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

  • Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    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
      5
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      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)

      • ZeroCooler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        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…”

        • jasondj@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is a difficult statement to assess.

          Thomas is multi-generational, the main series started in 1984 and ran as recently as 2021.

          That’s like saying “yesterdays kids grew up with Raffi”. That dude is still touring (at least in Canada, but he’s been to the US recently) and still putting out new stuff. In fact, he refers to his “older fans”, who now have their own kids that are getting introduced to Raffi, as “beluga grads”.

          Meanwhile the original Cars movie came out in 2004 but had movie sequels in 2011 and 2017, but there are also spin-offs in the universe including movies, shows and shorts.

      • Mechanismatic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        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
        11
        ·
        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.

  • 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

      • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

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

          Yeah, I know it goes from “haha funny race” to “there’s this terrorist here that’s killing cars across the world” but guess what? I love that mission impossible shit

      • 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…