Critics Watch: "Planes" Is Grounded

Looks like Planes, DisneyToon Studios' spin-off of the Cars franchise, doesn't soar at all...

It's not much of a surprise, though early test screenings did yield some unexpectedly decent results (my comrades over at The Rotoscopers liked what they saw), Planes is a critical dud. It currently sits at 24% on Rotten Tomatoes and 36 on Metacritic, with the most positive reviews (there's very few of them) saying it's just fun. Most of the reviews single out the barebones story, the lame jokes and just the whole plastic, toy commercial feel of it. John Lasseter was supposedly heavily involved in this?

I would assume that Lasseter would've gotten DisneyToon to make a serviceable spin-off (not that I was planning to see it, I wasn't) that wasn't terrible, after all the Tinker Bell films got some praise and we're considered better than the Disney direct-to-video garbage from the Eisner era. Then again, maybe critics were ready to dislike this since it was obviously going to be unspectacular in addition to the fact that most of them already have an aversion to the world of Cars... It also doesn't help that this is a spin-off of a film series from a beloved studio... Well, I don't know if they're beloved anymore given how so many people just turned their backs on them in the recent years. (Don't get me started on this, haha!)

But I see things in the reviews like the international characters being one-dimensional stereotypes, characters such as Mexican racer plane El Chupacabra. (The name alone makes me cringe a bit) I have to ask, why? How much is Lasseter involved? Or is this series truly his weakness? Does Lasseter just let the flaws slide because it's Cars? Or should I say Autos? I don't know, but he doesn't seem to be plugging this film as much as one would expect. That being said, it's bound to at least cover its low production budget easily at the box office. I can't judge, I have not seen it... But the negative reception may speak volumes. I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

... And Disney won't ever do this, but they better opt for releasing Planes: Fire and Rescue straight-to-video and whatever comes next. The Cars spin-offs, as I've said many times before, should not be theatrical by any means. Like we need anymore confusion and not-so-great quality animation in theaters. C'mon Disney.

To The Sky?

Looks like the UK got a brand new trailer for Planes, the DisneyToon-produced spin-off of the Cars franchise...



This film is nice to look at, I will admit that. The animation is good for a DisneyToon production and the flight sequences will look like they'll be well-staged and exciting. Like the Cars films, I love the character designs... It must be the car/auto/machine nut in me, really. It's eye candy, that's for sure. The sizzle reel actually impressed me and I actually got a little excited about the film after watching it, but that excitement kind of vanquished after seeing this trailer...

To be honest, I wasn't fond of everything else on display here. I don't have a problem with the story or the characters, that all seems okay. It's the tone and some of the humor, it's too childish for my taste. I am well aware that two of my associates at The Rotoscopers saw the film itself at a test screening and said it was plain good fun, but I didn't really see that in this trailer... All I really saw was a kiddie flick. A lot of the jokes misfired for me (especially the one John Cleese's Bulldog character cracks at the end), but I'm not this film's target audience... Unless Lasseter intended this spin-off to be a genuine family film and not a kids-only flick. It really looks like a children's film to me, and it will thrill the younger set, obviously.

There's nothing wrong with that, really. Like I've said many times here, I'm glad that the franchise is being expanded by others so that Pixar doesn't have to do it. I'm just hoping that this film is the only theatrical installment in this spin-off series, because a sequel is definitely coming. Disney can keep milking it while Pixar can do whatever they want, and the franchise can also pay for bigger things as well. I'll probably skip this when it theaters in August...

What were your thoughts on this trailer? Do you think the film looks like fun? Or disastrous? Sound off below!

Plane Crazy...

I was one of many who had absolutely no interest in Planes. Planes, in case you don't know, is a feature-length spin-off of the Cars franchise that was produced by DisneyToon Studios; the same animation studio who produced the direct-to-video Disney sequels including the Tinker Bell films. Of course, this was commissioned because the Cars franchise is massive. Of course Disney would want to expand on that... What better way to do that than with aircraft?

Early on, I didn't mind that this film was being made. After all, it wasn't being made by Pixar and it was going straight to home media. If Pixar was making it, then I'd be a bit concerned. But then last year, Disney announced that the film was going to get a theatrical release. I wasn't pleased... Direct-to-video product in cinemas? Bad idea. Plus, since a lot of people can't tell what studio made what, people will think it's a Pixar film and if it's a bad film... Then it would only further all the "Pixar is dying" hoopla. Cars 2 being poorly received and Brave's reception was enough...

I was not okay with any of this... That was until Morgan Stradling of The Rotoscopers reviewed the film, as she had seen a test screening of the film... Apparently it's a pretty decent film!

Yes, you heard that right... A decent film...

Now this doesn't completely change my mind about the film. I'll probably skip it, seeing that it's still a cash grab that's more for the kids than us adults. But after reading the review, I'm thinking that John Lasseter really made sure that this film would be no clunker. Remember, Cars is his baby. He's in love with this universe and idea since he's a car nut. There's nothing wrong with that, and again, I'm one of the few who doesn't consider Cars 2 a horrible film, not even a mediocre one. Lasseter gets a lot of flack for this franchise, but I'm actually glad that he's involved with a film like this.

Why's that? Well Lasseter put the kibosh on the direct-to-video sequels, saving us from monstrosities like The Aristocats II and Dumbo II. But the Tinker Bell franchise got a huge start with the first film in the series, so they inevitably had to make more. I have not seen any of the Tinker Bell films nor do I want to, but I hear that they are a significant cut above all of the previous direct-to-video sequels. Apparently he wants them to be good enough, despite the fact that they are direct-to-video products that are aimed at children more than anything.

Also, since this is part of the world of Cars, it would make sense that Lasseter would be heavily involved. Now you may say, "But Cars 2 was bad." Well, as I said in my defense of Pixar, I think that most of Cars 2's problems were there from the beginning before Lasseter came on board... And if you ask me, I think he may have been too late. Lasseter replaced original director Brad Lewis in 2010, when the film was already being animated! I don't think that he had enough time to improve the story... This sort of thing needs to happen before production begins on the film! Ratatouille, anyone? Also, he directed the film from an iPad. So he had very little time to "improve" the film and he could only do it via technology. This is why I think Cars 2 is the problematic film that it is.

Anyways, maybe Lasseter put some passion and effort into this project? Maybe he made sure that it was more than just a cash grab... Who knows, but this review is a good sign... But we don't know how other critics will react to the film.

None of this means that I'm all in support of the film. I'm just glad that it isn't a Pixar production, because the franchise can still make Disney happy without having the Emeryville folks involved. Pixar can continue doing what they want to do, while Disney can have other outlets continue the Cars (or pretty soon, Autos) franchise. But do they need to come to theaters? Personally, I think this should be the only one and all future spin-offs should go straight to home media.

Let's just put it this way... I'm conflicted on all of this. Sure this will come, make money and please fans and children. Pixar didn't work on it, so animation fans need not worry about the studio's future or image... But I just hope that the non-Pixar side of this franchise doesn't become a theatrical thing. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason. However, after reading this review, I won't be surprised if the film happens to get anything better than the reception that Cars 2 received.

Are you okay with Planes being a theatrical release? Or not? Do you think that it could be a decent film? Or do you think it's going to be a disaster?

Sound off below!

"Planes" Flies To Theaters

Originally announced as a direct-to-video release, the DisneyToon-produced Cars spin-off Planes is now getting a theatrical release on August 9, 2013. I was initially alright with Disney doing this, without having Pixar's name on it, but why a theatrical release?

Do they really think that this spin-off (that's most likely directed at kids only, like any Disney direct-to-video sequel) will be a box office success? I remember when Disney gave two of their direct-to-video sequels a theatrical release in the domestic market: Return to Neverland in 2002 and The Jungle Book 2 in 2003. Both did poorly at the box office (yes they made their budget, but still didn't make much of a mark), because, who but kids wanted to see a direct-to-video quality sequel in theaters? I feel the same may happen with Planes.

Anyway, the only other possible problem is that people who aren't in the know might mistake this for a Pixar release. A lot of casual moviegoers still refer to most computer animated films as Pixar films, even if they've seen them and saw the logos before them. They may think Planes is Pixar as well. Pixar's name was already blemished by Cars 2 (or more appropriately, the criticism it got), so I'm hoping this doesn't add to that.