Things that can be improved about Toy Story 3

Pixar's Feature Films Toy Story / Lightyear
#1

(I should probably start off by saying that the post didn’t only get too long but also a bit too “ranty” (even by personal standards) so if the moderators should find it necessary, I could edit it down a bit.)

I can’t escape the feeling that Toy Story 3 is being terribly overrated by critics and moviegoers alike. Critics are calling it “heartbreaking” and “inspiring”, and a movie critic from NYT even went as far as calling it “a deep, complex take on mortality”. Seriously?

Personally, I found Toy Story 3 of being a surprisingly formulaic and unappealing movie of the following reasons. Firstly, the same story formula is being recycled for the third time! Just like in the other two movies, the toys are separated from Andy. Overall, the plot just feels like one big excuse to move the characters from the backdrop of Andy’s room to the daycare center where the story is being transformed into a prison break parody, filled with plot-twists, slapstick humor and gay-jokes, directly aimed at the adults in the audience. But the worst thing is that this movie isn’t treating the characters with respect. Rather than having them develop beyond the minimal standard required for the plot, the directors focused more on having them do stupid things and end up in stupid situations. There are about a dozen different toys in the series now, most of which only functions as comic relief characters that stick around in the background. The majority of these toys spend more times being chewed on by drooling babies than showing any character development, whatsoever.

Buzz and Woody are really the only one’s worth mentioning, which is sad, because both Woody and Buzz are terribly simplistic in this third installment. Woody is the same few-worded, whiny character he was in the other two movies. But it’s okay. He doesn’t change because the plot requires him to stay the same. But Woody was never the star of this series. It was the space ranger, Buzz, who stole the show back in 1995. In Toy Story 3, the ugly doll is reduced to pure, stupid and brain-dead entertainment. The only character development Buzz Lightyear demonstrates isn’t more complex than the switching on the button in his back. He spends the majority of the movie in “demo-mode”, delivering catchphrases and references to his delusional space-persona. And it’s funny about the first time he does it and not quite as funny about the tenth time. And he spends the rest of the movie as a surprisingly distasteful and offensive Spanish stereotype. And really, oh so devoted Pixarfans, doesn’t the fact that the directors would take Buzz Lightyear and change him so carelessly in the film speak volumes of their indifference to their own characters’ personalities?

I just can’t figure out what, if anything, makes this movie so good. From my point of view, It is terrible! And it becomes even more staggering when you think about how other animated movies, personal favorites that are by far more sophisticated and complex; Like How to Train Your Dragon and Bolt, are being pushed in the background to make way for the unyielding glorification of Pixar. Okay, both of these movies have been met fairly well by critics, particularly Dragon, but none of them have received the attention Toy Story 3 received, despite being more deserving. My personal favorite, Bolt, was very underrated, almost overlooked, when realized back in 2008.

So what exactly is so good about TS3? I mean, if you know, I’d love for you to tell me. I’m not gonna pretend my opinion is the only valid opinion on this forum, but it just escapes what makes Toy Story 3 such a masterpiece in everyone’s mind.

#2

I respect your opinion, but sorry mate, I disagree :slight_smile:

Firstly, the characters develop, but the development is over the course of the 15 years between the first film and the third. Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and the rest, have gone full circles. For example, Woody has gone from an arrogant, ego-centric, slightly neurotic character to one who thinks before he acts, and, when push comes to shove, he’s there for those he cares about. Jessie has gone from a freaked out, angry little thing to a brave, sophisticated hero of sorts. Even characters like Mr Potato Head and Hamm, who don’t develop as significantly, express panic, fear and determination.

Secondly, Toy Story as a series gets the recognition it deserves because, lets not forget, it’s so groundbreaking. Toy Story will always be a classic because it was the first CGI feature film. And Toy Story 2 and 3, rather than simply taking the same formula (it doesn’t; all three films have different situations and moods), it develops the story as a canon, and you start to relate to the characters. The incinerator scene was moving, because they accepted their “fate”, and because, we, as viewers, see the end.

None of the Toy Story films are my favourite amongst Pixar movies; I personally think films such as Wall-E, A Bug’s Life and Monsters, Inc. are better. But I respect and enjoy the TS films and the characters. You’re not the only one who dislikes TS3, I’m sure. I’m just sort of disagreeing. :slight_smile:

#3

Well, thanks for your reply. To some point I can really understand what you mean. One should always take into account that this is a canon and as you said, the characters have already developed a great. Personally though, I don’t think that this third installment really did the characters justice. ^^

#4

Thankyou for being so civilised, and like I said, I respect your reviews. It’s always nice to see other peoples opinions anyways. :slight_smile:
So, whats your fave Pixar flick then, out of interest? And welcome to the boards, although I’m pretty new too myself 8D

#5

Ehm, does Bolt count? It was produced by John Lasseter! No, but I think my favorite is Monsters Inc. A Bug’s life was pretty interesting too, as it dealt with issues such as oppression.

#6

I like all of those :slight_smile:

#7

The only thing I can really see that is wrong with Toy Story 3 is that Andy’s mother kicks him out, ordering him to take everyhting with him to college or throw it away. What kind of mother does that?

#8

A mother with no room in her house? And she doesn’t really kick him out; he’s off to college! He’s starting a whole new chapter in his life, surely that isn’t an issue. 8D

#9

Maybe not but a lot of college students keep their stuff at home and go back there on weekends and during the summer.

#10

That’s probably true. Yeah, overall the entire mother sequence felt more like a plot-excuse to move the toys from Andy’s room to the daycare center. And I totally buy it.

#11

Clean the room so that she can rent it out? Make some extra cash to help raise Andy’s sister? It’s not uncommon, you know :wink:

#12

Yes, you are

#13

Google “Toy Story 3 sucks”. Argument defeated.

#14

Agreed. Toy Story 3 is my all time favorite movie. End of story.

#15

I have to say that the more I think about Toy Story 3, the less I love it. I think it’s a great movie, but I do agree with a lot of your points.
The only characters that really matter at all are Woody, Lotso, Andy, and Andy’s mom. Everyone else feels mostly like padding, and nobody really develops other than them. In fact, the only important decision that any of Andy’s other toys make is that they want to go to Sunnyside. Otherwise, they’re pretty much just pulled into things; getting thrown out by Andy’s mom, not their fault. Sunnyside being evil, not their fault. Ending up at the dump, not their fault. Incinerator, not their fault. Ending up at Bonnie’s, not their fault. Might as well have stuffed everyone into a cardboard box that Woody has to drag around the whole movie. Because of how plot-oriented it is in this way, I think the third movie loses some of the magic and charm that the first two had.

Like I said before, it felt like there was a lot of padding. Woody learns nothing for a majority of the movie. Really, you could condense the movie by having the toys not see the Sunnyside box and just going back inside, and it would’ve ended up almost exactly the same (well, except for the whole Bonnie thing, but not the point). Woody really only goes back to Sunnyside because the toys are in danger; if he was aware of that earlier he wouldn’t have left without them anyway. It’s not as if he had a change in character that caused him to go back. Ken is pointless, most of the Sunnyside toys don’t even do anything, and the whole Demo/Spanish Buzz fiasco was just to make the second act a little more interesting. It really doesn’t contribute to the story at all.

Lotso’s character, one of the few that matter, even ends on a flawed note. By the end of the dumpster confrontation, it becomes clear that Lotso isn’t changing anytime soon and has helped bring out the belief in Woody that he can let go of Andy and still metaphorically be with him (which was not caused by anything that occurred in the movie thus far besides hearing Lotso’s backstory, really). Lotso getting thrown into the dumpster is a great moment, and would’ve been a fine closure for his character. Bringing him back at the dump, however, just creates problems. I seriously doubt that the toys, especially Woody, would immediately trust Lotso to go for the button after he did a million evil things to them before. It was clear that Woody’s arguments against Lotso in the dumpster scene didn’t influence him. So why would they suddenly give Lotso so much credit? It still could’ve worked if the toys simply couldn’t outrun the conveyor belt, or if somebody tried to reach it but failed. When Lotso ends up on the front of the truck, it doesn’t have nearly the same impact as when he gets thrown into the dumpster. I think it would’ve been better to just leave him hanging or find an alternative solution to dispose of him without having to influence things at the dump.

However, I wouldn’t say the movie is terrible. The parts that are necessary work fantastically, and it’s a very beautiful story. However, unlike some people, I don’t give it godlike worship.

Sorry if this post seems rambling/incoherent. xD

#16

Why would you google that in the first place? Even if you didn’t like the movie, it seems kind of pointless to seek out something like that.

#17

Thanks your reply! Btw, where does that picture you got there come from?

The end scenes were a bit of a disappointed to me. Pixar relies on evil antagonists much like James Cameron relies on extra effects. There is only some outrageous mean character to push the plot forward, and this is not only a very cheap trick to create drama, but it is an extremely irresponsible way to portray the world for young, responsive minds.

Most other animated films are trying to move away from this. In How To Train Your Dragon, the enemy is ignorance and prejudgment against animals. There is a very important message here about understanding and trying to coexist peacefully with nature. See this is what we wanna teach children.
In Bolt the only actual antagonist is Hollywood and the shallow entertainment industry it represents. As such, Bolt is about the importance of being yourself rather than a character to be consumed through media. In a time when reality shows are raising ethical questions and the media industry is constantly influencing children, telling them to be in a certain way and value shallow, superficial abilities– a movie that centers on the importance of knowing who you are and accepting your limitations couldn’t be more timely and relevant.

In Both of these movies are about battling ideas rather than individuals. That doesn’t only make for more suitable stories for children, but it also makes the movie’s overall themes deeper and more complex. Anyway, obviously Lotso is the personification of evil. And this isn’t even very well explained! We just get a brief, cheesy flashback showing us how Lotso was abandoned. Directors use flashbacks like putty when it comes to filling plotholes!

Gahh! Ah well, I think I need to calm down^^

#18

I did, guess what I found? Nothing that backs up his argument…
First, there’s this:
filmfail.com/featured/five-r … y-3-sucks/
Notice that they fail to make a valid point by only stating their own opinions with no factual argument? On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have Armond White, who just disagrees with stuff to make money. As you can see by these, most are just contrarians looking to get attention.
Here’s another Google result:
answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 211AAjC6iS
And that’s all the Google results that came up for ‘Toy Story 3 sucks’ (that actually backed up your argument).

Your argument is also pretty opinionated, but hey, it’s your opinion. I’m not trying to make you change your mind, but if you really don’t like Toy Story 3, I feel bad for you.

#19

Well, sir. It feels you have difficulties dealing with the fact that my opinion differs from yours in the first place. I came with a few “accusations” or arguments, if you will, regarding the many flaws i found in this video. Is there any of those that you disagree with in particular?

#20

It just so happens that I really like evil characters, especially the villains that you feel sorry for. The Lotso flashback definitely made me feel sorry for Lotso, and made his remaining the bad guy all the more tragic. I think this is where we disagree most, and its all a matter of personal taste in characters.

And Pixar really doesn’t have that many real villains. You can argue that the “bad guys” in the first two Toy Stories aren’t really evil, Sid is just a messed up kid, and Prospector views himself as the good guy. Nemo and Cars also don’t have any real villains at all.

My biggest issue with How to Train Your Dragon was its villain, that big huge dragon guy just wasn’t that great for me, and the fight against it didn’t seem that exciting to me. I’m in the minority for not liking Dragon. It was a great film, but didn’t connect with me for some reason, I’ll watch it again eventually and maybe I’ll like it better.