is now best-known as the most critically reviled Pixar movie in its existence. Is Lasseter hurt by the negative press? Is he worried about Pixar being thought of as a sell-out?

While these questions are, I suppose, interesting to consider and pose to Lasseter, Brooks Barnes isn't really interested in asking the questions so much as answering them himself. I suppose that's all Barnes can do--though the quotes from Lasseter are apparently culled from a two-hour lunch he had with the journalist, there are shockingly few quotes or paraphrases attributed to the filmmaker. Most of the arguments are not only made by Barnes' writing, but mostly by Barnes. First, he chooses to speak for critics at large: "Several of the most influential critics cheered the movie, but far more were negative, even gleefully so. They had been waiting a long time for this opportunity, after all. Lemon! Junk! Clutter!" Trash! Blubber! Tweak! See? I can shout out random words, too. While Cars 2 didn't do so hot with critics--including this one at the beginning of this podcast's existence--Barnes notes that the movie made over $550 million worldwide.

But here's where my dander goes up: the idea that Barnes posits here is that critics were excited to bash on Cars 2. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not going to assume what other critics think right now. I'll only speak for myself. I was extremely skeptical about Cars 2, partly because I'm not a big fan of the first film in the series, and partly because I wasn't sure that a sequel to the first film was merited. The latter point is why I was skeptical of the second and third Toy Story films and is why I'm skeptical of the upcoming Monsters, Inc. prequel. But guess what? When I sat down to watch Cars 2, I was also hopeful, because I'm not a masochist: I actually want to like movies I sit down to see. I'm not naive: I know there are some people in this world, among the paid critics and the unwashed masses, who enjoy hating something, or who want to hate something going into it. No matter how skeptical I was with Cars 2, I did not want to hate it. If anything, I'd begun wondering if I'd like the movie more simply because I had been lowering my expectations for so long.

So the idea that critics were sharpening their knives to destroy a Pixar movie is ridiculous. This argument may seem too complex to people like Mr. Barnes but as much as I did not like Cars 2, I wasn't happy to feel that way. If anything, as a fan of a) Pixar, b) animation, and c) movies, I was immensely disappointed. For Mr. Barnes, though, that's not the case. He goes on later to use his intense analytical mind to explain those mean reviews: "Read those Cars 2 reviews carefully, and it appears evident that the vitriol is less about the fast-paced film and more about resentment that Pixar has broadened its focus to sequels." Now, on the one hand, Mr. Barnes isn't so sloppy as to not reference any reviews in his article. He brings up four examples, including that of the resident New York Times critic, A.O. Scott, who was not so thrilled with the film. But none of the quotes prove this baseless idea Barnes puts forth.

I would certainly agree that Pixar focusing more on sequels is a negative idea, if that were the case. There are currently three Pixar sequels: Cars 2, and the second and third Toy Story films. Even though 2010 and 2011 brought two Pixar sequels to audiences, pretty much everyone can agree that Toy Story 3 is as fine a film as Pixar's ever made. And a lot of people are pretty happy with Toy Story 2, as well. Yes, as I mentioned above, 2013 brings us Monsters University, but don't forget, friends: as revealed at the D23 Expo, Pixar's upcoming slate also includes three completely original movies. So who exactly, aside from the pot-stirring Mr. Barnes, is that annoyed at Pixar for making sequels? The problem, at least for me, is not that Pixar is making sequels to some of its most popular movies. The problem is that Cars 2 was not, in my opinion, a very good movie. And that's all there is to it. There's no weird elitism on display here--Barnes references the "Nascar culture" as a reason why critics didn't think much of the first Cars. All there is, is people who aren't happy with one specific movie. And just one.

You may have noticed one element of this article I haven't really mentioned: John Lasseter. I will admit that I'm a bit baffled at Lasseter's typical effusiveness being applied to what I consider a weak effort for his company, but I also would much rather see him defend Cars 2 in a better forum than this idiotic article. Aside from him describing, again, what inspired him to make this movie and shaking off any idea that Cars 2 was forced upon the company to make merchandising money, he doesn't get much to say. The rest is, for all I know, fabricated from whole cloth by Mr. Barnes, who seems far, far more interested in furthering his agenda about Cars 2. Pixar and Lasseter are probably not breaking even the tiniest sweat over the movie, nor should they be. So don't misunderstand me: I have no beef with John Lasseter based on this article. What I do have a beef with is the concern trolling on display from the otherwise-esteemed Grey Lady.