Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
I noticed that some people think that, because Cars 2 got a lot of bad reviews, a Cars 3 won't be made. Just because a movie was bad, doesn't mean the sequel will be worse. An example would be the Madagascar series. The first movie got a 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, the 2nd movie got a 64%, and the 3rd movie got a 76%. The movies got better each time. This can be said in a saying, "Don't judge a sequel by it's prequel."
Also, Pixar says that, "If we have a good story, we will do a sequel."
I've heard a lot of people are complaining about Mater being the main character instead of Lightning in this movie.Mater might've became popular, since he actually starred in his own shorts series, and also hosted a racing competition. Also, at least Lightning still appears in the movie. And one critic thought that the reason for Mater for becoming the main character was because Lightning McQueen had already learned his lesson in Cars, and that there was nothing else for him to learn.
Another thing I heard, I've watched someone on YouTube review Cars 2, and he thinks that critics aren't liking Cars 2, only because "they're putting Pixar on a rediculous pedestal," and "people are creating such high expectations for Pixar." (P.S. That person gave Cars 2 a positive review). Maybe their is a critic who liked Cars 2, but he gave it a negative review, not because it's bad, but because it wasn't as good as other Pixar films.
I also heard in this video that John Lasseter makes movies for the audience, not the critics. Rotten Tomatoes shows that 55% of the total audience liked the movie, which is better than the critic's 38%. So it's possible that those negative reviews might not have any effect on a possible Cars 3. Click here to see Cars 2 on Rotten Tomatoes.
I've heard of a lot of people who wanted a The Incredibles 2 instead of Cars 2. I guess Pixar didn't come up with a good story for The Incredibles 2, which is what they focus on, coming up with a good story.
Their is also another movie rating site called Metacritic that divides ratings into 3 categories, Positive (Green), Mixed, (Yellow), and Negative (Red). Cars 2 didn't go all the way down to the red. It's in the yellow section, meaning Mixed or average reviews. Same applies for Wikipedia. Several Wikipedia pages say, not that Cars 2 got mostly negative reviews, they say that Cars 2 received mostly mixed reviews.
Because of all the gun violence, car chases, and characters getting killed, some people wondered why Cars 2 is rated G. Probably it was because the first movie is rated G. Probably people who were little children when Cars was in theaters are old enough to handle violence when Cars 2 was in theaters.
Something I have noticed. On Rotten Tomatoes, the first Cars got a 75, which is on the good side. However, only because it wasn't as good as other Pixar movies, which usually get above 90, some critics find it a bad movie. "It was good, but not as good." I guess that some critics dislike "not as goods," not "bads."
I would say that the Cars series, especially the first film, is part of the "Route 66 culture." In fact, if there was a Route 66 Wiki, I think a page on both movies and their characters should be on it. According to Wikipedia's U.S. Route 66 page, the Cars movie's success renewed public interest for Route 66.
Overall, according to the "average critic" (who I am NOT), Cars 2 wasn't completely bad. It was kind of a 50-50, meaning half good, half bad. And I thought it was awesome.