There a lot of films where after two sequels they get branded a trilogy. But a trilogy implies a story that can only be resolved over three installment. Not just a fim with two sequels with what are ultimately unrealted plots.
This is no way a critism of the two Toy Story sequels just an observation.
Technically, a trilogy is “a set of three works of art that are connected”, to quote Wikipedia. So since the TS movies are three films that are connected by timeline and such, it is a trilogy.
I don’t understand. Why are you saying it’s not a trilogy, richyunited?
I’d say it’s a trilogy. Although the films are satisfying on their own, there is definitely a full story being told with many arcs over the three films.
3 movies that take place in the same canon? I’d call that a trilogy.
I can definitely see what you’re saying, and I wish there was a specific definition for that (because like it’s been said, at this point, Toy Story is a trilogy).
Still one of the good things about Toy Story is that it came to a definate, satisfying conclusion, yet made room for the excellent Toy Story 2. Toy Story 2’s ending was more open, but still satisfying. I mean, everyone has come to peace with the fact that Andy has grown up, so they could cap it off there, but it definately gave opportunity to expand on that.
I see what you’re saying about each movie being satisfying on it’s own, each telling a full story without a cliffhanger ending, yet at the same time having room for expansion. Haven’t seen TS3 but I’m guessing even if you’ve never seen the first two you can infer the toys’ relationship with Andy as a kid. But it’s definetly a trilogy…especially since they have the numbers and all
It’s definitely a trilogy.
It may not be a trilogy in the same sense that, for example, the Lord of the Rings books and films are a trilogy, but all three Toy Story films are definitely connected, despite each one having its own storyline. Hence I’d say that, though you have an interesting point, they are a trilogy.
What about the ‘Blood and Ice Cream’ and ‘Dollars’ trilogies, they not in-film connected.
The Toy Story movies are all Woody’s journey. It is indeed a trilogy.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a “trilogy” as:
So yes, I’d say that Toy Story definitely qualifies. 
What you overlook is that you can have a trilogy based upon something as simple as an interconnected theme, not necessarily a single cumulative narrative arc - take Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Three Colors trilogy, for example, in which each film revolves around a different group of characters.
The definition of trilogy is all up to personal interpretation. “Trilogy” or not “Trilogy”, the trio all contains a narrative that is captivating with all our favourite characters, even if it may or may not “intertwine”.
Well this certainly has inspired some nice debate. 
3 films = trilogy
like everyone else is saying 
and you cant really count Buzz Lightyear of star command as part of the series since it just the toy watching the film and is a spinoff.
Its only a debate if you cant count.
Main Entry: tril·o·gy
Pronunciation: \ˈtri-lə-jē
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural tril·o·gies
Etymology: Greek trilogia, from tri- + -logia -logy
Date: circa 1661
: a series of three dramas or literary works or sometimes three musical compositions that are closely related and develop a single theme
Hey Guys and girls, thanks for adding to the discussion
Okay some of these posts have made me feel a little stupid, so I’m going defend my corner a little bit.
If a trilogy is simply three related works in a series of 4 or 5 are the first 3 a trilogy? Also; what about the Toy Story shorts? Does Toy Story plus any two of the shorts equal trilogy.
I think when it comes to things like this, you can’t boil it down to simple definitions and have to take on board such things as spirit and intent.
Not saying that I personally believe this, but you could raise the arguement that Buzz Lightyear of Star Command is a Toy Story movie. All of the shorts are just… too short to be considered sequels. I mean, most other Pixar shorts are developed stories, just in a shortened time period. Toy Story treats are just short gags, basically companions to the first movie.
The Toy Story shorts don’t fit in with the continuity of the films (they’re set in Andy’s old bedroom, Buzz still thinks he’s a real space ranger in most of them, and Andy now apparently owns Sid’s mutant toys and a whole swarm of Pizza Planet aliens), so I don’t think they’re considered canon. They’re just fun little skits.