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)
Lightning McQueen is more recent than Thomas The tank, so the correct phrase would be "Lightning McQueen is today's Thomas The Tank..." or "Thomas The Tank is yesterday's Lightning McQueen..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not awful, but it's still definitely the black sheep. It's tone is completely different and it also just feels like it's just the same characters (but kinda flanderisations of them too) rather than a natural progression of where the story should go next. The throughline between 1 and 3 is much more consistent, even more so if you skip 2.
2 isn't a bad film, but it's not a good sequel in my opinion, 3 however is a great sequel and a good ending point.
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