Both introduce the world to youngsters, but with different modes.

  • Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure I understand the “yesterday’s” part. Thomas the Tank Engine predates Cars by decades.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did you really read yesterday as August 21, 2023?? That’s hilarious.

      “Yesterday’s” was used to mean “in a time passed”

      In this way both the train and the automobile were used as characters in children’s programs to associate the mode with a positive experience. (The actual programming or content)

      • Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, I read yesterday (Lightning McQueen) as juxtaposed with today (Thomas the Tank Engine), as if you were implying that Lightning McQueen predated Thomas the Tank Engine and TTTE was a newish show.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what “yesterday’s” means in this context, or more specifically, you flipped the two characters if you wanted to use it like that.

        Corrected it’d be:

        “Thomas the Tank Engine was yesterday’s Lightning McQueen”

      • I think I’m understanding what you mean but it’s very clunky. Maybe try again?

        You’re saying that Thomas the Tank Engine and Lighting McQueen introduced kids of different generations to trains and cars.

        To jump on the semantics bandwagon, “yesteryear” would have been more appropriate.

        I’m not sure those two IPs were as generational as you’re giving them credit for. There’s also nothing very interesting about your observation, if I understood correctly.

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It made sense to me, but I just realized that you said that McQueen is yesterday’s Thomas.

        That’s backwards. Thomas is yesterday’s McQueen.

        Although, I’m not convinced that they are that similar at all.

    • DrQuint@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And neither Cars nor Cars 2 spend a lot of time on edutainment surrounding their setting. The only thing the two have in common is they’re vehicles.

      Oh no, yeah, you guessed it, I didn’t watch beyond 2. I mean, neither sid anyone else after that torture.

      • petenu@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        After Cars 2 I had very low expectations of Cars 3, unsurprisingly. It’s a miracle that I was convinced to watch it. Yet somehow I was, and found it to be bloody good.

  • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cars 1 and 3 are really good movies and you should watch them if you have not. Cars 3 is my favorite.

    And I don’t even like cars

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        The story in Cars 2 is all over the place and the car universe only makes the whole thing more abstract.

        The story includes car races, terrorism, environmental issues, cold war agents, international stereotypes, hacking, secret world orders formed by victims of production malfunctions, the rejection of old friends and a whole lot of meaningless action and comedy skits.

        And then someone decided to add the queen of England to sum this up as if she even had anything to do with the rest of the story.

        It’s brainstorm of references run wild. Even if you manage to follow along and get all the references, you gotta wonder why anyone wanted you to see this.

          • bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s just pointless is all.

            Cars 1 had something to say about urbanisation.

            Cars 3 had something to say about getting old and dying.

            Cars 2 had some 3d models doing slapstick comedy action while clinging to references to everything imaginable, but nothing to say.

      • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I actually agree with you that the hate is overblown. But in comparison to 1 and 3 it’s definitely not as good. I wouldn’t even say it’s a bad movie, it’s just kinda meh

  • severien@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I didn’t know it’s actually called Thomas the Tank Engine. I thought it’s a joke, since a train isn’t what I imagine these days when hearing it…