Toy Story 3

[innerSpaceman]

oooookay. I don't know how weighty of a situation you were hoping for in a Toy Story movie, insofar as its plot.


Meanwhile, it had the most adult and weighty themes of any film this year - - or this decade, perhaps.



Enough from me. Unless you're just trying to give me a taste of my own medicine, I simply don't grok your point of view.

[Strangler Lewis]

And I should know better not to argue with religious fanatics who come to my door bearing press releases and saying, "Have you heard the good news of the latest Pixar miracle?"

[Alex]

You're certainly free to not like it. Though I will say I simply disagree with your point #2, I'm not sure what you would want with #3, and #5 doesn't make any sense to me as a criticism of the film (though nothing I saw suggested she was well off).

But if you didn't like it, you didn't like it.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I could work myself into a lather comparable to my lather about Cars in that Toy Story 3 seems to imply that unless you have the perfect, creative job, your life is unfulfilled.

How so? Not sure I quite understand that. I didn't get that feeling at all. Unless you equate their imprisonment and lack of a choice as a lack of satisfaction in their "work".

Woody clearly placed his loyalty to Andy above being played with on a daily basis (prior to understanding that the Sunnyside was far from how originally portrayed), meaning he chose relationship above what looked like an idyllic life. Buzz was all about loyalty to his companions and sticking together no matter what. It is true that many of the characters wanted that perfect job, but it wasn't an imperfect job, it was torture.

I could spend a long time going through motivations of the characters and various plot points, which would serve no purpose, but I really am curious as to what it was that made you see it that way.

[Gemini Cricket]

I guess I didn't delve too deeply in the whole philosophical aspects of TS3. I was all like, 'Hey, look! Ha ha. A talking pink bear!'

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I guess I didn't delve too deeply in the whole philosophical aspects of TS3. I was all like, 'Hey, look! Ha ha. A talking pink bear!'

Taking a cartoon at face value is so....so...shallow. I spend a great deal of time analyzing the deeper meaning of Sponge Bob and the Penguins of Madagascar (King Julien has issues, I tell you, and Mort is incredibly complex in his motivations).

[Gemini Cricket]

I'd totally live in a giant pineapple.

[Strangler Lewis]

If they were going to depict the idea of torture, setting up a world in which torture=being played with by unimaginative two-year-olds and not-torture=being played with by imaginative three-year-olds, they did not do a good job in setting up the dramatic conflict. I kept thinking, "suck it up, toys."

That this assignment was eminently suckupable is borne out by the concluding montage in which all the remaining toys share the load of playing with the smaller children.

As to the point about Bonnie, was she truly the only not-Andy who deserved to inherit all the toys? Giving Woody to her might have been a nice moment. Giving her the whole box seemed indulgent.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think the denoument was designed from Bonnie's point of view. Clearly, a situation was sought where the toys could have their cake and eat it, too - and thus the audience who loves the toys could be happy. It was hammered repeatedly that the toys wanted to stay together, and that they wanted to be played with. Fulfilling both those desires was, I daresay, foremost in the screenwriters' minds - and I doubt a whiff of concern was felt that said result would imply that uppity Bonnie was getting more than her fair share of the finite quantity of loveable toys.

Sheesh, SL - really? I mean, really??

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

If they were going to depict the idea of torture, setting up a world in which torture=being played with by unimaginative two-year-olds and not-torture=being played with by imaginative three-year-olds, they did not do a good job in setting up the dramatic conflict. I kept thinking, "suck it up, toys."

That this assignment was eminently suckupable is borne out by the concluding montage in which all the remaining toys share the load of playing with the smaller children.

Except it wasn't just that they had to be played with by kids too young it was that they'd only be played with by kids to young and at the same time denied the respit and repair that would allow them to survive it. It wasn't that being stuck in that room meant years of hard play it was that being stuck in that room meant months of being destroyed until you were simply thrown in the trash.

I thought it did a fine job setting up why that was a situation that needed to be escaped, but if it didn't work for you, it didn't work.