Talk:Cars (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chevron Copy

Cars is a copy of the Chevron computer animated cars in their television and print advertisments. Any evidence of this or responce from disney? Eyes in the windshield is not a big difference. I would love more info on this - thats why I came to wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.127.73.224 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

There's not really much of anything to say on that, animated versions of cars with anthropomorphic characteristics have used the eyes in the windshield for a long long time. Disney had a classic animation that was about cars long before the Chevron ads. Other shows like Speed buggy also had "live" cars, and even the concept of a world of cars (without people) has been seen before. As such, I'd say there is no real connection. Certainly haven't seen any response from Disney, or Chevron for that matter. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not Disney, it's Pixar! Pixar has nothing to do with the Chevron Cars!

-dogman15 03:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

¿Who vandalized the article? , look! they put obscene messages! and ruined the page!

Look at who edited it in the page history. Then work on reverting the vandalism. RMS Oceanic 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: I searched , but the vandalized version cannot be found in the history.

Cool Hand Luke?

Does anyone think that the scene where McQueen has to pave the road and tries to do a rush job of it mirrors the scene in Cool Hand Luke in which Luke and the chain gang have to pave a stretch of road and then race to finish? McQueen is scolded for his work, so I'm going to watch for a more specific reference in that scene. 141.195.224.2 20:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tamara Belden, [beldent@allegheny.edu], 2:58pm 22 December 2006.

Bit odd to link this now, but since it came up [1] does. FrozenPurpleCube 03:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Death of Wally B.?

I've only seen the teaser once, but I remember that (sniff, sniff) the baby bee the truck kills is Wally B.. Is it true, or is my memory a little off? (please be #2, please be #2, please be #2...) --Wack'd About Wiki 17:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's two. I checked. --Wack'd About Wiki 00:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wally B. was the first ever PIXAR animated film (when it was owned by Lucas). The style and animation features of him are now too crude to be of any use in today's film standards. No, the bee in the trailer was a completly new animation. It was not Wally B. Hope this helps. -- Jason Palpatine 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That bee, as Jason said, is NOT Wally B. But this bee in the trailer is a reference to Wally B. But because their animation back in the 80's was so poor, I would rather have Wally B. killed.

And also, Wally B. was a big jerk. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 23:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Sorry, Mr. or Mrs. Wack'd About Wiki, but Wally IS dead. Bees die a few minutes after they sting. It's been a few years now, so, I'm sorry. BUT NO FUNERAL OVER A JERKY BEE!!! A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Cars Will Suck

My links have been removed due to bias. So I decided to post them here in the discussion. Does everyone feel my links is spam?

Coincidentally a podcast titled Why Cars Will Suck:Bigger,Longer and In Syncwas uploaded two days prior (June 22, 2006) on to Google_Video pleading for Disney and Pixar to continue their partnership.(Skip to 19:24)

• When I first read about the project, I was aprehensive at first -- especcially with the disapointment I got from THE (not so) INCREDIBLES. But knowing PIXAR, I still had my fingers crossed. I wasn't disapointed. The movie was a lot better than TnsI. -- Jason Palpatine 07:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Refer to the line where you say "My links..." and "I decided..." An objective encyclopedia should not be used to advertise your personal websites. Equally important is the fact that "Why Cars Will Suck" implies it was an opinion article written before the movie was actually released and therefore has no place in a factual discussion. (Try checing out the difference between fact and opinion) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2006

Sunoco

It was recently added that the Dinoco sponsorship featured in the film was a spoof of the real oil company, Sunoco. Does anyone have anything that validates that or is it just speculation? If it's speculative, it should be removed. I'll give it some time before I remove it. Mongrel 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

Dinoco is not a parody of any gas station, Pixar just made it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.35.122 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2006

Yeah, Dinoco was originally seen in the first movie Toy Story. It's that gas station that Andy's mom, the truck driver, and the Pizza Planet delivery guy go to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogman15 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 May 2006.

Dinoco is actually a parody of Sunoco and Sinclair Oil. (GET THE PICTURE?!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.165.138.45 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2006

Whether intended or not, it IS a pun. For this reason, I think it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.236.113 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2006

The Dinoco logo is obviously based on Sinclair Oil's logo. I think the connection with Sunoco is speculative. I could just as well be portmanteau of dino-saur and Texa-co. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsduhamel (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 August 2006.

Isn't the Dinoco logo also based on that of Conoco? Correct me if I'm wrong, but each has a red oval around its name. Trixovator 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the references to "Sunoco" is just that "Dinoco" rhymes. But there were many other fuel companies with the "oco" ending. Maybe Sunoco is more available in the West/California? You don't see many Sunocos in Michigan for instance. Nor Texacos, Citgos and otheros. 82.93.133.130 13:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of gasoline companies have "oco" in their names because it used to stand for "Oil COmpany" (as in Sun Oil Company = SUNOCO). Thus Dinoco could just be "Dinosaur Oil Company". Powers ^T 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All the advertising names are spoofs - making fun of Nascar - everything is advertising

• Piston Cup - Winston Cup - they had no idea when they started it would now be "NEXTEL Cup"
• Lightyear tires and blimp - Goodyear - also spoofs Toy Story as a bonus.
• Dinosaurs are said to be the source of oil, also a reason.
• Sinclair is a common gas station on the route of old Route 66 - another reason.
• Texaco, AMOCO, ARCO, are other common stations following Rt 66 as Interstate 44 and 55, the later names picked because they fit the Interstate naming system (so Rt.66 could not become an Interstate)

Kidsheaven 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Um, the quotes...really aren't that interesting. And should probably go to Wikiquote anyway. Thoughts? tregoweth 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Completely agree, but was reluctant to remove them myself. Powers 23:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. --Mongrel 00:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should put the funny ones in like,"She just likes me for my body." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.60.42.182 (talk • contribs) .
  • Funny is subjective (case in point, the one you quoted). Powers 13:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The rules of this website are so picky, it's called " The Free Encyclopedia Anyone can Edit," right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.46.27 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2006
      • So if funny is subjective why bother having a quote page at all? Isn't a "good" quote or an "important" quote also subjective? If everything is subjective why don't we just end up quoting the whole movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2006

There we go! YEAH!!! Let's quote thar whole DANG movie!!! I didn't mind the length of the article CARS in Wikipedia, anyway, since all these facts are so neat to read about, so ... HEY! Let's proactively find ways to make the article (CAR-ticle?) even L-O-N-G-E-R!!! Of course, I speak tongue-in-cheek, but that's why I'm writing. If I were to speak tongue-in-cheek, I'd be incomprehensible! Oh, yeah, okay. Gotta stick to the subject ... Rpaltza 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Rpaltza

Trivia

The trivia section should be deleted. It's full of original research. We should wait on this section until something verifiable can be cited, such as a DVD commentary. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete it. The trivia section is mostly sillyness. "Mack wears a hat, like a trucker" (or maybe a fisherman, or a carpenter); "Doc Hudson has white-wall tires but no curb finders."; "It's doubtful that dinosaurs existed in the Cars world." Maybe someone should add that it's doubtful that car can really talk. -- Rsduhamel (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Does it qualify as original research if it's blantantly obvious? If I look up at the sky and say "The sky is blue?" are you going to call that "original research" and make me delete it? (Actually, "blue" would probably be considered subjective. And then someone would ask me to define "sky." And "the." And "is.") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2006

To answer the question, yes. Wikipedia cannot declare the sky is blue no matter how blue it is. It can only report that "it has been published b y reliable sources that the sky is blue." Sucks, I know. But that's an encyclopedia. Dikke poes 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

song title?

anyone knows what plays during the part where the dj and other tuners come in the movie...

if i remembered right it was quite heavy on the bass

Dstan 12:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about this, too.. Sounds like an interesting song if you're into that sort of thing (which I am, for what it's worth) Madmaxmarchhare 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's Kenny G, popular in late 80s, forget the title, but it was his biggest hit. See casting for DJ, and moral, removed, that Kenny G may impair alertness in driving. --matador300 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ERRRR.. thanks for the try, but we were looking for the song that they are playing when they first drive up to Mack Truck, not what they put him to sleep with. You know what? I went and saw the movie again and missed the song credits because I was once again watching all the other stuff going on the screen. DOH! Madmaxmarchhare 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could be just something generic that Pixar came up with? I wouldn't know myself (as I wasn't totally paying attention to the music), but that is my guess PYLrulz 10:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's always a possibility--if I would have been looking at the credits instead of everything else, this might all be settled.. until then, then.. Madmaxmarchhare 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It called "Rollin' in the rearview" Performed by Jabu. This was taken off the DVD credits staff roll. BTW, the song used to put Mack to sleep is called "Songbird" by Kenny G DCJoeDog 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For the Birds birds

How are you even sure that those birds are the ones from that short? You pass them in less than a second. Everythingthat lives in that movie is a car, even the flies are mini-cars.

• It may be worth mentioning, if only because a lot of people think it's a For the Birds reference, whether it is or not. —tregoweth (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• A lot of people coudn't see it. So how would they they're the birds from For the Birds.

• Oh, I think those are *definitely* the Birds birds... They made the exact same sound. If they hadn't made the sound I might have missed it, but they're definitely them. Also, I was a little unclear who the airplanes are... I kept looking for them to be cars of some kind but it never panned out... Aaronw 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think we'll know for certain until the DVD release, but considering Pixar's penchant for slipping in references to their other movies and the fact that the sound (and blur of color) seemed to match the short's characters perfectly, I'd have to assume that the "For The Birds" birds are in the movie. Imdwalrus 07:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• They are. I saw them. If I could prove it, I would. dogman15 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• No need to prove it, I have the DVD and I went frame by frame and they are the birds from the short film DCJoeDog 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My question is, I know those are the Birds (you can see them on frame by frame as Joe said), but I don't recall being able to hear "distinctive chirps." The person who added that line is a good-faith editor, I checked; but I thought the Life Is A Highway song was playing suring that scene???? Someone let me know here. Dikke poes 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to my edit, I added the word "distinct", but only as a reword. I felt the word "unique" (added previously) was not the best choice of wording. Since I don't have the DVD yet, I can't verify the original editor's comment about the chirps being heard. Since several editors here, though, say the sound is there, I trust it's there. It does seem a bit WP:OR-y, though (not to mention that the whole Trivia section, especially one so long, is generally frowned upon here), so I won't complain if it's removed. --Fru1tbat 13:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No Bat, I did mean the original original editor :) I just re-watched the film at a friend's house, and yes, even though the song is playing you can hear a honk-a honk-a coming from the big goonie bird. I think that IF there's going to be a Pixar-hidden-ditties section, then the Birds need to be in there. If the whole section needs to be taken out, eh. I like trivia sections in movie pages, but this page is a monster. Cheers etc Dikke poes 11:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone still has any doubts about this, I found 'em. It's really blurry, but you can make 'em out. Draconiator 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"For the birds" are in the movie. As User:Draconiator has verified. You could see them in the "Life Is A Highway" scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzstar (talk • contribs) 23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Morals

I'm in favor of deleting this section, mainly because it's irrelevant and no other pages have it. A "themes" section might be preferable. --Nqnpipnr(16:35, June 27, 2006)

I agree, this is an enclyclopedia, not a psycological analysis of the morality protrayed in the movie. (next time sign your post with 4 tildes ~~~~please)pschemp | talk 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I've deleted it, also.Nqnpipnr 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Nqnpipnr

I'm in favor of restoring it, a lot of users appreciate it, and it spells out the messags for the parents to transmit to their kids.--matador300 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC) likewise people please post messsages here, I don't think 2 confirmations makes it a good idea to delete. Cars is a childrens movie, one moral had a citation from a review, and the articles aesop's fables and morals do exist as children's literature, which this is, it's not just war of the worlds.

--matador300 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • This movie's moral lesson is extremely heavy-handed. If you watched the movie and still need it spelled out for you, then you must be deaf, blind, and dumb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2006

Parents talking to their kids about the moral??? What??? So, I guess all kids get too caught off in their career, and being famous. Then these children are forced to slow down in life, right? Then, when these kids go off back to being famous, they are not going so fast in life, right? Those "kids" won't even get close to this!!! They're ONLY SIX YEARS OLD!!! They don't have a career!!! Man, what's wrong? The government and Disney are intransliterate! 71.213.141.5 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Poser SUV Hummer

Just as you know, it's a Hummer H1 wagon. First off, the back has 4 windows and two doors. The grill has circle headlights, and 7 ovalur slats, and the bull bars are from Hummer H1s, also the sides are from an H1, just because it has spinners doesn't make it an H2. It's an H1. Who else thinks it's an H1? Because I have an H2, and I can tell the difference between that and the H1. Imaxination 80 --Imax80 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is very obviously an H1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2006

• Incredibly obvious it's an H1 DCJoeDog 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ages

I don't know where else to put this. Are there any sources that verify any of the character's ages? But they all have adult actors! I haven't been able to find any, and there have been people claiming that Mater is 19, and Chick is 11 and Sally is 25. I have changed all relevant ages to 'Unknown' until a source can be found verifying what age they are. RMS Oceanic 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the concept of "ages" is useful for this article (or List of Cars characters, or any of the individual character pages), since "age" appears to be based on model year, making Sally 3 and Lizzie 82. It's clear (given that Sally is an '02 Porsche) the cars are "born" adult, so the usefulness of knowing that Sally is a 3-year-old model is virtually nil. Powers ^T 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the best way of dealing with it? You can't delete the age category, because it still appears on the character box. I think we need to reach a resolution and apply it to all the characters, because the constant switching of ages everytime I look at an article is annoying. RMS Oceanic 09:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the category is very relevant, or supported in the context of the movie. It'd be one thing if the DVD release came out and put their ages in some character biography section, but until that, I say delete the category. FrozenPurpleCube 09:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created a new template, Cars character, which is more customised for them, and doesn't have an age category. I've tested it on Doc Hudson and Lightning McQueen, and I think it looks alright. Until we get an age info file from an official Pixar source, use this template. RMS Oceanic 12:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just wanted to pop in here with the FYI that the cars are NOT born as adults since a child car is clearly shown in the part where the jets do the fly-over DCJoeDog 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My sister, Ann Turner, has proved that Mater is NOT 19 years old. He is at least 41, because Sally's flashback of "40 years ago" showed Mater giving someone a tow. And in that flashback, he was at least 1 year old. And everyone else in Radiator Springs (except Sally and Doc and Lizzie) is at least 41. Doc Hudson is at least 55, since the movie takes place in 2006, and Doc's earliest Piston Cup has an engraving of the year 1951. Sally is at least 3, because she was a 2002 Porsche Carrera and Lizzie is at least 82 despite the fact that she is a 1923 Ford Model T. Chick is at least 5, because at least five times he has been in an annual Piston Cup race. And finally, Lightning McQueen. I hate to say this, but he is at least 1. If The King strip weathers has won lots of piston cups he must be at least 12. Does anyone else have any more to say? Please? Thank you. ANNAfoxlover 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, interesting stuff. I don't think the filmmakers were really specific in this field, although they might have wanted to just go by the ages of the voice actors. I don't really know; did anyone check the official website? Nqnpipnr 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't YOU check the [carsthemovie.com official website]? I promise you won't find anyone's ages. And if you do find someone's age on that website then you can vandalize my user page anytime you like and you won;t get in trouble! Go ahead and find their ages. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Overanalyzing?

One version of this site included the fact "...and minor characters Mini and Van (a pun on the word "Minivan")." I can't imagine what kind of person would read "Mini" and "Van" and actually need someone else to explain the joke to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2006

I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.157.49 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2006

I agree too. 71.213.141.5 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.213.141.5 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Merchandise and Video Game Split?

In an effort to reduce the size of the article, I think it would be prudent to create a new article for Cars-related merchandise, including brief summaries of the video games, and move the information from this article into it. Is this a good idea? Are there any other sections that may warrant moving? RMS Oceanic 12:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The tuner cars

Okay, you may think Wingo, DJ, Snot Rod, and Boost are real life models. But they aren't, you know why? Because the diecast toys prove this. Boost and snot rod are amarican imports and wingo and dj are japanese imports.81.154.165.210 07:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a diecast model of a real car character, a license of the dealer appears at the bottom (for instance, The King has a Chrysler License under it). But the four tuners don't have a license under them so therefore they are lookalikes of the models you all think they are. Imax80 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe those companies in question didn't insist on a copyright notice. In the Die-Cast line of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, Gordon the Big Engine is clearly based on the LNER Class A3 (Such as Flying Scotsman) and Duck the Great Western Engine is clearly based on the GWR 5700 Class tank engine, but on all packaging for both characters that I've read, I have yet to see such a copyright notice by the owners of the copyright. RMS Oceanic 06:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Romanian Article

Could someone translate the Romanian Article for Cars, so we know how to improve the English article? If they can reach FA, so can we! RMS Oceanic 12:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

¿Pixar Spoofs?

This entries in the list of characters:

• Woody = Ford Woodie wagon
• Buzz Lightyear = Toy Spaceship Car
• Flik = 1966 Volkswagen "Bug"
• Mike Wazowski = Isetta
• Sulley = Monster Truck
• Abominable = Snowplow Snowcat
• Hamm = small SUV
• P.T. Flea = Unknown Car

¿Are they correct? I'll see the movie again. I don't remember them. Arabigo 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way do you mean correct? Do you mean those are the correct Car Models, or do you mean if they are actually in the film. If that's the case, then these are correct. During the credits, there's a scene where everyone's in the Drive-In Theater, and three parodies of previous Pixar Movies (Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. and A Bug's Life, respectively) play, showing how those films would have been done in the Cars world. RMS Oceanic 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dusty the Dart?

On the main page, Dusty (the movie character) is listed as a Dodge Dart. However, he looks more to me like a Plymouth Duster. Also, this would make more sense since his name is "Dusty," which is more similar to Duster than to Dart. Thoughts? Comments? Dusty duster 19:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Ray think it's a Dart, but that was before they'd seen the movie: [2]. Powers ^T 14:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's the 1963 Dodge Dart: Image:DodgeDart1963.jpg. Check out the headlights, the dual striping down the entire length of the car, and the elevation of the rear wheel well. Now look at Dusty Rust-eze: [3]. He's definitely a Dart. Powers ^T 14:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

MMMM, I hadn't gotten that good a look at him before. From watching the actual movie once or twice I saw just the grille and headlights, heard "Dusty" and thought "Duster."Dusty duster 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do know that when interviewed, the Tappet Brothers said that they were Clank and Clunk (or something similar) and they were represented by the cars they are most associated with. The nasty one with food in his beard (Ray?) always has a Dart that they speak about never running and having grass grow in the back seat. Pixar not only changed the names but I think they also changed the models too. Dikke poes 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

UK Running Time

Okay, solved everything, the actual runtime for the movie 121 minutes in the US and the UK. People originally thought it was "126 minutes" in UK, because the shirt film "One Man Band" is shown after the BBFC Classification screen, so the actual runtime of the movie in "every" country is 121 minutes. --Imax80 01:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The King's crash - disputed fact

According to Petty, the crash is a frame-by-frame replay of his crash. According to some here, it is of Rusty Wallace. As this information is disputed, I have removed it. Perhaps when the DVD is released, the commentary might close this dispute once and for all.

Incidentally, this trivia, along with both sides of the argument, is included in the entry for The King.StephenBuxton 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As the DVD has now been released in Australia, has anyone there got it yet and can confirm who's crash was copied?StephenBuxton 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

,-( There's no commentary on the DVD. (sob) I paid $18.84 for that DVD! (cry) What a rip off! (sad) A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE!

Mrs. Andretti or Mrs. Schumacher?

I don't remember Mario's wife being shown and a 2005 Maserati would go more along with Michael, but I don't remember a wife for him, either. Anyone know for sure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skywatcher68 (talk • contribs) .

Andretti was accompanied by a female car as he entered the race; Schumacher just had some buddies with him. Powers ^T 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Consideration of External Link

Please consider including this article in the external links section: Cars: the Road Less Traveled at the Bosque Boys. The article provides a brief review and unique discussion of the distinctly "socially conservative" messages contained within this film and Pixar products in general. Thanks for your consideration. Acruset 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes between the theatrical release and the DVD release

So far I've noticed two small changes between the theatrical release and the DVD release of this film:

• When the "For The Birds" birds go by on the telephone line, in the DVD release they now make a squeaking noise. In the theatrical release, I don't recall a sound effect for them.
• During the end credits, Sarge is shown putting four SUVs through boot camp. One of the SUVs has two lines. In the theatrical release, I remember it sounding like Arnold Schwartzenegger; on the DVD, it definitely does not sound like Arnold - it's more of a slacker kind of voice.

Can anyone verify these changes, and do you know of any others? - Brian Kendig 05:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on both counts. In the theatrical versions I attended, the birds did indeed make a squeaking noise. As for the SUV, you might be thinking about the Montage of press reports after Lightning McQueen goes missing, where a Yellow German-Sounding Hummer states "Lightning McQueen must be found, at all costs!". The green Hummer at Sarge's Bootcamp always sounded like a slacker. RMS Oceanic 08:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Validity of the 'Reference to Other Movies?'

Some of the "references" listed seem to be very common scenes that occur in many films. I think it's a bit of a leap to document them as nods to other films. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.88.212.44 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the line that the shot of Mater seen flying across the moon is a reference to E.T. This is a common shot -- used for everything from Halloween witches to Santa and his sleigh (even Tim Burton shot the Batwing flying against the moon). If there is evidence to support that this is indeed a nod to E.T., please cite that information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.88.212.43 (talk • contribs) .

Steve McQueen

Is there any actualy evidence or source thats says that Lightning McQueen was named after Steve McQueen, right now the article says ...some believe that it is also a reference to famous actor and car buff Steve McQueen'. Who is "some", an message board , someone on Wikipedia? -- Coasttocoast 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't believe this. I believe his naming was 99% for Glenn McQueen. Any references to Steve were probably an afterthought. RMS Oceanic 08:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

HA!!! It was Glenn McQueen, and someone should make an article for him!!! --ANNAfoxlover

Tires, not antennae

I'm relatively certain that the cars in Cars generally use their tires as hands, not their antennae. I'm going to change this, but feel free to make a case that I am wrong (if you have one!). Hey, my warranty didn't run out after all! 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they used BOTH. -- Jason Palpatine 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tires used to stretch after waking and turing on the gas pumps and taking off the parking boot; antennas used by Luigi to wash/squeegee the windows of his shop. :) 82.93.133.130 11:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that was what Luigi was using? It looked more like his windscreen wipers to me. StephenBuxton 12:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was his windshield wipers that he used to clean the window. Sarge also used his right-side wiper to salute the American flag, as well. - dogman15 08:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR Rules

Removed the section about drivers losing their finishing position for wrecking the leader of a race in order to win it themselves. Has only happened once in NASCAR's top division when Ricky Rudd spun Davy Allison out at Sears Point on the last lap, with Rudd receiving a time penalty which meant Allison crossed the line first to win.

It is not a near certainty like the writer made it appear to be, and hasn't happened in 15 years.

Pizza Planet Truck

Someone claims to have found the Pizza Planet Truck during "Life is a Highway" on this message board. It's at a Dinoco gas station, the same on in Toy Story. Is that verifiable enough to make reference to in the main article here? RMS Oceanic 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I verify it as well, it's hella blurry but the shape is there, also you can clearly see the Pizza Planet truck behind the announcer cars and to the left of the "Elvis" RV before the start of the final race DCJoeDog 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarge

Anyone hear why they didn't use R. Lee Ermey for Sarge? It seemed to just beg for him.--BenWoodruff 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's the reason why they did not use him. -- Jason Palpatine 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Kori?

Mazda MX-3, I think. Here's one: Mazda MX-3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hondasaregood (talk • contribs).

Kori is the news reporter in the film. Her name is Kori Turbowitz.

This article is becoming very long

OK. How about, to trim off some of the fat, we delete the week-by-week box office performance list. Seems unecessary. -- Jason Palpatine 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

What? No comments? Jason Palpatine 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be deleted completely, but it could at least be trimmed down to 10 weeks. What I'd focus on trimming instead:

• Story - I'm not sure quite how best to do it, but it seems like this should be edited down such that it's not just a play-by-play of the movie (details that are important when watching aren't necessarily important in an encyclopedia article about the film).
• NASCAR differences - Yes, the movie is based directly on NASCAR, and the comparison is a valid one, but there's a lot of extra detail there that could be edited out.
• Script references - More trivia that could probably be edited down.
• Goofs - Unnecessary, probably. Leave stuff like that to fansites or IMDb.

Note that per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, fan facts shouldn't be included at all (not that the rest of the article necessarily follows that page's guidelines either). This article is pretty much filled with them. I agree that they're fun to read through, but as the article size is a problem, we have to consider the bigger picture here.

-- Fru1tbat 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it would be a good idea to consolidate the differences between the Vehicles and voice cast list on this page and the List_of_Cars_characters page, then remove the chart from this page and replace it with a link to the List_of_Cars_characters page. This would remove a large chunk of length, and provide a page where the minutia of the various cars could be added without overextending this entry further. --Improbcat 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way it can be reduced by creating a second page for some of the detail. I find the detail of interest since Disney/Pixar decided not to include a second DVD of the information, likely being saved for a possible BlueRay or future re-release of the home version.???? Kidsheaven 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm willing to rewrite the plot summary and put it in my sandbox or something, so people can look at it before stuffing in in the Cars article. I'm thinking three or four large paragraphs. I looked at the sub page for this and someone suggested modeling the Care Bears Movie article. I might instead use The Lion King as it's big, popular, animated, spawned numrous sequels, TV shows, DVDs games and all that plus a seperate List of Characters page like Cars so obviously needs. I can also try a rewrite of the into and put that in my sandbox. I'll post the link here when I'm done. Dikke poes 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take-- turns out I'm not the world's greatest writer, but it's a start: User_talk:Dikke_poes/Sandbox I've taken out all the puns and left a LOT of info out, and the whole "growth of McQueen as a person" thing might be too WP:OR even though it's obvious. I DO think there's a place in the article for puns; they're a strong part of the movie. Dikke poes 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-wrote the Critical Reaction and Box Office Performance sections and combined them into one "Reaction" section. It includes a summary of the critical reactions with citations, and then a brief summary of the box office performance, including brief comparisons to other Pixar films and films from summer 2006. Hope it helps. Nqnpipnr 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article was EVER "too long." All the interesting facts about the movie being brought out just makes it that much more memorable to me. I think its too unfortunate and disappointing that The Delinquent Road Hazards link was discontinued; they could have been called The Tunerz instead, if there were ever a problem with the title. But all that info was a sheer delight to read ... and re-read ... and download, etc., etc. I did find the discussion about whether DJ was a modified Scion xB or some other vehicle a bit much ado about almost nothing, but that's the breaks in this business, I suppose. The article, in and of itself, however, has always kept my interest and the subsequent text modifications I found quite informative. Rpaltza 17:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Rpaltza

Ahh, ruined info

In the very beginning, as you can see, someone gorged the starting paragraph with some vulgar junk-- I would happily try and revert it to the original state but I can't remember what was there at first --Uzzo2 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the opening paragraph contains tons of misplaced info (that appears later in the article). No need to repeat the NASCAR puns or every voice talent in the movie. Work on that too while you're editing the top of the page, please. SpikeJones 20:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh Sorry, they must have already deleted it about time you got here --Uzzo2 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Speeding in the Pit

" *In the movie, Lightning McQueen appears to speed out of pit road to beat the pace car, and stay on the lead lap. In NASCAR, a driver would be penalized for doing that by being required to restart the race at the end of the longer of the two lines of cars that line up behind the pace car. During the final ten laps of the race, when the cars one or more laps down are not allowed to line up to the inside of the lead-lap cars, the penalty is to start at the end of the one line of cars.

• McQueen did not, however, speed in the pits. He only accelerated once he crossed the pit exit line. Had he broken the speed limit within the pits, he would have had to serve a stop and go black flag on the very next lap under NASCAR rules. The movie then depicts McQueen just catching up to the pack as the green flag is waved. NASCAR dictates the drivers be lined up before the green flag is issued."

Did he speed off or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.157.49 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2006

Fine! To answer your question, NO!!! At least, I don't think he did. --ANNAfoxlover

Goof?

Doc Hornets big crash is given as 1954, however, one of his piston cups can clearly be seen to be dated 1955. surely if he won the piston cup that year, his career would have been renewed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.110.220 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2006

You mis-read it. His cups clearly state 1951, 1952 and 1953. He doesn't have a cup for 1955. RMS Oceanic 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Goddamn, now i feel like a n00b :P82.12.110.220 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

^^lol --Uzzo2 05:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy, he's good! Not the other guy who called Doc Hudson "Doc Hornet".

Hidden Video!!

For the DVD, you can go on the main screen and you just wait for a minute or two, then on the lower right corner, the Dinoco 400 logo shows up, go down to "Set Up" and press the right arrow on the DVD remote and quickly press play as it will disappear after 10 seconds and you'd have to wait again. After you press play, you can watch a 43 second "car-i-fied" version of Boundin'. Fishhead 19:24, December 27, 2006 UTC

Vehicles and voice cast

I'm suggesting this be merged into List of Cars characters, which also needs fixing up. It would make this article shorter, and it might prove to help get the other article condensed. -WarthogDemon 00:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Partially Agree. All the superfluous characters can be moved, but I'd retain the core characters (Lightning, King, Chick, Mack and the Radiator Springs Townsfolk) in this article as well, for the purpose of casting. See Finding Nemo, where they have something similar for the fish's species. (Although I think that needs to be condensed as well) RMS Oceanic 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -WarthogDemon 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Should The Box Office Section be deleted?

After asking another editor on this he suggested that perhaps the Box Office section be removed, since none of the other Pixar movies have such a section. Would anyone else agree on removing it? -WarthogDemon 00:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Keep info about opening weekend, time at number one and box office totals. RMS Oceanic 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I've done. I redid the entire Reaction to keep it just to two informative paragraphs. Nqnpipnr 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -WarthogDemon 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First rookie to win Piston Cup

In the "Other references," someone says that "Lightning was NOT the first rookie to win a Piston Cup." No authority is given, and I cannot tell whether this comment is meant to refer to (1) the fact that Doc Hudson is a 1951 Hornet who won the cup in 1951 or (2) that McQueen does not win the final race. If it means the former, I think one has to assume that Doc was a 1951 model who raced as a rookie in 1950. If it means the latter, it should be worded better (e.g. "By stopping to help the King, Lightning does not become the first rookie to win a Piston Cup....") Thoughts? Jhwitt 21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It's hardly implausible for Doc to have raced in 1950 despite being a 1951 model, given that, for as long as I can remember, the "new year's" models start going on sale in the fall of the year before. What's more (and here we are, bringing in real-life NASCAR again!), there have been a number of cases where NASCAR has permitted a new model on the track at the start of the season when it wouldn't actually be on sale until the coming fall. Probably the two most notorious would be the 2000 Ford Taurus being raced throughout 1999, or the 1991 Chevy Lumina being raced throughout 1990. Rdfox 76 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the original line implies that Lightning would be the first rookie to win a Piston Cup and Dinoco's sponsorship. Skywatcher68 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for references?

The References section is fun, but needs sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Birth

How are the cars in Cars born? They are not born as adults, because there was obviously a child car cheering before the airplanes in the final race sequence flew overhead. Does anyone know? And if anyone from Pixar is reading this, TELL ME PLEASE!!! --ANNAfoxlover

(If I had read this when Anna had posted this, I would want to know too, but I'm trying to formulate my own opinions about young cars. -dogman15 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

Can't say for sure as I am not from PIXAR, but with what I have read about the attention to realism would be that cars are born out of the automotive factories... Until they come out with the Backstage Disney type Blu-ray DVD release at some point in the future, we won't likely know for sure. I find it disappointing that they included so little added content compared with other recent releases. But, advertising Hi-Def DVD's for the past month or so suggests they are holding back for future release.

Disney seems to hold back on certain movies, limited release, going back into the vault. Similar type statements are made on certain movies. Going back in time all movies were re-released at varied dates.

See this Variety posts:[4][5]kidsheaven 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

THAT STUPID VAULT!!! A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 23:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That being Vault Disney??, we can thank the Pixar deal for the next level of replacement drive of home copies of Disney and now PIXAR films. My collection of VHS now outdated, and now even a brand new DVD already outdated in previews for BluRay.kidsheaven 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Corvette?"

I think that the "Corvette" question is a suggestion from the drama "Route 66" which Chevrolet Corvette was featured. Not because Porsche and Chevrolet had a relation or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.176.229.2 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Rating

I've added the PG rating that was given by the BBFC, hopefully this will put a stop to the US rating being changed to PG. Skywatcher68 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia cleanup

I'm removing any trivia item that's either worded as speculation ("The melodic horn ... could be ...", "'Corvette?' could possibly be ...", etc), or likely coincidental ("Another similar incident occurred ...", "Lightning appears to be modeled ...", etc). Some were borderline, so I tried to delete the ones that would cause the least controversy. I also deleted several items that were more or less just explaining jokes (like the Freebird item). I left most of the other cultural references, and the other items that seemed more obvious or verifiable. I'm anticipating some disagreement, hence this talk page item... --Fru1tbat 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR differences

This entire section seems to be one long list of Original Research. Was any of this information published by a reliable source? If that can't be answered in the affirmative, it all needs to go. CovenantD 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of the information may be sketchy, other parts are simple "This is how the movie did it" and "This is how Nascar does it" . Both of which are easily verified, so since there's no speculated meaning to the differences, I'm comfortable keeping it, though it could be improved. Still, since there's no argument here about them, I would say it's unreferenced, not that it's original research. And it is possible some of the auto racing websites and magazines have covered the subject, maybe even newspapers. It is kind of hard to search for references for this material. FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The differences themselves need to have been published in a reliable source - putting the movie and the NASCAR handbook side-by-side and comparing the differences is the very definition of original research. Another argument against them would be relevance - how are the differences relevant to the movie? ARE they relevant? The article doesn't make any case for this. CovenantD 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say that comparing them is the very definition of original research, at least not as done here, which is not proposing a new theory or argument. This would be closer to WP:SYN instead. However, I would say the problem is that it's lacking sources right now, but it is very possible that such sources do exist. It's just difficult to find them, given the lack of any distinctive keywords. Perhaps when the Collector's edition DVD comes out? I do think they exist. See for example [6] which in the review mentions accuracy for that movie. If I could find one there for Cars, I suspect it would also cover the subject, maybe in greater detail, maybe not. Unfortunately, looking for "Cars" on Nascar.com is silly, and even adding Pixar gets me drowned in their store pages. If I read racing magazines, maybe they'd mention something. I'll add the unreferenced tag, perhaps it'll get somebody's attention. Still, I don't consider the section a problem right now, it's not defamatory in any way, so no need to act quickly. FrozenPurpleCube 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, your logic for leaving them in for now is fine by me. But only for a while... ;) CovenantD 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

K, hopefully they'll have a DVD with a commentary that covers it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

First off, I don't think these should be merged, only redirected (besides the basic info for the toy line, which would be shoved somewhere). Dinoco and Rust-eze are very minor concepts that don't need any sort of explanation. Radiator Springs is the main setting, so it should be amply covered in the plot summary. The toy line is nothing special. Pretty much every child geared movie will come out with them. Besides a small mention, there is no need for it. Nemu 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are ok with Rust-eze and I suppose the toyline (though I'm not inclined to that.). However, Dinoco appears in Toy Story as well as Cars, so keep it separate. FrozenPurpleCube 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless Dinoco actually has a role in it, it should just be redirected here. It would be a trivia point otherwise. If it does actually play a role, it should be redirected to Pixar. Nemu 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Pixar? That'd not be much of an improvement. Just leave it on its own, as a oil company used in both Cars and Toy Story. If used again, add whatever movie it's used in. FrozenPurpleCube 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because isn't a reason to keep an article. At this point it's no more than a little running cameo from Pixar. It fails to assert any notability. I doubt there are any reliable sources. In its current state its just fancruft. It should either be redirected to its most notable role, or its orgin. Nemu 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting to Pixar makes no sense. Dinoco is a fictional location and company through three Pixar films, but doesn't actually relate directly to Pixar. This article is already large enough. I suppose the Dinoco and Rust-eze information can be rolled into List of Cars characters. (The information about Toy Story can be adequately covered on the film's page.) But Radiator Springs and the toy line are, to my mind, independantly signficant enough to warrant their own articles. Radiator Springs because it is the primary location for the film, with many later appearances (games, books, etc.) and the toy line because of its real world impact as one of the major sales-related news stories of 2006. The article still needs work, but should remain. Rhindle The Red 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It could easily be placed in a section like recurring themes. I believe it should be redirected here; that's just another option. Neither need to have sections anywhere. Whatever is notable about them is covered in-text.

What is important about RS? It has no info that isn't easily covered elsewhere. Could it ever look like Spira (Final Fantasy X)? Could it have any real references? How many movie specific toy lines have articles? That would be one of the only ones, if not the only one. It's only content is a list. Any references can easily be merged here. Nemu 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If somebody claimed there was meaning to the use of Dinoco, I'd say there was an issue with sources. However, given that the material is present in the two films, I see no reason to assert a source beyond that. Notability comes from being present in the movies, which are themselves notable enough to support a number of topics. Dinoco, as a bridge between two movies fits. FrozenPurpleCube 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't automatically inherited. The fact that the movies are notable, doesn't make Dinoco notable in the least. The article needs reliable and attributable sources to prove that it is notable. Nemu 23:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the appearance in two movies is notable enough for me. I'd be comfortable with a merge, except with two separate works of fiction, I don't see it being appropriate to merge to either one. Nor do I see a merge to Pixar as being suitable. I would be comfortable with "Common references in Pixar films" if you want to go that direction, but it could have problems. Wikipedia is not paper. This subject is reasonably notable (being substantially more in the movies than just a one-off name), so I don't object to it having a page. Is there some reason it shouldn't have a page? Some problem with it? FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some problem with it: It fails WP:N, WP:ATT, probably WP:OR, WP:NOT, and probably a few others. While this site is not paper, it is also not an indiscriminate source of info. Nemu 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't fail any of those. Notability comes from being part of a major film. Easily attributed to that film. No original research is inherent in covering it. Not that simply referring to those pages is convincing. I might as well say WP:IAR. Perhaps you need to look at: WP:BURO. You would be much better off articulating your problem rather than using blind links to pages. It's not at all persuasive. Please try using your own words instead. I find it's more easier to engage in a dialogue and reach consensus when folks are more willing to actually talk to each other rather than just flip rules at each other. It's important to remember that Wikipedia isn't just a collection of rules, but the work of people. You are not coming across to me as a person who is interested in discussing anything. FrozenPurpleCube 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to discuss, but you seem to have missed every one of my points such as "Notability isn't automatically inherited." If something fails many policies it doesn't deserve a page. It asserts no notability. It doesn't have notable sources or true sources (the film cannot source most of the stuff on that page). Most of the info cannot be sourced, so that constitutes OR in a way. It fails WP:NOT#INFO per being tottally indiscriminate. Not everything belongs here. Finally, it would easily be deleted in an AfD (which that is probably where it will be deleted). I have already meantion every one of those points (besides the AfD), but you have ignored them. When you do that, the only way to get you to understand is to show you what it fails. Nemu 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue your points at this time (most of your points - such as how much notability is inherited by a particular item - are subjective and open to interpretation), but I wonder why you continually state in your "merge" arguments how information "cannot be sourced". How do you know this? There are many interviews, books, etc. written about the making of these films and the creation of these characters/places/etc. that could provide sources for much of the information. You freely admit to not being familiar with many of the items you are discussing, yet you plainly state that things "cannot be sourced" without justifying that statement. Why? Rhindle The Red 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a little running cameo throughout the Pixar movies. If you think it is more than that, then prove it. The fact that it is a little running cameo, says to me, that this cannot be sourced. The fact that all of the hits on search engines (with a pixar or "cars movie" tag) point to the toy names says that this cannot be sourced. I say it can't; the fact that it isn't is good enough to back that at this point. If it can be sourced, prove it. Nemu 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about anybody else, but I think the role in the film that Dinoco plays is sufficient that the notability of Cars is inherited, add in the Toy Story appearance and it's sufficient to sustain an article. You can argue that notability isn't automatically inherited if you want, but asserting that does not mean that it doesn't inherit the notability at all. I have no problem with sourcing to the film directly so your claims of OR do not hold water, and referring to WP:NOT#IINFO is useless in this case since well, you haven't established the relationship to any of the criteria there, or why it's indiscriminate in general. So please, stop throwing us links to pages, and try discussing things directly. Tell us why this thing, namely Dinoco, doesn't belong here. I have not ignored anything, you have refused to engage in any kind of discussion. Not just say "Not everything belongs on Wikipedia" like that was convincing. And please stop trying to use AfD as your beatstick. It's not polite or civil, and I doubt this would be as easily deleted as you seem to think. FrozenPurpleCube 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and instead of AFD, why don't you try WP:PM first? Proposing a merger would be closer to what you originally wanted anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that your only argument is a pointless argument that people are suggested to avoid is a pretty good sign that this isn't notable. You can't just refute that it's not notable by using that method. As I said up there, nothing has proven that it is notable. You need to prove that it is notable through reliable sources. I don't know what I'll do at this point. PM seems to be for actual mergers, not redirects. Nemu 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, why are you defending this one article so adamantly? You have put up with the merger of characters, yet you'll defend such a pointless concept. Nemu 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merging the toy line. A•N•N•A hi! 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I merged the two that seem to be fairly one-sided (Well, Rust-eze had nothing to merge). Nemu 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't just claim something is not notable by bare assertion either. There is no objective, concrete standard for notability, it's a subjective judgment. But since nobody is disputing covering Dinoco at all, I consider it doubtful there's a real dispute to notability as such. And I explained why I don't think merging Dinoco is appropriate. It appears in two films. Thus I don't feel it's right to merge. I've said my piece, so far all I've been met with is Essay-linking. That is not convincing. It's actually rather distancing and not conducive to good consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources. You have no proven there can be any reliable sources. All that's been given is a huge blanket statement that says there might be some somewhere in all of the Cars media. Something not fulfilling the notability guideline, and the reliable sources (something other than the movie asserting its notability) one ususally has a good chance of being deleted. You can not just say that it's notable and leave it at that. The burden of proof is on you at this point. Nemu 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What's more reliable than watching the movie yourself? Some things do not especially need to be attributed, and the existence of Dinoco in Cars and Toy Story is one of those things. If you want somebody else saying it [7] qualifies to me. If you want me to articulate how it's notable, I don't know how else to say "This is a fairly significant element in two easily notable movies" . FrozenPurpleCube 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to go for an AfD (probably tomorrow). You obviously don't understand true notability. Nemu 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps you need to try for a little more civility? Telling me I don't understand "true notability" is fairly close to a personal attack, and I suggest you consider not talking about the person but rather sticking to the argument. If you want to say "I don't believe this is truly notable" say that instead of commenting on what you think about me. FrozenPurpleCube 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the blunt way of "You're running around in circles, causing the discussion to take forever. An AfD should quickly end this." Sometimes you have to comment on a person if it's a pure conflict of interest. I'm sorry if you take it as an attack, though. Nemu 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was obvious to me that this discussion was going nowhere a long time ago, but it is important not to focus on the person, but on the situation itself. At this point, I do not see you as wishing to seek consensus, but as a person who has formed a negative opinion of me. That is not conducive to good discussion at all. FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Though the people that would care probably already know, it's up for deletion now. Nemu 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts

Isn't it possible that the characters from Cars will appear in the Kingdom Hearts series?

No. Just...no. Okay, to be serious I don't know how they would ever fit in to it. I'm not sure, maybe it could be possible. I'm not big on RPGs (except the Paper Mario series). --LuigiManiac 18:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Diecast

Can someone please tell me why the diecast page was merged into the merchandising section and basically eliminated? It doesn't make much sense to me?

Discuss: Merge with Radiator Springs

The following was located on the Radiator Springs talk page. It has been placed here to settle any confusion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merger of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Discuss: Merge with Cars (film)

• Do Not Merge i believe that this article should remain a seperate article because it refers to a location, wether fictional or not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.174.84 (talk • contribs) 22:16, July 13, 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge on principle; since the merge box came out of the clear blue, with zero discussion (there wasn't even a talk page for this article until recently, weeks after the merge box showed up), I cannot vote for a merge. Give me a good reason why it should be merged, and I'll reconsider. --Joe Sewell 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge the Cars article is already too long.. and as it is a city with details, it should have its own separate article. -AMK152 03:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I think it should be merged, as, although this "town" has its own details borrowed from real towns, the reality of the town itself is contained entirely within this one movie. -Mewtation 02:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I can't see any reason for this having its own page. What next, a site for each store in the town? MrMarmite 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Result: Do Not Merge. If the person who threw the box up there wishes to try again, explain the motivations next time. --Joe Sewell 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc Hollywood similarity

The plot of Cars displays a remarkable similarity to that of Doc Hollywood, the 1991 film. [8] [9] Could this possibly be incorporated into the article? --Albany NY 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, those seem like reasonable sources, so I don't see why not. In fact, it might have been in the article previously, but perhaps without sources. FrozenPurpleCube 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Squeal

I heard about a 1012 squeal release is this and also in 2008 a television series will start

PS I do not want trouble

Um, okay. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Useight 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cars Sequel

Just a heads-up in addressing the point that "unsigned" made above, there is a posting on a message board today that states Here's an interesting tidbit heard at the Indy 500 from Paul Newman himself: Did you know a new Cars short will debut Summer 2008? And that Cars 2 is set for a 2009 release?. Unless there is a verifiable citation from a WP-approved source (ie not a blog entry or other self-published website), we need to tread very lightly in posting this information in the article itself. (cross-posting this in the PIXAR article for exposure. Keep talk on the Cars (film) discussion page as necessary.)SpikeJones 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sally Carrera.jpg

Image:Sally Carrera.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Images images images gallor!

Cast section, all those images fail the fair use criteria for non-free images. There is not a single bit of critical commentary in that section. Please remove them. If you can find 1 image that shows all, great, but you cannot begin to justify the use of 16 images that don't have a lick of encyclopedic, critical commentary on them. Save it for their personal pages if they exist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is identifying the character in question not a valid fair use? Personally, I'm not sure that the list itself is a good idea. There's already a separate page for them. No reason to overly duplicate the content. FrozenPurpleCube 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, just using it to indentify a character is not fair use. They can watch the film for that. When you are merely stating who voiced the car, it isn't enough. The idea is that non-free images should be used as little as possible, and this entire page (let alone the vehicles section) has more non-free images than the entire Friday the 13th series articles do (that's 11 films btw). Remove the images please, because right now this page is a major copyright violation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the examples on many other animated film and TV show articles, non-free images can be used for identification purposes. Rdfox 76 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me a FA animated film article that does that? Two wrongs don't make a right, and using articles of poor quality to justify another bad idea when it comes to non-free images isn't going to change the legality of the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that the FU license notice specifically mentions use for identification of a character? In any event, while the page may be a policy violation--though that's debatable, obviously, or else we wouldn't be debating it--it's definitely not a true copyright violation, as it meets the 10% rule and other legal tests for Fair Use of the character images, so there's no desperate need to remove the images until we come to a consensus on this issue. Rdfox 76 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But non-free images have to meet all 10 of the criteria, not just one of the criteria. So that's a clear failure of Wikipedia's own criteria. To use copyrighted images on Wikipedia, as it states on the page: Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. I'm curious as to where this 10% rule is? It states clearly on the non-free content page that any image that doesn't meet all 10 criteria for fair use will be deleted within 48 hours. It may be more acceptable to have them on one page, but that isn't free license for every page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The "10% rule" is one of the legal criteria in the Fair Use exemption in copyright law; to claim the Fair Use exemption, you may not use more than 10% of the original work. Since Pixar animates "on ones," in industry jargon, from a legal standpoint, we could use up to 16,704 frames of the film (10% of 116 minutes at 24 frames per second) and still claim Fair Use.

Note that I'm not saying that your position is wrong; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. Maybe we should see about getting a outside third opinion on this one? Rdfox 76 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, that 10% rule was for audio content. Notice the next line that talks about video exerpts: short video excerpt from a contemporary film, used without comment or analysis in the surrounding text. Please note that is from the unacceptable section, and by no means says "if you only use 10% you are legally in the fair use criteria"). Regardless, it still fails Wikipedia criteria. If you want to get a third opinion go ahead. You could put in a request at the Non-Free content talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bignole is right. The gallery is a clear copyright violation. Many lists of episodes were purged of the one-screenshot-per-episode setup, and this falls in the same category. There is not sufficient critical commentary or discussion of cinema to warrant these images. Slapping on fair use rationale templates does not satisfy this. Please read WP:FU. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD

This first paragraph contains the following line:

The documentary is considered by many to be a condensed version of the longer "Route 66: Main Street America" produced in 2000 by Todd Baker for TLC (TV channel) and starring Peter Fonda.

Which is not referenced. A quick google search had nothing stating anything like this, so I am going to remove the line. AleBrewer 07:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect release date

Is it not worth mentioning that it was first released to the public on June 8 in Australia, the Philippines and Singapore? Esn 04:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cars 2 - Confirmed!

Hey there, ya'll! Just here to tell you that they are making a Cars 2! That's right. It comes out 2011 - right after Toy Story 3. Sources will remain unnamed at this point. --Kad2 (01:05, 11 July 2007) 65.182.230.52

As stated previously on this page on this particular topic, as wikipedia requires verifiable 3rd-party non-blog sources to use as references for all information included in articles, Cars 2 cannot be added until proper sources are provided. Thanks, though! SpikeJones 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your very welcome. :D I understand, but I just came here to let everyone know. You'll be seeing this on the blogs pretty soon, or at least I'm informed. --Kad2 (10:20, 11 July 2007)65.182.230.57

Yes, we're sure that more blogs will be talking about it over time (as some already have). Many of us here have the same sources they have and you claim to have; unfortunately it's a matter of getting the official 3rd party verification references that wikipedia requires before any information like this can be included as fact in wikipedia. Please read WP:CITE and WP:NOT for information on how to properly cite your information, along with what WP is and is not. SpikeJones 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Cars 2, Why not Monster inc 2. Azzstar (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No sequel!!

there is no sequel.

Strip Weathers vs. The King

IP addresses keep changing the text of the the first image in the article. Sometimes it says "The King", sometimes "Strip Weathers", and right now it says "The King, Strip Weathers". Could we decide on one and leave it at that? I vote that the image say "The King". Useight 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should say Strip "The King" Weathers 81.99.68.136 09:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No Poster?

What happened to the movie poster for this page? Why did it get removed? 81.99.68.136 09:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Too much vandilism

there is too much vandilisim going on.protect the page! Claymort —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimm21 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Plot is missing!!!!

Who removed the plot? camille32 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Camille32 5:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sequel

No official information, right? So, someone can take off Cars 2 from the pixar template? 87.0.190.217 (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Names reversed

"Darrell Cartrip as Darrell Waltrip" should read "Darrell Waltrip as Darrell Cartrip" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.73.235 (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Paik, Karen (2007). "Cars". To Infinity and Beyond!: The Story of Pixar Animation Studios. Chronicle Books. ISBN 0811850129.
• Velarde, Robert (2010). "Adventure". The Wisdom of Pixar: An Animated Look at Virtue. IVP Books. pp. 97–105. ISBN 0830832971.

Fair use rationale for Image:Carsanimation.png

Image:Carsanimation.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A fair-use rationale has been added. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculation: Amboy, CA, might not have been the only basis for "Radiator Springs"

I suspect the creators of th4e movie took inspiration from the town of Tucumcari, New Mexico, as well, another old town on Route 66. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There may also have been other places on the Mother Road...speculating further, suppose someone were to make a fanfic prequel about the Lincoln Highway? 68.36.214.143 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mater's Likeness

Either the authors of this article need to provide verifyable sources or keep their hands off the "Edit" link. Just as my opinion that McQueen was made to resemble a mid 1960's Corvette by Ramone's paint job was deleted from this article, it is strictly opinion that Mater's likeness is that of a vehicle that he was not directly based on, and must similarly be deleted.

My source for my claim is the "Four Women on the Route" souvenir shop and diner. At this diner sits a 1951 IHC L-170 book tow truck, which I have seen and touched (i.e. the truck really exists). According to photographic evidence available for public review there, Joe Ranft was touring Route 66 before the movie was made, and saw this very truck sitting off in a nearby lot, just rusting away. He decided right there on the spot that this was to be the basis for Mater, and actually helped dig the thing out (a tree was growing up through the back frame).

Mater's cab, hood, boom lift and overall shape are consistent with the 1951 IHC L-170. Only the bed is different (the actual truck lacks a proper bed). The truck has since been named "Tow Tater" by a group of local school children.

I will change the article back to indicate the correct origin shortly, unless someone can clarify the rules (and don't just link to a rules page, spell it out for the benefit of all who read this). Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, you need to provide unbiased third-party verifiable sources to support your personal observation. Preferably legitimate news sources that quote the film's creators talking about the inspiration for Mater. If you do not provide these types of citations, then the chances of your edit being reverted may increase as the edit would fall under WP:OR. (yes, i linked. please read it.)SpikeJones (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's original research guidelines state that a person with "specialist knowledge" in a field may quote themself directly as a reliable source, provided said person maintains a NPOV, writes about their previous work in the third person, and is otherwise verifyable. The "reliable sources" guidelines specifically state that a printed book may be used as a source as long as the author is an expert and has already published in the past. Moreover, the guidelines explicitly state that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The book "The Art of Cars" by Michael Wallis and others, published by Chronicle Books and apparently officially licensed by Disney/Pixar, is an appropriate and verifyable source. Furthermore, the movie's credits explicitly thank Mr. Wallis for being a primary source of inspiration for the movie. Quoting the book's dedication:

"In Galena, Kansas, we found a lonely old tow truck that most folks would pass by without a second glance. Our Head of Story Joe Ranft, however, saw beyond the rust and broken-down parts — he saw the inspiration for the character Mater."

Joe Ranft was head-of-story for 10 years, until his death. The above quote was taken from wordpress.com, but I believe it constitutes fair use in that they are quoting someone else's work. More here: http://rwarn17588.wordpress.com/2006/10/05/four-wheeled-inspiration-for-mater-is-found/

Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the author must have published similar material in the past, which this guy has. A list of Wallis's other works can be found on his website, here: http://www.michaelwallis.com/

Incidentally, the truck in question is still in running order after all these years.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, so go read WP:CITE and see how books are cited in WP so you can see how the information you would like to add to the article should be cited. The info you add needs to be contained in the citation and not be from any WP:OR you do on your own (ie it doesn't matter that you touched the truck yourself). SpikeJones (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cited, per your request. I also used Google's book search, to verify that the quote appears there; the aforementioned quote appears to be authentic.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, Mater appears to be an amalgamation: a 1951 International cab on a mid-50s Chevy/GMC body. I'm guessing Pixar discovered that an International front end didn't leave much room for the mouth they wanted so they went with the higher headlights and body lines of the Chevy/GMC.

Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural_diversity

I do not get the point of this section - it looks like a strange collection of OR and other unrelated stuff. It seems like a section that needs to go. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Different Generations

There is one scene where they reference that Lightning has no rearview mirrors and that his headlights are just stickers, whereas in the old days they are real. This is a reference to the Strictly Stock/Grand National where cars had to be stock compared to the Winston/Nextel Cup, where the cars aren't. 76.126.29.36 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?

i was reading grumblings that disney has tron 3d, Pirates of the carribean 4, National Treasure 3, and Cars 2 all on the plate for 2011. Don't know if any of this helps wikipedia, i reading it on imdb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.162.64 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is ALL rumor and conjecture, as the article that is referred to has no reliable source provided for it. SpikeJones (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone remember the old comic books or childrens story books that...

had the same characters...or very similar characters, that was made about 15 or 20 years ago?

I remember reading them as a child and later in life......but i have not been able to find these books since the movie came out....and my mother says she thinks she donated them to someone......

please help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.93.231 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall seeing a short on the Disney Channel in the early 80s that featured talking cars in a parking lot. I believe the central character was a female Jaguar. Could that be what you're thinking of? Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it...

Why would Pixar make a sequel to their least well reacted movie? is it cos it done well at the Box office?

Pixar, unlike other companies, isn't so shallow as to make sequels to their movies just because they were a success at the box office (If they were like other companies, they would have made sequels to everything by now!). It's because someone thought of a premise as good as or better than that of the original. All of their movies have been at least reasonably successful, anyway, it's not like Cars was a box office flop and panned by critics. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently stumbled upon this interview with Brad Bird. You might find it interesting. http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/06/incredibles-sequel-in-the-works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.174.133 (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lightning McQueen name

The article no longer addresses the origin of the name "Lightning McQueen." I know the animators say that it's a tribute to Pixar animator Glenn McQueen but that sounded a bit suspicious to me and made me wonder if the character was originally called "Speed McQueen" (which I think is a much better name) and there was some issue with the Steve McQueen estate for some reason (his Wiki article says they like to limit licensing). Is there anything actually known beyond what the film makers say in the commentary track? --Tysto (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Harv

Who voiced Harv, Lightning's agent? They seem to be British. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Harv was played by two different actors. In the UK version, Harv was played by Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear. In the USA version, Harv was played by Jeremy Piven. So you must have the UK version of the film.

• • Yeah, I'm from the UK. Thanks for clearing that up. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cars Toons

I'm surprised there's nothing on Wikipedia about this. Does anyone know anything? Dopefish (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The page already exists, created around the time the shorts aired. I believe it's Cars Toons. SpikeJones (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Auto Club Speedway

In the settings section you only breifly mention Auto Club Speedway as the setting for the tiebreaker race. In the movie, the track is refered to as California or California speedway, Auto Club Speedway before it sold its naming rights to the American Automobile Association was refered to as California or California Speedway. As a NASCAR fan, when watching the movie I immediatly picked up that it was refering to California Speedway in Fontana (the movie was made before the naming rights to the track were sold)also the track in the movie seemed somewhat similar to the reallife track. With the many NASCAR references in the movie I think that Auto Club Speedway deserves more of a mention esspecially when the first race shown in the movie is on a track based on Bristol Motorspeedway (also a NASCAR track). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.189.79 (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix not listed in soundtrack...?

Not an expert on this movie (do like it though) but when it shows the hippy bus guy Jimi Hendrix's woodstock version of "Star Spangled Banner" can be clearly heard. When someone makes a remark about the music, he responds with "you gotta respect the classics man!" Why isin't Jimi Hendrix mentioned ANYWHERE on the movie's credits? Come on, JIMI HENDRIX!! 97.115.169.151 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1950s

I'm not sure if this film should be on the Category:Films set in the 1950s, it is clearly stated that Doc lost his last race 50 years before the events of the film. --Exrain (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

The page Route 66 (Film)redirects here. Aside from a development title, this has nothing to do with the name of the page. I would request a discussion on the removal of the redirect to this film and instead redirect to the page that covers a film that WAS ACTUALLY RELEASED as Route 66 (the page that I was looking for). Route 66 (2004) aka Route 66: An American (bad) Dream, on the VEB page.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Ah-Nold had a cameo as Sven, the "Governator". Sure, it was uncredited, but still, it should be up there. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:20 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were true, it needs to be verifieble. That goes for evey cameo (and there are plenty of those in Cars). — Edokter • Talk • 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.85.13.224, 19 May 2011

98.85.13.224 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Ablimu

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Baseball Watcher 00:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Total inccome in merchandise

The article says: "Related merchandise, including scale models of several of the cars, broke records for retail sales of merchandise based on a Disney·Pixar film, with an estimated $5 billion in sales." But that was 2009. A newer article has this to say: "Since the first movie five years ago, Cars has made $10 billion out in the world. You know,” he pauses in wonder at the figure, “$10 billion! I’m very proud of that. And the reason I’m proud of that is not the money; it’s that everybody who buys a toy, they like this movie, they like the characters, they want to be with these characters." Link: John Lasseter interview: What drives the man at Pixar? 84.210.60.115 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Prologue

Why the Cars Have Life and Intelligence

In 2077, the human race had a nuclear war consisting mainly of hydrogen bombs that wiped out all of life on earth. The surviving species, the Cockroach, maintained as a living species and, through evolution, fused their DNA with that of the other strongest things on earth, the car and other transportation vehicles. Their bodies fused as one and became smart over evolution and natural selection through the course of tens of thousands of years. The cockroach/car life-form then wandered the Earth and found old scriptures and documents through paperwork the human race left behind. This determined the way that the world was going to be, as in that the way society was set up in the old world is how society was known as through books left behind by humans, such as the borders between countries and languages that are learned. The cars, able to have build up industry made many products for their benefit such as fuels and parts. Thus, the cars ruled as a dominant species throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolver2021 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Got links? This looks like original material to me.

Is there an official back story to the world of "Cars"? What exactly are they, and how does their world work?173.60.95.232 (talk)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

I Like to edit Cars (film)

Letmein66 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently protected. If you tell us what you want to change, we will make the change for you. — Edokter (talk) — 07:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 19 October 2011

i want edit 3D Re-release on Cars

Let66 (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently protected. If you tell us what you want to change, we will make the change for you. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)