I didn’t really like How to Train Your Dragon as well. I mean, it was good, but didn’t really live up to the hype.
And to keep things simple, I’ll just say I disagree with your views in general no one’s right or wrong, but might I remind you that this is a Pixar forum.
zinem: My avatar is from The Iron Giant, and my signature is from The Walking Dead.
Once again, I mostly agree with you about the role of villains in Pixar movies. Pixar’s most notable weak point is, in my opinion, villains. They’ve never tried to give them a great amount of development through any form of change or redemption; on the other hand, I’m glad that they take the effort to give them proper motivations to prevent them from being completely archetypal. Lotso’s backstory was well assembled, except for the fact that his transition from good to evil was rather jarring and unmotivated (a flaw I forgot to mention in my previous post). I’m going to have to disagree with your generalization of Lotso being completely pointless and doing nothing but driving conflict, though. Lotso is meant to be in many ways similar to Woody in their previous loyalty to their owners. Woody trumping Lotso’s logic in the dumpster scene helps bring out Woody’s character growth in overcoming his eventual loss of Andy. Thus, Woody is not necessarily battling Lotso but his own previous psyche. Although Lotso does mostly exist for conflict and story progression, he does have a symbolic purpose in the movie beyond that.
I think Lotso’s transition was motivated to say the least. They made it clear that he was favorite toy of Daisy, a coveted role for any toy. Once he found out he’d been replaced, he was shocked and felt betrayed. At this point, he was blinded by rage, and that’s how he ran Sunnyside. Of course, he kept these feelings repressed until the end of the film.
Yeah, for a toy your whole life is your owner. Everything a toy does revolves around its kid, something well established by all three films. Lotso suddenly has the one thing he’s ever known in his life stolen from him, making him even doubt whether the love he knew was ever true at all, so of course he would be angry. The point was that Lotso made a bad choice at this point, a choice that Woody probably would have made in the same situation. That’s the real point of Lotso’s back story, to show how much he and Woody are alike, and to help Woody learn from this and be better.
Your opinions are respected but I will have to disagree.
TS3 is a truly stunning film. Does Bolt force characters to go though hell, just to get back to the ones they love? Your looking at the movie from the surface. What you need to think about is the themes under the film, if that makes sense. Sure Bolt was an okay surface film but it didnt leave me in awe like TS3.
And yeah, TS3 has jokes. Thats for the kids dude! If this whole movie was about a bunch of toys getting thrown out it wouldnt be much of a family movie now would it? You need to cushion it or it just becomes a downer. Yes, the toys get chewed on by kids and Buzz goes through some personality disorders. But that stuff was funny! For me, the children and the oldsters.
And that is what makes TS so great. In fact thats what makes any Pixar movie so great, the universal appeal. A mother and father would probably HATE to see G-Force or something. They wouldnt mind seeing Bolt or How to Train Your Dragon. But they would downright love to see a Toy Story film.
TS is great, dont rant on it. Especially in the Toy Story forums where Toy Story is generally appreciated.
EDIT: Oh yeah and your comments on your posted pictures were pretty biased. Firstly, the children were completly different ages. Comediac or not, that is was younger children do to toys. Second, you took two different scenes and compared them. The TS one is a comedic scene with the baby, the second a “heartwarming” scene with the dog and girl (see that movie was so unmemorable I dont even remember the girls name. 
)
That is indeed a very interesting perspective. I never noticed the similarities between Woody and Lotso before.
Yes, Bolt goes through a lot more than the characters from Toy Story 3. But Bolt’s hardship was all mental and psychological, and more complex if you ask me.
you really have to watch Bolt a few times to understand what’s going on in this film, which completely lends itself to the characters and their personal evolution. Whereas I found Toy Story 3 to be a loud, simplistic and almost vulgar movie, Bolt surprised me as the characters (at least the dog and the cat) really did develop in an utterly believable way. Bolt was my favorite as he was a quiet, few-worded and introvertive character that was almost overpowered by the hyperactive hamster and Mitten’s witty dialogs. But Bolt is still the most touching character from the film, and his personality and how he struggles with his own identity, mental denial and self-confidence.
In the movie, Bolt must first overcome his delusions and pride and expose himself and his vulnerability to Mittens. At first, he treats the poor cat quite brutality but he learns lesson of pain and humiliation on the way and is forced to drop his superhero persona.
There is a brilliant scene about halfway into the movie when Mittens has tied herself to a tree, trying to talk some sense into the dog. At first, Bolt just tries to ignore her, calling her explanations preposterous. But it becomes harder and harder to ignore the cat’s logics when as he starts to realize that she is right. He becomes frustrated and starts barking repeatedly trying to silence both Mittens and the unwelcomed feelings of doubt that is starting to build up in the back of his head.
As a result, Bolt is perhaps not as “explosive” as Toy Story 3, but it’s (in my opinion) my sophisticated in a subtle manner.
I don’t mean to be rude, but replace that Bolt logic with Buzz Lightyear and Woody.
Woody tries to convince Buzz that he is a toy, not a Space Ranger. Basically the same idea.
That paricular scene perhaps. But overall, and as written by Ryan Crackdell on MovieReviews.com “Although very much akin to Buzz Lightyear in synopsis, Bolt played out more like The Truman Show, where realizations come about in layers and there’s a lasting push to become one’s self, not a character to be consumed through media.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
*Kidding.
Sometimes stories paint broader strokes. The overall story gets told in a less intimate way, but that doesn’t make it a bad move. I personally loved the first 2 toy stories for all the character focused moments. lots of scenes with just a handful of characters, sometimes as little as two. Toy Story 3 went a different route but that’s okay.
This far, very few users have been able to even provide me with an argument as to why Toy Story 3 deserves its credit.
zinem, you kept talking about the subtleties in Bolt, and yet you completely failed to notice the subtleties in Toy Story 3. You even missed obvious stuff like Lotso being the anti-Woody. I think you need to watch the film again, I’d go into more details with my arguments, but I don’t think any of us will be able to change your mind. The only thing that will do that is watching the movie, and I mean really watching it the way you clearly have done with Bolt.
Just because a movie has lots of action and lots of characters, doesn’t mean the story isn’t still there.
You know what? You make a really good point. I’ll watch it again. Meanwhile, you should take a second look at Bolt.
I was actually already planning on it, I’ll see if I can find somewhere to watch it online, and get on it when I have time. You’re the first real fan of the movie I’ve ever seen/talked to, so I’m interested to see how your opinion of the film compares to mine after a second viewing.
I forgot about Ratatouille, which I also don’t think has a real villain, neither Skinner or Ego can ever really be called evil, even if they have bad qualities.
And Randall is portrayed as a villain, but many people in the fanbase don’t see him as such.
That leaves Hopper, Waternoose, Syndrome, Auto, Muntz, and Lotso as true villains. (Though I’m not sure about Auto. Can a robot be truly evil?)
I am just going to put it out there, I HATE Bolt. The only reason I had seen it in the first place was with my little cousins and even they hated it. It lacks the love and care of a Pixar film. It sucks.
(In my opinion)
Hello zinem, and welcome to the forums! It’s nice to meet another Bolt fan (I loved the movie back in its release in '08, and I still do).
It is refreshing to encounter an alternative opinion here on the forums. Although this is predominantly a Pixar fan site, we welcome contrasting views here (I do, since my mantra is you should always look on both sides of the story).
I, too, am one of the members here who liked Toy Story 3, but not as much as we were hoping for upon closer examination. Once again, as I’ve said on all the threads I’ve talked on this topic before, Toy Story 3 is one of Pixar’s best films (IMHO). Unfortunately, it was overrated and overhyped.
I agree that the plot is essentially a rehash of the second film, except whereas the second ended on a somewhat-happy note of ‘Let’s enjoy the last few years we have together’, the third ended on a definite ‘This is the end of an era, let’s move on to Bonnie, while keeping our fond memories of Andy forever’. Lotso and the Prospector were practically alike in motives, but while the Prospector at least had reason to imprison Woody (because without him, they won’t go to Japan as a group), Lotso’s motives weren’t as strong. He is essentially a dictator who imposes his values upon others, but he has no personal stake in the business. If the toys in Sunnyside did not live under his rule, how does that disadvantage him?
To further clarify, let’s look at other Pixar villains. AUTO needs to stop Wall-E, because Wall-E’s acts will result in a conflict of his directive. Muntz needs to stop Carl, because Carl’s acts will result in the loss of the bird he’s chasing all his life. Randall needs to stop Sully, because his return of Boo will sabotage his plans to test the Scream-Extractor. et cetera
Lotso may want to install a totalitarian government to maybe keep the toys he dislikes in the Caterpillar Room and the ones he likes in the Butterfly Room, but that’s not a very strong and interconnected motive for me to feel empathy for him. By empathy, I mean, I can understand why he does the actions to be the ‘bad guy’, not sympathy, which just means I feel sorry for him.
I also agree with your sentiment that the characters here didn’t go through as deep a character arc as they did in the previous films. ‘Spanish Buzz’ was played mainly for laughs and to finally resolved the romantic tension between him and Jessie. Woody still is a pretty selfish character, though this time he seems to be misunderstand what’s best for the group as opposed to what’s best for him. The supporting characters aren’t supposed to go through as detailed arcs as the mains, but I felt they were overcrowded due to the sheer number of newcomers, something which I’m afraid for Cars 2 as well.
Bryko has also brought up an interesting point that’s been percolating at the back of my mind, but have not really expressed until now. The problem with most of the conflicts in Pixar movies is because they happen as a result of fate, to an extent. If you watch how the ‘inciting incident’, as scriptwriters will call it, happens in Toy Story 2 for example, it is highly improbable. Murphy’s Law is in effect as bad events keep pilling on and the situation gets worse. Wheezy gets thrown out, Woody sets out to rescue him, then Woody falls off Buster, then he gets picked up and placed on the table where Al spots him, and so on. Same with Toy Story 3, none of the ensuing repercussions are the result of Woody’s actions, but rather a combination of bad timing and bad luck.
Whereas with Bolt, Bolt’s delusion brought about his ‘inciting incident’, he ends up shipped far from home because he thought Penny was still being kidnapped. In Dragon, Hiccup brings about his misfortune by not killing Toothless, and disobeying his father by fraternising with the enemy. Tangled- Rapunzel makes a conscious decision to escape the tower with Flynn. The power of choice, and the consequence of that choice, lies with the protagonist, and the inciting event is not brought about by a poor hand of fate or any omniscient force of misfortune.
I also agree that Lotso’s betrayal was surprising to me. Pixar tends to be unforgiving towards its antagonists, and they would rarely redeem themselves (the only exception I can think of is Bruce and his ‘Fishaholics Anonymous’ group). There was no reason for Lotso to be at the dump other than to prove to the audience he can’t be changed (which does not send a very good message about redemption or forgiveness) and to lead to his eventual resolution as the bug-catcher for Sid’s truck. I agree with Bryko that it would’ve been more powerful if he was just thrown into the dumpster and deposited into the truck, leaving the audience to wonder about his eventual demise, just like Carl or Syndrome. I’m sure the scriptwriters can figure out a way for the gang to end up in the landfill anyway for their ‘hand-holding-in-the-brimstone’ sequence (maybe they have to save one of the LGM who fell in or something). Losto’s existence was merely to highlight the worst of Woody’s obsession with holding on to the impermanent, but as an antagonist, he was not so much a character as a metaphorical symbol.
I agree on this and Bolt. Pixar’s stories tend to be about internal quests and personal development, while Dreamworks and Disney tends to be about changing external communities and ideas at large. I enjoy both kinds of plots; but Toy Story 3’s message felt the same as Toy Story 2 for me: to embrace change while not forgetting those who have touched our lives.
I wasn’t particularly impressed by the main baddie at the end of Dragon either, but I’ve come to view it much like Lotso as more of a symbolic villain as opposed to one who has clearly defined motivations and personality. The Green Dragon was the oppressor of all the smaller dragons, much like Lotso was pinning down Ken, Baby and the others. At the end of the film, with the removal of the head honcho, all the lesser villains eventually became ‘good guys’.
That was one of my favourite aspects of Bolt, of how Bolt and Mittens start out hating the other’s guts, and eventually end up changing each other. Mittens teaches Bolt what it means to be a real dog (although she’s a cat) and how his life has been an illusion. While Bolt teaches Mittens how to love again and to forgive herself and her previous owner. Their relationship was one of the more subtler aspects of the film.
In TS3, I felt the message was a bit heavy-handed and that it was literally delivered in the dialogue (“Goodbye Andy”). Yes, it made me feel melancholic and proud that the glorious saga has come to a close, but I wasn’t as moved to tears as I was when Bolt almost perished with Penny in the fire.
ANYWAY, long story short, I agree with you on almost all points, except your choice of pictures to contrast the differences in kids’ portrayal. They’re from different age groups! 
But other than that, yeah, you’re not the only one, I can a list a few other non-impressed members here who share the same opinion as you. The mark of a true fan is one who’s unafraid to offer criticisms or have a healthy cynical awareness of things, even for the stuff he likes. The others are either mindless ‘god’-worshippers or annoying Internet-trolls.
Okay, first let me say, zinem, while I certainly don’t agree with you, I think your reasoning for not liking the film is fair, legitimate, and I respect your opinion.
But that article? Are you kidding me?! They’re just trying way too hard. None of the reasons have anything to do with the film plot itself.
Pixar can make memorable movies in their sleep - Okay, sure. What does this have to do with TS3?
The 3D felt kind of tacked on - Okay? So does the 3D in most modern movies. Yes, I saw it in 3D, and it felt a little tacked-on, but that still has nothing to do with the plot of the movie itself.
Pixar doesn’t usually make sequels - Games usually don’t have to do with plumbers riding dinosaurs and eating mushrooms. That doesn’t mean they can’t be great. Again, nothing to do with the movie itself.
Irresponsible Portrayal of Latinos, Gays, and Daycare - Okay, the Spanish Buzz scene wasn’t trying to portray Latinos in general, it was just trying to show a certain type of charming Spanish person to be humorous. Ken wasn’t even gay - hence his girlfriend Barbie. His obsession with clothes and beauty seem like gay stereotypes, but that’s the author of this article’s assumption based on these stereotypes in the first place that Ken was gay. And even if he was, which there would be nothing wrong with (just throwing it out there before people start calling me racist), its’ not an irresponsible Portrayal. Pixar’s goal is not to go around saying “Hey! Let’s beat up homosexual kids in our school!”. No. In fact, I’m sure a lot of kids like the character Ken, and if anything, it promotes that there’s nothing wrong with it. And daycare – while I admit, there was a bit exaggeration of how irresponsible little kids are, its actually fairly accurate.
^ Put all of that aside, this article STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT OF THE FILM.
Toy Story 3 Wasn’t Really Made for the Kids - You know, they’re right. It wasn’t really made for the kids. It was intended to be made for everybody. While some small children may be frightened by the Monkey or Incinerator scenes, those were necessary to enhance the plot. And the extra adult jokes they throw in there are so that the parents going with the kids will enjoy the film, too. And the kids won’t even notice them, let alone get them, so it’s not like it will be a bad influence on them. And for the fifth time, still NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but it just gets me mad when people insult things for unlegitimate reasons. Unlike zinem, whose reasons were fair and I respect, the people who wrote this article were just trying too hard for attention. Kind of like trolls.