Yes, this is the absolute LAW!

The butthurt is strong with this one.

Putting the eyes on the headlights just emphasizes how the cars have no human drivers.

ArkAngel: I imagine one of the reasons is that the larger surface area of the windshield gave much more space for facial expressions

This.

Charlie Freak: A lot of the movie revolves around Lightning not having headlights - especially how he ends up in Radiator Springs.

And that.

Tex Avery knows what's what. And don't you lesser artists mess with it. Ditto for his planes.

CARS DON'T HAVE EYES

I was going to post a picture of a "frog eye" Sprite, but the article already covered that. They're truly the happiest of cars.

Confused.

Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch?

DNRTFA

Having the eyes be the windshields allows them to do more with the expression with the eye lids. Having the headlights be the eyes would have limited the impact of the eyelids and made for weaker expressions.

Jesus, talk about #firstworldproblems.

This is worse than when my dad and I complain about it raining in Bikini Bottom and snow in Bikini Bottom and the entire Spongebob universe being comprimised in almost every single episode against the original concept.

Grandpa and Mommy love to ruin kids' shows while they watch. And now that I think of it.... I suppose both these complaints are on par with each other.

/THEY LIVE IN THE WATER, Y U MAKE IT RAIN WHERE IT ALREADY WATER

She comes in colors everywhere: [img440.imageshack.us image 350x262]

Confused.

shakes tiny fist

In before the Cars Hate (tm).

/you all are slipping

Fano: [www.blogcdn.com image 450x411]

Tex Avery knows what's what. And don't you lesser artists mess with it. Ditto for his planes.

This. The author tried to "give it a pass" in the article, but the fact that one of the undisputed geniuses of animation made the seminal car-toon with the car-actors emoting through the windshield instead of the headlights cannot be overemphasized enough: More surface area for eyes means more emotion conveyed and the windshield is the largest surface available for an animator to work with. Pixar and Tex Avery got it right, blogger is an idiot.

Isn't there a song about headlights?

And yes, we all know they were not talking about eyes. I'm too lazy to Google the exact line.

Why would the cars need windshields if there were no drivers? Putting the eyes up there helps with the suspension of disbelief. Headlights provide light to the cars.

Maybe they should stick to writing articles about cars and let Pixar handle the anthropomorphism.

Yes, Pixar royally screwed the pooch on that one. Cars and Cars 2, horrible failures. Yup... pure incompetence sunk the entire business.

LewDux: [blog.marketplace.nwsource.com image 604x372]

WTF is that murder mobile? I swear I can feel the menace of it coming off just the picture, that monster is thinking "I'll kill you water bag, some day I'll squish you like a bug."

deadsanta: Fano: [www.blogcdn.com image 450x411]

Tex Avery knows what's what. And don't you lesser artists mess with it. Ditto for his planes.

This. The author tried to "give it a pass" in the article, but the fact that one of the undisputed geniuses of animation made the seminal car-toon with the car-actors emoting through the windshield instead of the headlights cannot be overemphasized enough: More surface area for eyes means more emotion conveyed and the windshield is the largest surface available for an animator to work with. Pixar and Tex Avery got it right, blogger is an idiot.

Author couldn't even be bothered to show Bennie the Cab from Roger Rabbit, preferred to show how headlight eyes look better by photoshopping beady eyes beside the grill of the cars.

Hmmmm, who to side with:

A group of talented artists who have brought joy to millions

OR

A talentless hack who had to lower themself to writing for a Gawker piece of shiat site?

Decisions decisions decisions...

This was discussed in detail in the DVD special features or some other interviews I've seen.

Someone didn't even bother to look it up on Wikipedia:

"Unlike most anthropomorphic cars, the eyes of the cars in this film were placed on the windshield (which resembles the Tonka Talking Trucks, and the characters from Tex Avery's One Cab's Family short and Disney's own Susie the Little Blue Coupe), rather than within the headlights. According to production designer Bob Pauley, "From the very beginning of this project, John Lasseter had it in his mind to have the eyes be in the windshield. For one thing, it separates our characters from the more common approach where you have little cartoon eyes in the headlights. For another, he thought that having the eyes down near the mouth at the front end of the car feels more like a snake. With the eyes set in the windshield, the point of view is more human-like, and made it feel like the whole car could be involved in the animation of the character.[8] The characters also use their tires as hands and feet, the exceptions being the various tow truck characters that sometimes use their tow hooks, and the various forklift characters, which use their forks. Some cars are shown shuffling sideways by moving their wheels about on their suspensions"

Maybe the headlights can be nostrils?

bravian: In before the Cars Hate (tm).

/you all are slipping

You know, I used to have Cars Hate. But then I saw the movie, and while I thought it was Pixar's weakest film, it still had moments of quiet beauty that one rarely finds in animated films.

My favorite moment: when they're overlooking the busy freeway and talking about how the world is moving past them.

Even if they're pandering to a demographic that clearly doesn't include me (i.e. NASCAR fans and people who find Larry the Cable Guy funny), they're still making quality films.

deadsanta: More surface area for eyes means more emotion conveyed and the windshield is the largest surface available for an animator to work with.

What if they have no windshield?



/If you prick them, do they not leak?

These are functioning cars as well being alive, if their eyeballs light up at night, how the fark would they see, the light would be so intense it would be like starring into a flash light.

I_Am_Weasel: It would have made this part of the movie make no sense.

Dusty Rust-eze: Thanks to you, Lightning, we had a banner year!
Rusty Rust-eze: I mean, we might even clear enough to buy you some headlights!
Dusty Rust-eze: Are you saying he doesn't have headlights?
Rusty Rust-eze: That's what I'm tellin' ya - it's just stickers!
Lightning McQueen: Well, you know, race cars don't need headlights, because the track is always lit.
Dusty Rust-eze: Well, so is my brother, but he still needs headlights!


*Free bird!*

Also,

WHO MADE THE CARS?

Did they become sentient and kill all the people?

What will they do when gasoline runs out? Will they die?

Ok, I actually RTFA... I was right... they didn't even bother to look it up on Wikipedia.

In addition to the Wikipedia article, I remember it being said that using the windshield gives them the ability to be more expressive than using itty bitty headlight.

This was even alluded to as a joke in Cars 2. Mater runs across across a car that has eyes where its headlights are supposed to be and it's creepy as hell... he runs away screaming.

I wish we just get rid of everything Gawker-related on here....

turbidum: I used to have Cars Hate. But then I saw the movie

What a novel idea. Seeing the film before forming an opinion.