Lotso had his whole life ripped out from under him, he’s just angry at that point and is taking it out on anyone and everyone, whether they had anything to do with it or not. He’s not justified for being such an awful person, but he thinks he is, that’s the whole point.
And really, most movies out there nowadays have less reason than that for why the villain is evil, so at least they tried.
Please don’t quote entire posts to reduce thread clutter - TDIT
I agree with this too. As I explained in an earlier post, most Pixar villains have a reason to be antagonistic with the hero. There is something at stake, which makes the hero pose a threat to the villain. In some cases, it’s revenge, like the Prospector and Syndrome. In others, it’s a dream, like Chick Hicks or Charles Muntz. And in a few, it’s downright survival, like Hopper and AUTO.
In the case of Lotso, as you’ve reasoned, Buzz doesn’t pose much of a threat to him. In a way, Lotso’s rationale makes sense (as Barbie and Ken eventually used with the ‘tag-team’ system at the end), but he effectively installed a dictatorship with only a priveleged few exempt from the Caterpillar Room duties. Maybe he did his ‘tour of duty’ or ‘interning’ as you call it. Maybe he did deserve the privelege of the Butterfly Room because he’s already been played with by the Caterpillar Room tots and deserved his ‘upgrade’, much like senior executives in a corporation enjoy a plush office and (some may say undeserved) attractive salary packages after doing the grunt work in the front lines for many years. That’s why he didn’t come off as a villain with a particularly strong motivation, precisely because his rationale is so morally-ambiguous.
And when Buzz refused the ‘early promotion’, Lotso should have simply let Buzz return to his friends. There was no need to reprogram him. This was an ‘open secret’ which the rest of the toys will eventually understand after a few days of observation (People in autocratic governments ‘know’ their ruler is a tyrant), unlike Mr Waternoose and Charles Muntz, which had more secretive and insiduous character revelations.
Here’s my metaphor, to expand on yours… let’s replace Lotso with an imaginary dictator:
Person A: Mr Saddam Castro-Gadaffi, I was wondering whether you can let me and my friends stay in your presidential palace. Our village huts make for pretty awful living.
Mr Saddam Castro-Gadaffi: No can do. I can only admit you as my friend.
Person A: In that case, I’m rejecting your offer.
Mr Saddam Castro-Gadaffi: Erase his mind, boys!
Why erase A’s mind when the rest will eventually discover his regime anyway? I agree with you that Buzz posed no threat to Lotso, but I disagree in the sense that the toys will eventually discover ‘how things work around here’ anyway, so resetting him was an act in futility. 
On reading your explanation, I have to agree! Barbie was one of the better developed characters in the movie. Buzz, Woody and Jessie basically went through the same character development motions- Jessie is still cynical about her owner’s love, while Woody is now the one convinving Buzz to stay for Andy, when he should really be moving on. The only thing different in this installment is the resolution of the romantic tension between Buzz and Jessie, which should no doubt please the Buzz x Jessie fanshippers and disappointe the Woody x Jessie camp.
In my humble opinion, having no justification for being mean to other is exactly why he’s a poor villain. There is nothing immediate at stake to his future by the hero. If Woody and the gang were to up and leave Sunnyside, Lotso will have a new batch of toys brought in next week to torture and torment. Woody and the gang were not leading a revolution, they merely want to leave the system.
Again, to use the dictatorship example, it’s like a gang of refugees leaving the fictional country of Maldonia. Saddam Castro-Gadaffi isn’t going to care if a few people escape his country- they might spread the word that Maldonia is not a nice place to live in, but other than that, he’s still in power. But if say, this gang decide to start an armed rebellion, or a student protest riot, or any form of uprising that is seditious, then Mr Saddam Castro-Gadafi might just want to throw this lot into a detention camp, or in Lotso’s case, a rubbish tip. 
But Woody and the gang did not start a riot. They wanted to leave. So why should Lotso care? He’s got a new batch of unwitting suckers arriving next Tuesday, and even if word gets around that Sunnyside is a despotic ‘country’, the toys can’t do anything about it if their owner chooses to donate them there.
This, again, is a poor argument. It’s like saying Avatar had a poor villain in the form of Colonel Quatritch (and as much as I love Avatar, I’m being honest here, Colonel Quatritch seems to hate Na’vis just for the sake of it), therefore Toy Story 3 is no better. They could have been better, no excuse just because some movies had poor villains means that Pixar should sink to the lowest common denominator. Not to mention they’ve had better villains.
If I have annoyed any fans of TS3 with my long-winded talking, I apologise. I simply like to pick apart people’s arguments and either agree or disagree with them. Feel free to debate on my own arguments and whether they might be wrong/right.
TDIT: How would you have done things differently then.
Once again, please don’t quote entire posts. Either quote specific parts, or address the username -TDIT
That is really a job for the scriptwriters to work out.
But if you would like me to provide an alternative suggestion, perhaps I would have Woody and the gang attempt to lead a rebellion to overthrow Lotso. This would make their conflict more immediate and dangerous to Lotso. If he doesn’t stand up to Woody, he risks his entire ‘government system’’ being compromised and his authority challenged.
Or I would have Woody and the gang lead the other toys from the Caterpillar Room in their escape from Sunnyside. So instead of just Woody and the gang, it will now be the entire Caterpillar Room that will be leaving en masse. This has been done in films like Schindler’s List or Defiance, where the bad guys are trying to stop a huge crowd of resistance fighters or prison fugitives that pose a very real threat to their regime.
Or I would have Buzz agree to Lotso’s offer, but try to sneak the rest of the gang ‘across the border’ behind Lotso’s back. Once Lotso finds out, he has justified motive (or ‘just cause’) to punish Buzz, because Buzz would have betrayed his trust.
There are many ways to introduce high-stakes conflict and make it believable for the audience, which I felt the Pixarians didn’t think through properly this time round. There has to be an element of risk and reward for both parties, otherwise it’ll be basically a contest of ideas and philosophy. Which was what TS3 ended up with in my humble opinion, because Lotso represented what would have happened to Jessie if her cynical attitude towards her owner’s love were pushed to an extreme. But he was not what Woody have been if his attitude was taken to an extreme. If that was the case, then Lotso would’ve been insistent that his owner still loved him, maybe to the point of delusion or something. But because their philosophies were not mirror-images of each other, it failed thematically for me.
To illustrate:
Mr Incredible - People with Special powers should be recognised.
Syndrome - People with Special powers must have their powers removed to be equal.
Carl - Obsessed over the death of his wife, but got over it.
Charles - Obesessed over not finding the Snipe, and has not gotten over it.
Lightning - Wants to win Piston Cup, but not at the expense of fair play and helping others.
Chick - Wants to win Piston Cup, even if it means playing dirty.
Woody - Believes owner still remembers him, which is proven true, but learns to let go.
Lotso - Believes owner still remembers him, which is proven false (although this is due to the girl’s age), so he learns to let go, but ends up forcing everyone else to follow his belief system.
Woody and Lotso’s opposites don’t ‘mirror’ as well, at least, in my opinion, so even as a moralistic metaphor, Lotso fails to achieve that.
I think at one point they were planning to have all the other daycare toys come out during the scene at the dumpster, and eventually rebel, but it was cut due to the animation and time it would require. The idea of the toys rising up against Lotso is still there, but in a much smaller way with mostly just Ken and Big Baby really getting to do anything about him.
And I don’t think Lotso was trying to “punish” Buzz when he reset him. Lotso wanted Buzz to join his gang, but didn’t want the others. When Buzz denied his offer Lotso used force to make Buzz join him, not to punish him for disagreeing.
Eh, even though I’m finally harvesting affections for the movie, I agree with most of the posts. Certain things could have been explained better, and a less miserable end would have been awesome.
No movie can be perfect, and no movie will ever get 100% approval from anyway. So it’s understandable that some people dislike this movie, even if they’re not the only ones. Trust me, you’re not! I personally love it, but everyone has different opinions.
Ah, interesting that you say that. I’m surprised this is coming from a studio that tends to go the ‘extra mile’ when it comes to storytelling and detailed animation, as opposed to studios like Dreamworks that abide by tight deadlines and ridiculous production times. Pity they didn’t go with that.
Good point! I realize that Lotso used Buzz as his ‘footsoldier’ to enforce his regime, so I agree with you on that one there. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah, they could’ve done things much better especially with regards to Lotso, but I don’t think the end was exactly miserable. If only, it was a little bittersweet. They’ve lost Andy, but they’ve got a new owner to be played with!
I always appreciate your even-handed and magnanimous way of expressing your opinions, EJE!
Thanks! And sorry for not replying before. Lotso, and his motivations for being evil as well as his role in the movie, is something that I’ve actually found that a lot of people has questioned! It’s been discussed on this thread as well. Anyway, thanks for your input!
That’s a very good point! But the thing I i kind of reacted on when writing about this film is that most critics seem to think it is just that perfect. The movie has a 99 percent approval on rotten tomatoes.
I just can’t figure it out. I mean, i can understand that Toy Story 3 is probably a good movie in the eyes of a great many people, but i just can’t see the brilliance. Perhaps its just me, but anyone thats what i wanted to find out with this thread:)
The “critics” at Rotten Tomatoes are mainly brain dead morons, making it very unreliable (I think I’m stating the obvious here). I’d rather have someone like you write your criticisms rather than, say Armond White. At least you know what your talking about (and have actually seen the movie).
I guess there are faults, but they just didn’t matter to me as much. The film as a whole made up for it.
Yeah, Armond White just wants attention. And you are absolutely right, it’s always best to form your own opinion rather than just listening to the critics. Even though I don’t always know what I’m talking about either. I mean it’s all about personal interpretations and these are normally pretty impulsive.
Heck, the reason I prefer Bolt over Toy Story 3 is almost exclusively because of my love for the adorable titular character from the former movie, me being a dog person and so.
I think the reason for people not liking it as much as they perhaps should of done were the expectations (especially for me XD) being at an all time high, trying to follow the first two, as well as following Wall E & Up.
SHUN THE NON BELIEVER! SHUUUUUUUNN! 
Seriously though, I disagree with your opinion but I respect it. As the old saying goes; “You can’t please everyone.” Yeah, it’s a little formulaic but then, give me a popular movie that isn’t. Especially a sequel. Plus, it’s still better and not as formulaic than the “Buzz recalled” plot. Sounded to me like the plot to Toy Story 2 switched around.
As for why everyone loves it so much, I personally think it’s the Incinerator scene and the big teary ending that got everyone’s attention more than the story itself. I know those are the scenes that stuck with me! Okay… the scene I’m currently using as my avatar stuck with me too. What can I say? I’m a hopeless fanboy XD
As much as I love the movie though, I do agree that perhaps How to train your Dragon should’ve gotten the Oscar instead
“We’re on a bridge Charlie!”
thedriveintheatre: Thanks! I had to look up what magnanimous though, lol!
I see. Out of curiousity, do you like the movie but think it’s extremely overrated, or do you just dislike it all together?
I agree. I love the second one so much more than the original, that I was expecting the third one to be so much more amazingly incredible than the second…and for me, it was not. And I enjoyed Wall-E and Up more, too. We as people aren’t always fir to movies. Listening to the commentary made me appreciate TS3 a bit more, though.
My expectations were sky high and they were met just fine. shrug
This is how I feel, it would have been pretty hard for me to enjoy the movie any more than I did.
I still need to do this. The only Pixar commentary I’ve seen is WALL-E.
I’ve heard all the commentaries except Ratatouille and Cars.
But the expectation thing depends on the individual.
Miserable ending? The toys got another life with a child. I think a problem with people expectations for TS3 is that Pixar did what most sequels don’t: brave moves.