Yesterday, we ran a piece asking questions about the Cars movie universe.
Here’s the other side of the argument…
Yesterday, Simon poured fortha long list of sticking pointshe has with the world of PixarsCars.
It was a typically well-written piece from our fearless editor.
It was, in my view, also something of a waste of time.
Because there are no logical inconsistencies withCarsthat need to be argued about.
It can all be explained very easily.
In fact, you only need to grasp one idea for any worries about internal logic to crumble away.
The characters inCarsare cars, but they live in a version of our world.
Ad content continues below
So heres howCarsworks.
And Alice calls him white rabbit because it speaks to his characteristics.
Theres no literal caterpillar, just a man that Alice sees, metaphorically, as caterpillar-like.
No dodo but a dodo-punch in.
Show a lizard-like man called Bill as an actual lizard and youve Wonderlanded him.
And so it is withCars.
Its a human story, told metaphorically with a motorised cast.
Do films need internal logic to be a success?
Inconsistent internal logic is where filmmakers really let down their audiences.
At best, this is a restrictive diktat for how films might be made.
Simon, who wrote the article yesterday, does not agree with Brendon
