Toy Story 3 isn't very good at all.

All of the plot devices are just plot conveniences:

• Why would the attic close by itself? Oh, so the toys never make it up to the attic and Andy’s mom thinks it’s trash…

• Why are they in the back of the car? Oh, so that Andy’s mom can close the door and they can get driven to the daycare…

It’s WAY too convenient that the toys still don’t trust Woody, after what? 15 years, and he was always right before. None of the movie would have happened if they had just trusted Woody. What reason would Woody have to lie? Why are the other toys acting so irrationally? Oh, just because it’s convenient to the script…

And then Mrs. Potato head sees Andy perfectly miming out gestures that would indicate that he didn’t want to throw us out. The toys believe her. But why? Couldn’t she be lying? Why do they trust her and not Woody?

But, THE biggest flaw of Toy Story 3…

IT IS A REHASH OF TOY STORY 2!

They follow the formula to an excessive extent.

1. Open up the movie with a large scale action sequence that is later revealed to be an exaggeration of a game being played by other characters.

2. Introduce ideas and images reflecting change and ultimately the idea that toys don’t last forever. Unwanted toys are gathered and a mistake is made where one of the toys ends up where the unwanted toys are.

3. The bad guy is a wise and seemingly kind toy with a walking cane (The Prospector & Lotso) that is fuelled by the traumitization of feeling unloved and unwanted, taking their anger out on others.

4. The seemingly nice antagonist keeps the toys in this new environment with promises of love for generations.

5. A delusional factory setting Buzz Lightyear locks up one or more of the protagonists(Buzz in the store in part 2 & then Buzz in the daycare in part 3)

6. Over-exposure of flashbacks with characters feeling unwanted by their previous owners

7. The protagonists enter a large-scale industrial contraption where the antagonist is disposed of in the process, and ultimately left to the care of an owner with no care for their well-being

A few things as well…

• That security monkey didn’t catch Buzz the first time he escaped. Why?

• So Buzz is normal, then they switch him to factory mode, then they press reset, and he’s Spanish…then they have no idea how to switch him back. Then a TV falls on him and he’s fine again… UGH. It was just an excuse to have a funny racial stereotype

Also, it’s not even that funny. The highlight of the movie is Mr. Tortilla Head, and that doesn’t even make any sense. I’m not going to argue about toys talking, and moving, but they can animate other objects now? A tortilla!? If you cut holes in Andy and stuck Mr. potato head into him, could they control Andy?

Oh, and when they’re on the conveyor belt and Slinky gets lifted up to the giant magnet because he’s made of metal… this scene didn’t make sense.

So Woody and Buzz try and save Lotso, and Woody takes the a golf club that lifts him up into the air, then Buzz grabs the club with his weight to hold it DOWN, but when they get Lotso out the single golf club lifts them ALL UP! WHAT!?

Oh, and when they get to the other side, how did Slinky get down when all the other metal objects were still up there?

Oh, and then the ending with Andy basically just telling the little girl that her own imagination is secondary to his, and that she must play with the toys in respect of his own nostalgia for them.

I’m surprised you registered just to hate on something. I understand your points, but think about something. Nearly every movie is driven by plot conveniences. Its just the way the industry works. I disagree with your opinion that the movie is bad, but it is your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Its not perfect but no movie is perfect.

In my opinion the 1st movie was perfect , the 2 nd was great and the 3rd was ok.

Yeah subscribing to this forum and ur first post is literally saying that imply story 3 is rubbish and the writers are crap!
I like toy story 3 didn’t think it was bad. Had a great ending with andy running through each character.

Don’t post in future if its all going to be negative

I don’t want to be trolling, but it’s ironic that when one says Toy Story 3 is bad he gets such reception, while so many members have said Cars 2 was awful and nobody complained.

HOWEVER, I do agree the author of this message isn’t giving just an opinion, but showing hate for no reason. kylio27, some of your points are valid, but you are exaggerating. Like oreo-94 said, all movies use plot conveniences. Some of you points are way to exaggerated.

I can literally destroy EVERY MOVIE with the same kind of analysis. They all have glaring plot holes. Its a pixar movie, and it isn’t bad because of plot holes. I can ruin the avengers, dark knight rises, and every other blockbuster from the last 20 years with the same analysis

gee I wonder where you got your ideas from…

youtube.com/watch?v=1pIh0k7dSEM

I must agree with most of your points.

Find one movie that cant be ruined by using the same kind of “logic”. Its impossible. People love movies like The Dark Knight and Inception, but they wouldnt stand up to scrutiny like this any better.

Well, if I had as much time as you on my hands, I could go through and explain all of the complaints, but I’ll take a select few.

The similarity to Toy Story 2 was obviously intentional. Toy Story 2 posed the question of what happens when Andy grows up, and Toy Story 3 answers it. Simple. The opening was a nod to both Toy Story and Toy Story 2, combining them in such a way that adds to a fitting end.

Prospector and Lotso are similar, but Prospector was misguided, while Lotso was plain evil.

The Mr. Potato Head question is just silly; you know the original Mr. Potato Head required a real potato, right? Aside from that, the body isn’t alive, it’s shown clearly that his parts are.

“The protagonists enter a large-scale industrial contraption” - Well that’s pretty vague.

“Also, it’s not even that funny” - Thank you for your opinion.

“this scene didn’t make sense.” - You’re going to have to explain more than that.

“Oh, and then the ending with Andy basically just telling the little girl that her own imagination
is secondary to his, and that she must play with the toys in respect of his own nostalgia for them.” - Really? Were we watching the same movie?

Basically, I avoided every one that centered around a plot convience, since those are crucial for movies in general. If everything happened realistically, we would be watching a movie about inanimate toys. Also, I appreciate that you’ve shared your thoughts, but a lot of this seems to be personal opinions. While I do put the other two Toy Story movies ahead of Toy Story 3, I think stands up the previous two and makes a legendary trilogy.

Once again, this is not his ideas, he is obviously reciting what he has heard in this video: youtube.com/watch?v=1pIh0k7dSEM

I find the video quite hilarious. While it does point out some very hilarious and unimportant flaws, I did find myself laughing. But this is definitely not kylio27’s ideas, lets just make that clear.

If that’s the case, plagiarism isn’t cool.

I tend to ignore popular reviewers who feed the masses. While their opinion is valid, the countless people who mindlessly take that opinion as their own are not (RedLetterMedia comes to mind). I mean, they’re great for entertainment value, but some views are not meant to be taken too seriously.

Anybody think this is Armond White in disguise?

I agree if you’re just spouting what you heard off a YouTube video that’s not good. If you didnt, you obviously spent a lot more time thinking about this than I have. I will say I love TS3 despite its flaws. Like, I agree that the Woody issue was a little weird. I would think after all that time Woody wouldnt still have to prove himself. And yes, there were a few similarities to TS2. Yes there were plot devices and plot holes and what I call ‘movie logic’. But that doesnt take away from my enjoyment of the film. And I agree with the others on here that you can rip apart any movie by doing that. I feel that you probably just came on here and posted this to garner a reaction and perhaps provoke an argument

Seriously, plagiarism of this nature is not taken kindly to.

Does everybody like Toy Story 3? No. I know I don’t. However, when people who try to say it’s bad present themselves like this, it’s completely understandable that nobody will take them seriously.

It’s why nobody took Armond White’s review seriously. Not because he disliked a 100% RT movie (for the time), but because he didn’t even care enough about the movie to get the character’s names right or focus on anything past the first 5 minutes in the movie.

My only hope is that years from now, people will be able to have educated discussions on the merits and flaws of TS3 without annoying trolls like this butting in.

When it comes to people comparing Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3, this quote by Lee Unkrich himself just summed it all up:

“It’s one thing to make peace with the idea of something that’s going to happen someday; it’s another to find yourself at that day.” - Lee Unkrich

Two very different scenarios. Same philosophy, but not the ending you’d expect.

• Why would the attic close by itself? Oh, so the toys never make it up to the attic and Andy’s mom thinks it’s trash…
  A: This CAN happen. the Attic is spring loaded, or whatever, and chances are needed a persons weight to keep it down.

• Why are they in the back of the car? Oh, so that Andy’s mom can close the door and they can get driven to the daycare…
  A: They WANTED to be donated, they were TRYING to get into the box to go to Sunnyside. this IS established IN THE MOVIE.

It’s WAY too convenient that the toys still don’t trust Woody, after what? 15 years, and he was always right before. None of the movie would have happened if they had just trusted Woody. What reason would Woody have to lie? Why are the other toys acting so irrationally? Oh, just because it’s convenient to the script…
A: the toys have ALWAYS felt that while Woody wants to keep everyone together, they fully understand he is also partial to Andy. It’s easy to see that the one guy Andy decided to keep would get a little bit of backlash.

And then Mrs. Potato head sees Andy perfectly miming out gestures that would indicate that he didn’t want to throw us out. The toys believe her. But why? Couldn’t she be lying? Why do they trust her and not Woody?
A: She’s “in the same boat” as all the other toys. They are collectively one, whereas, Woody is similar, and CAN be part of the collective, he is ALSO a unique toy.

But, THE biggest flaw of Toy Story 3…

IT IS A REHASH OF TOY STORY 2!

They follow the formula to an excessive extent.

1. Open up the movie with a large scale action sequence that is later revealed to be an exaggeration of a game being played by other characters.
   A: This is a basic example of Storytelling. Someone else mentions that TS1 was Andy with the toys, 2 was what the imagination sees, and 3 is a combo of both. the sequence, when lined up with the first 2 films, makes SO MUCH SENSE. It’s one of the best parts of the overall story.

2. Introduce ideas and images reflecting change and ultimately the idea that toys don’t last forever. Unwanted toys are gathered and a mistake is made where one of the toys ends up where the unwanted toys are.
   A: This isn’t actually true. TS2 suggested that toys don’t last forever unless preserved in a museum or collection, whereas TS3 suggests that toys CAN achieve immortality IF the owner plays with them properly. TS3 is the solution to the question and problems asked and presented in TS2.

3. The bad guy is a wise and seemingly kind toy with a walking cane (The Prospector & Lotso) that is fuelled by the traumitization of feeling unloved and unwanted, taking their anger out on others.
   A: true. BUT Prospector was unloved and unwanted, Lotso was misunderstanding.

4. The seemingly nice antagonist keeps the toys in this new environment with promises of love for generations.
   A: Not exactly. Stinky Pete wanted the toys to just be preserved and wanted to be like the others in his collection. Lotso was just a JERK, and more or less believed in survival of the fittest (remember, the Sunnyside Gang were going over which toys should make the cut, with Ken trying to advocate SOME of them).

5. A delusional factory setting Buzz Lightyear locks up one or more of the protagonists(Buzz in the store in part 2 & then Buzz in the daycare in part 3).
   A: true, BUT TS3 put a spin on it with introducing Spanish Buzz. the REASON behind this reoccurance is because Pixar enjoy having Buzz BE delusional, and needed fresh ways to keep this going. Spanish Buzz was a pretty brilliant way to solve the problem of Factory Buzz being stale. the Belt Buzz from 2 was JUST going to be that way. Honestly, I’m surprised we didn’t see a HUGE clan of Factory Buzz figures in 2.

6. Over-exposure of flashbacks with characters feeling unwanted by their previous owners
   A: These flashbacks aren’t necessary, BUT help explain the story just a little better (Jessie’s flashback in 2 WAS the one overall thing that gave the movie “heart,” Lotso’s flashback was just explaining WHY he was so evil).

7. The protagonists enter a large-scale industrial contraption where the antagonist is disposed of in the process, and ultimately left to the care of an owner with no care for their well-being.
   A: Eh, another storytelling device.

A few things as well…

• That security monkey didn’t catch Buzz the first time he escaped. Why?
  A: this is EXPLAINED IN THE FILM: When Chatterphone is talking to Woody, he EXPLAINS that Lotso upped the security. The monkey was ONE of these changes.

• So Buzz is normal, then they switch him to factory mode, then they press reset, and he’s Spanish…then they have no idea how to switch him back. Then a TV falls on him and he’s fine again… UGH. It was just an excuse to have a funny racial stereotype.
  A: NO. They DIDN’T HAVE TIME at the moment they switched him to Spanish mode, they had a PLAN to stick to. The TV falling on him is sort of the same anomaly as… hitting an old TV or the Fonze punching the jute box.

Also, it’s not even that funny. The highlight of the movie is Mr. Tortilla Head, and that doesn’t even make any sense. I’m not going to argue about toys talking, and moving, but they can animate other objects now? A tortilla!? If you cut holes in Andy and stuck Mr. potato head into him, could they control Andy?
A: yea, because arguing this sort of logic at this point would really help the movie. It’s been pretty established that the Potato Heads parts are the sentient aspects of them. I also am pretty sure that Potato Head wouldn’t have been able to use the tortilla if the tort was sentient. This is TOY STORY, not FOOD STORY.

Oh, and when they’re on the conveyor belt and Slinky gets lifted up to the giant magnet because he’s made of metal… this scene didn’t make sense.

So Woody and Buzz try and save Lotso, and Woody takes the a golf club that lifts him up into the air, then Buzz grabs the club with his weight to hold it DOWN, but when they get Lotso out the single golf club lifts them ALL UP! WHAT!?
A: I concede this. You’re 100% right on ONE of your arguments so far.

Oh, and when they get to the other side, how did Slinky get down when all the other metal objects were still up there?
A: I suppose the other toys helped him? and the magnets were too far from the belt at that point?

Oh, and then the ending with Andy basically just telling the little girl that her own imagination is secondary to his, and that she must play with the toys in respect of his own nostalgia for them.
A: This is clearly just an ignorant misunderstanding of the scene. He was showing her the toys in how HE REMEMBERED THEM MOST. The Toys are actors in the stage that is the child’s imagination. He never belittled HER imagination, just offered insight on his. She can take it or leave it. Do you think Dolly was made with the intent of her being a witch? duuuuur!

I just won the internets.

Pretty much.