*nods* I basically agree with you there - I think the issue most people have with Cars is that it's a more obvious source of inconsistency, and asks you to take more things on faith. Most movies, as I said, break down badly when you start drilling down into them a little more, but Cars has some of those issues on the surface.
I guess I don't notice as much because I frequently drill down into movies to see how they're put together. I consider "depth of universe consistency" one of those things that's both a variable and not necessary.
I still feel, however, that it's not necessary to resolve it to enjoy the movie. Yes, they could have done the same movie with humans. But they could have done Monsters Inc with humans easily also. The problem with cars is that fundamentally cars are really really similar to humans in a lot of ways, and there's few cases where they're not interchangable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 04:06 am (UTC)I guess I don't notice as much because I frequently drill down into movies to see how they're put together. I consider "depth of universe consistency" one of those things that's both a variable and not necessary.
I still feel, however, that it's not necessary to resolve it to enjoy the movie. Yes, they could have done the same movie with humans. But they could have done Monsters Inc with humans easily also. The problem with cars is that fundamentally cars are really really similar to humans in a lot of ways, and there's few cases where they're not interchangable.
And there's a sentence I never expected to write.