IT was so funny watched it like 10 times so funny loved the ending andy’s face at the part when the toys came out the box was priceless.
Yes. It’s obvious they had a lot of respect for the original material.
Still, it wasn’t as funny as some of their previous works.
I like their Terminator. Back to the Future crossover.
That’s one of my favorites too.
I loved it. I mean, yeah it was kind of horrid how Bonnie was portrayed, but yeah, its ok; having Andy scream like a girl made up for it. 
-Omar
It amuses me how some Toy Story 3 fans can’t take a joke. I should know, because I make fun of movies all the time, even my favourite ones. Some people should lighten up.
I mean, it wasn’t as mean-spirited as ‘The Sordid Tale of the Lamp’ (I hated that one, because it had such a perverse and meaningless ending). I think HISHE did a great job of this parody by subtly acknowledging the film’s faults with regards to Lotso’s character and the melodramatic nature of the ending, while still paying respect to Pixar at the end by throwing in a few cameos. And no one dies in the end, although I bet Andy will be traumatised for life. 
Who didn’t like it?
“Seeeee yaaaaaa!”
ROFL
Haha, the ending we all wanted to see (except for the car crash). Plus, it can be funny without being vulgar (well, I think we can agree that most poor-taste Toy Story parodies lack quality anyways).
omg i died.
lololol i’ve watched it about ten times and IT IS STILL AMAZING. 
One person on Page 1. Read through the posts again. The person’s entitled to an opinion, and I respect that. Like I said, it just amuses me how one can take offense at this video since it’s all played for laughs and everyone survives in the end (although Andy will now have a different opinion of his toys much like Sid).
I get turned off when a joke becomes crude or unnecessarily mean-spirited, so I really appreciated how HISHE handled this one. And although Andy wrecked his car, he still survived for the end credits to [spoil]be scared by Sully[/spoil]. 
I’m not offended by dirty humor in general, but for Toy Story, it’s different. To me, Pixar sorta represents a more innocent time way back when. Then again, we’re still finding adult humor in those movies. 
My only qualm was about how Bonnie kept emphasizing “these toys” - it wasn’t really in character for her. Of course, having Andy freak out in the car, and of course, his sudden refusal to give up his toys totally made my day. I really loved this and laughed about it a lot. Heck, I even downloaded it so I could keep it for infinity and beyond, at least until my hard drive fills up -Omar
One of my mates brought this up the day before yesterday, and he immediately echoed my thoughts about how Lotso was a weak villain (“If anyone should be upset, it should be Big Bay or Chuckles, because they didn’t get replaced!”). So glad that HISHE pointed that out, the best kind of humour are the ones which make clever observations, instead of cracking a joke just for the sake of it (ie scatalogical humour).
I don’t see Lotso as a weak villain but rather as someone with misguided perceptions.
What I don’t get is why Woody didn’t address this point in that scene.
IMHO, it was because he has misguided principles that he was a weak character. There was very little ‘real motivation’ for him to act the way he did, but simply because he made an assumption/misinterpreted a situation/etc.
A great villain is either one who does the evil acts on purpose (Frollo, Scar, Dr Facilier, Hopper) or because they were compelled to and that the ‘morally-good’ decision will be disadvantageous to their desires (The Prospector, AUTO, Charles Muntz).
Lotso was mean to others simply because he felt like imposing his world view on everyone else. I personally find such characters kind of weak, because there is nothing to gain in a tangible sense (like the evil-acts-on-purpose villains) or nothing to lose (like the compelled-to villains).
This is why I found Syndrome from The Incredibles, Two-Face from The Dark Knight and Nigel from Rio weak from a character-motivation point of view, because they got ‘burned’ in the past and take revenge on the whole world simply because they believe everyone should follow their worldview. They don’t gain or lose anything except personal satisfaction. Well, I suppose Syndrome gets money from being an arms-dealer, Two-Face gets his revenge for the conspirators in Rachel’s death (which actually is a pretty strong motivation, come to think of it), and Nigel gets the adoration from his animal-smuggler owner that he didn’t from his TV show-fans. And sure, Lotso gets to avoid being played by the Caterpillar room kids, so that is a personal side-effect perk from his rigging the system.
But these aren’t as powerful motivations as say, I became a villain because I want to take your money even though I know it is wrong, or because someone is holding my family hostage and is forcing me to rob a bank or something. I got betrayed in the past, and because of that, everyone has to suffer. Why do I pick on you, Mr Millicent Bystander? Because I feel like it. Weak motivation.
But that’s my opinion. From a deceptive personality and voice-acting standpoint, he’s one of Pixar’s better villains.
That’s the thing, Lotso didn’t quite know what to do after his incident with Daisy. He just wanted to get away, but when he saw that there was power to be seized at Sunnyside, he saw something else to live for. It seems that his time being Daisy’s #1 has made him selfish and self-centered, so naturally he only makes things benefit himself (on top of lying to Chuckles and Big Baby).
No one’s denying that his motivations may be weak, but that doesn’t make him an unrealistic villian. If anything, it’s the other way around. When a real person has such a traumatic event, I’d expect their judgement to be just as impaired.
i’m kinda split on lotso, actually. i mean, overall i thought he had pretty weak motivations and i agree with pretty much everything tdit said, but i think i see where you’re coming from, dinoco.
like…well, let’s say you get into a fight with your parents, and then you’re so upset and ticked off that you don’t really think about it, you just go and yell at your brother and your friends, too. i used to do that, lol.
that being said, the whole ~lotso backstory~ just seems kind of weak to me. like woody said in the video: “lotso, SHE WAS LIKE FIVE OKAY.” maybe i’m thinking this through too much.
i don’t even know what i’m saying anymore. just ignore my rambling, hahaa.
TDIT:
I agree that the most interesting antagonists were compelled to do that, but there are quite awesome villains that just are morally misguided and/or have very weak motivations (Darth Vader, Voldemort, Gaston…) and I think Lotso belongs with those.
About this theme, I think exactly what Dinoco posted. Weak motivations create powerful grudges, even on real life.
On a side note, I don’t agree with Frollo acting evil on purpose. He’s belongs to the first group I mentioned, as his religious principles are misguided. And that’s what makes him one of my favorite Disney villains. Scar also has other motivations than just being evil.
I agree with Spirit. I think Frollo thinks what he is doing is right. He’s not being the bad guy purposefully. And people being angry at the past and making random others suffer is very common in movies and real life. I’m not trying to be disagreeable, but I very much think Syndrome was a very effective villain. And that is not because he is on a movie I like. Heck, I dislike some of the major characters on The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. But I personally believe Syndrome served his purpose very well.