I think away they could have inproved toy story 3 is that Andy shouldn’t have gave away any of his toys.
I really, really, really dislike that idea. But whatever flots your boat, to each their own!
Every other animation company would have had Andy bring his toys with him in college or make him store them and give it to his own kids.
Only Pixar has the balls to make him give it away
That’s what we in the business call a pseudo-argument. Like when you justify an opinion by saying that every else has the same opinion. Just saying^^
zinem, I wasn’t making an argument, I was respond to this post:
Okay, I thought you were responding to my first post. My bad.
EJE:Thanks!
bitsandpieces, I didn’t know that!Thanks! 
I actually agree with Lynn. That was one of the major gripes I had with TS3, quite honestly.
Apologies for saying that your view was ‘idiotic’. Perhaps too strong a word. More appropriate would be ‘silly’ then. Also I see this thread as being redundant. The film is done, it’s not going to be changed. It cannot be ‘improved’ as you say. Also, this whole thing reeks of argument-bait to me.
That would be a pretty defeatist and fan-biased approach. It would be tantamount to saying that because an artwork is done, one can’t criticise it, or because a book has been written, one shouldn’t offer suggestions for improvements for future works by the same author.
As for it being ‘argument-bait’, civil discourses are perfectly fine and should be encouraged on this forum. An ‘argument’ is not bad, a ‘fight’ is. True fans should be capable of accepting a film’s weaknesses, or people offering differing opinions. To blindly love something or someone without admitting their faults to them is more destructive than to offer constructive criticisms.
And of course, one should not blindly hate either. That is a bigger sin than to unequivocally love. We should always tread the middle path of ‘heightened awareness’ and offer praise and criticism when it’s needed.
TDIT, that was perfect. Thanks for saying that.
sigh This thread makes me both sad and interested. I apologize for posting on a thread that is a month old, but this needs to be said.
Let me explain why it makes me sad first. Well, we are trying to have an intellectual discussion here, and it seems as though it is difficult to do so because those with opinions to the contrary of what the populist declaration is here are being hounded and called insults. This is simply wrong and should never be done in a discussion. Shooting down someone else’s opinion, especially when their opinion is very well explained, with a good amount of proof, is a big, big, no no. If you have a problem with them, state your two cents or leave the thread. I see this too often at this forum, where a poster with a great, well thought out post is assailed by fanboys and girls because his opinion contradicts them. I am not pointing fingers, but you know who you are. Please, I plead, that you do not resort to Ad Hominems and even worse, just attack their opinion as worthless. For those of you scratching your heads, an Ad Hominem is a personal attack usually used by an opponent in a debate when he has either run out of arguments or have nothing useful to say. If you have an opinion that conflicts with zinem’s, great! Then state your opinion, or don’t say anything.
Now on to why it is interesting. I feel that this thread is a great eye-opener. For it displays the argument against why Toy story 3 is great. While I thought that Toy story 3 was satisfactory, I never saw it as a groundbreaking movie whose presence will be felt throughout the entertainment industry for years to come. You see, I think that Pixar has run into a problem which they seldom run into, because they have never gotten to a second sequel before.
This problem is the problem of change. You see, Toy story’s formula, as pointed out previously, has been the same in the last two films before this. The formula is that the toys get separated from their Master, Andy, and are forced into the same escape, search, and rescue formula. While this worked fine in the last two films, Pixar seems to have crossed the line from ‘essential part of story’ to ‘Monotonous repeat of last two films’. To make things worse, Toy story 3 has very little character development and is quite top-heavy. The problem is there are now around a dozen or so characters in the movie. Most of these characters serve mainly to give one-liners(Hamm), exist only to appease adult comedy(Ken) or their antics in previous films are being recycled, their character development thrown out, and them being reduced to being there for cheap laughs(Buzz). As, once again, explained before in the thread, the character development just isn’t really there. What is the lesson, besides to always hate Teddy bears and keep at least 4 feet away from Baby dolls? There doesn’t seem to one as Andy and the Toys are just going to go through the same cycle they have in the previous films with Bonnie.
I apologize if this has been repeating previously in this thread. I have not read through the entire thread.
You make good points, Methuselah! This entire forum is a mine field now, and it’s less than fun. And I agree with many of your ideas on TS3. It’s a good enough movie, but it is not the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Indeed. I feel that the movie is quite a bit overrated. While I wouldn’t call the movie the devil’s incarnate, and it is approaching quite good, it just doesn’t have the energy and plot to go the extra mile as Pixar usually does.
Toy Story 2 will always be my favorite. Always. But it’s difficult for me to decide which is the best. 
I think they should of talk more about Bo Peep, Rex say’s her name one time and is never heard of again. I also wish Al made a cameo and Sid more screen time.
I think there is a thread discussing about Bo peep and why she wasn’t in there.
I think Al may have been good as a cameo but honestly he probably would have been a crazy jittering man who just would have added a bit more unneeded comic relief.
I think they could have expanded Sid’s screentime just a bit, to show Sid collecting toys and keeping them in a protective case in a quest to save all toys. would really show Sid going full circle and would make sense after the whole ‘Play nice’ scene in Toy story 1. I think that as he grew he would have switched over from Paranoia of toys to respect of them and regard of them as live beings with emotions.
honestly, although the original will most likely always be my favorite, i’ve always thought toy story 2 was the best out of the three. idk. it’s just really well-rounded and i think it’s probably the most entertaining.
also, i agree with whoever said sid should’ve had a bit of a longer cameo.
Methuselah, that is the most brilliant first post I have seen any Pixar Planeteer newbie written. You basically summed up most of my thoughts on Toy Story 3’s shortcomings and delivered a great message on fans needing to be more accepting of criticism. One can be a fan of something and still provide critical analysis about the object of fandom. It perplexes me why some people take personal offense when constructive criticism is offered politely and argued eloquently.
I have half a mind to copy your post and paste it on my blog, or save it for posterity. May I have your permission to do so? 
I wonder why I didn’t think of this either. Pixar really is unforgiving when it comes to its villains, so it would be great for a change if they gave Sid a chance to redeem himself (maybe become a toy shop owner or collector) instead of ending up as a garbage man as some sort of ‘revenge wish fulfillment’. Pixar is implying that kids who are violent to their toys will end up in menial blue-collar jobs, which is far from the case. Besides, Sid was never abusive towards Spike, although he is inconsiderate sometimes such as slamming the door in Spike’s face. So he’s not a hopeless bad-egg, just that he is pretty demented when it comes to play-acting with this toys for some reason.
I thank you for your praise, and I welcome you to copy or save my post. Really, it should be echoed as all too often emotions come ahead of decency and it turns into personal attacks.
I agree with this as well. It would certainly be nicer than condoning him to a bad position. Perhaps if the first Toy story had ended differently but it didn’t make as much sense. Really, if you knew that the toys that you had been torturing could feel, talk, and have emotions, I think you’d be terrified. I think that if Pixar wanted to keep him in a garbage man position they could have at least added a scene where he goes back to his Mother’s house, cleans a few toys up, and then places them in a carefully kept glass case. A real contrast from Little sid.
Wow. Thanks for your support.
Yes, it has been said before but I appreciate it nonetheless. Although, I can’t say that I’ve seen much hostility on this thread. At least not against me, personally. Overall, I think that many users managed to both add their own, interesting personal opinions and constructively discuss the subject. Now, i haven’t read all posts so maybe I’m missing something. (Don’t get me wrong, I still think that you’re absolutely right about the importance of keeping a civil conversation)
It could also be that I posted a thread about this issue on some other websites as well and was met with ALOT of hate there so I’m kinda used to it. (And then I really mean a lot of hate)
Anyway, overall my impression of the Pixar forum is really good. Seems to be a lot of nice people here discussing interesting subjects. I only wish I had time to drop in more often.