Anyone catch the subtle star wars reference that the pterodactyl guy said?

Man, I missed it!

Also, is there another way to see the other shorts, legally? They're all real fun and I would like to watch them again.

Toy Story That Time Forgot should air again on Sunday, on either ABC or ABC Family

Am I the only one really excited about the fact Mike Mignloa did that Toy Story poster?

Nope! I love that thing!

I thought the special was a lot of fun, but in addition to my usual cynical "Eh, the actual toys won't be nearly as cool as the ones in the show" reaction (going back to the first Toy Story; the old big Buzz Lightyear's 3 colored buttons were all one panel rather than individual buttons activating specific phrases, he had no karate-chop action, and I don't think he even glowed in the dark, and most of the smaller figures had sculpted lines denoting points of articulation, but usually only had 5 or so POA), I was also a little distracted by the fact that the kid got a top-of-the-line video game system, game chair, games, who knows what other gear, on top of getting an entire action figure line, including playsets and many extras of the army-builders, all enough to fill an entire gladiatorial arena, and each of them nearly the size of Buzz & Woody (plus the giant one that could comfortably ingest both Buzz & Woody), with nearly all of them sporting 12+ points of articulation (even the Cleric has a few points on his neck assembly and at least 5 on each arm). Every time I think about that kid's Christmas haul, my estimate of the price goes up. Buzz Lightyear alone generally costs, what, $30? $40? So Reptillus Maximus would cost the same. The Raptorian Guards each probably cost $20 minimum as they'd perhaps be similar in size to a Marvel Legends or Star Wars Black 6" figure. Playsets with electronics, all the other characters, the video game stuff... that's likely $1500 at least, probably over $2000 if you put real-world pricing on 'em and totaled everything up.

The Battlesaurs looked amazing... but I want that to be a real toy line! Not just the low-POA ones I see in the Walmart ads!

Edited December 5, 201410 yr by Venkefedo

OK, I'm just gonna say this: This movie looks friggin hilarious! Can't wait!

I saw the first teaser trailer in theaters. But now that I've seen this, I can't wait!

The premise is interesting, but I have no idea what the plot could be.

I just noticed that the mother has "female" emotions and the father has "male" emotions... but the girl has both. Weird, isn't it?

I just noticed that the mother has "female" emotions and the father has "male" emotions... but the girl has both. Weird, isn't it?

Yeah, I noticed that too... Maybe she's bisexual.

I thought the special was a lot of fun, but in addition to my usual cynical "Eh, the actual toys won't be nearly as cool as the ones in the show" reaction (...), I was also a little distracted by the fact that the kid got a top-of-the-line video game system, game chair, games, who knows what other gear, on top of getting an entire action figure line

Yeah, that did seem quite unrealistic, but this is a cartoon about living toys, so realism is out the window to begin with. Maybe one of his parents works for the toy company that produced the Battlesaurs and got them cheap?

Regarding your first point about how the real-life toys have never been as good as the on-screen ones, I completely agree. I've always been jealous of Andy, Bonnie, and all the other kids living in the Toy Story universe because that world has some AMAZING toy designers! Buzz Lightyear alone is a marvel of engineering with all the different play features he has! Not even the supposedly accurate Toy Story Collection Buzz had the karate chop action or wingspan of the one in the movies/shorts. And the Battlesaurs had an impressive amount of play features too, particularly that motorized cabinet with robotic action figure accessories that apparently allow you to remote control the figures! Some of these features are just too intricate to be feasible for a real toy company to produce.

The Battlesaurs looked amazing... but I want that to be a real toy line! Not just the low-POA ones I see in the Walmart ads!

Indeed. They must have been a lot of fun to design. I've been playing with the idea of MOCing some of them. If only the Dino or Jurassic World dinos were more customizable...

Yeah, I noticed that too... Maybe she's bisexual.

Or, you know, gender-fluid. Because that's a thing. That people don't realize exists. Even though it does. *cough*

Or maybe we're putting too much thought into this. (Though I have to admit, having an actual gender-fluid character in a Pixar movie (or even a Disney one) would be pretty awesome for me. Now that I think of it, there haven't been any Disney or Pixar characters confirmed to be on the genderqueer spectrum, have there?)

Anyway, I should point out that this scene (in rough animation/storyboard form) was what we were shown at D23 last year. Finally everyone else can see why I was so excited about it!

(And on the subject of that post: see, I was obsessed with Let It Go before the rest of the planet.[/hipster] )

Yeah, that did seem quite unrealistic, but this is a cartoon about living toys, so realism is out the window to begin with. Maybe one of his parents works for the toy company that produced the Battlesaurs and got them cheap?

I got this weird vibe that the kid's parents divorced and the one he's living with remarried, resulting in both of them trying to "buy" his affection. Again, probably reading too much into it, but it would sort of make sense (especially if said parent ended up on top in the divorce and/or remarried into money).

Or, you know, gender-fluid.

What?

What?

Urban Dictionary to the rescue! > O

|Tarfful

Thanks! Quite interesting! I haven't heard about that before. The human mind never stops to amaze me.

I think the girl being bisexual or gender-fluid would be way too much for a Disney/Pixar movie. Especially for a little girl.

Those are very complex human behaviors for the audience the movie targets.

I mean, I'm 25 y.o. and I'm not sure myself what being gender-fluid means.

I even doubt it will be explained why she has male/female emotions.

Edited December 22, 201410 yr by Robert8

I even doubt it will be explained why she has male/female emotions.

It's probably just to make the film more accessible to a wider audience, so that Pixar doesn't have to worry about alienating a young boy demographic if they had an all female cast. Which is silly, but is also business and the industry theory that boys won't watch anything with a female lead (which is also silly, but that's another topic entirely). However, if Pixar does go this route with a potential gender fluid, bisexual, or something else in that spectrum for the character. than colour me incredibly surprised. The amount of LGBTQ representation in family entertainment has started to grow slowly yet surely; it's not a whole lot, but it's better than nothing.

I was really interested in Inside Out until the trailer, which I thought was pretty lukewarm. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't as interesting as I hoped it would be, and the humour wasn't that great. Oh well, it's just the trailer so hopefully the movie will be better.

Edited December 22, 201410 yr by Kintobor

So, this article suggests that the untitled Dia de los Muertos movie might be a musical. How do you guys feel about that?

I think it might be interesting to see how Pixar does a musical. On the other hand, we already have Disney to provide us with musicals and Pixar is usually best when they focus on story, characters, and humor, which will be hard to do in a musical. Also, I can't help but wonder if this was their own decision or something mandated by Disney.

Personally, I'm still wondering how they're going top The Book of Life which was also a very good animated film centered around the same holiday and was very musical as well. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Well, I hope this will appease the haters:

Toy Story 4 Will Not Continue Original Trilogy's Story, Will Be A Romantic Comedy

While I'm a bit sad that we probably wont see the original gang return in this, I'm also kinda glad that the ending of the third one wont be ruined by this. It would have seemed very unlike Pixar to ruin one of their own movies, so I'm glad to hear they never intended to do that. But it's also a bit confusing. I mean, if it is hardly connected to the original Toy Story, why call it Toy Story 4 at all? Maybe the title will still change. What do you think?

On the topic of Pixar and LEGO, we created a figure for the Pixar R&D team...: Pixar Minifigure by Minifigures.com, on Flickr

Well, I hope this will appease the haters:

Toy Story 4 Will Not Continue Original Trilogy's Story, Will Be A Romantic Comedy

I would rather want to know why this can't "continue, or at least, relate to the prequels based on that the universe has already included so many different toy brands and we could difinitely see a new story featuring a non-Andy toy, like Lotso or Zurg.

This story title sounds like the prologue of 101 Dalmatians: two toys fell in love while their counterpart owners do, hope it's not the same old song. Also, based on how Pixar writers irritated loyal fans , I'm not sure if not letting the old toys return to play romance is a good thing.

Edited March 6, 20159 yr by Dorayaki

On the topic of Pixar and LEGO, we created a figure for the Pixar R&D team.

I don't see how that adds anything to the discussion, but pretty cool nonetheless.

This story title sounds like the prologue of 101 Dalmatians: two toys fell in love while their counterpart owners do, hope it's not the same old song. Also, based on how Pixar writers irritated loyal fans , I'm not sure if not letting the old toys return to play romance is a good thing.

While it would make for an interesting story element, I doubt that the owners would fall in love, too, since they would probably be kids, unless they are adult toy collectors like Al.

Regarding Bo Peep, would you have rather had her shatter and/or go up in flames in the incinerator scene? Honestly, I'm kinda glad Woody never got together with anyone. The main character doesn't always have to "get the girl".

Besides, since he's always so obsessed with Andy, he might have other interests.

I saw the news about TS4 earlier today... I don't know what to think.

It could be nice if done properly, but I don't know if a Toy Story movie will work without being friendship-themed.

"Romantic comedy" is an overused concept in Disney but Toy Story was different because it was more about friendship....

Only time will tell but it doesn't sound promising to me

I don't see how that adds anything to the discussion, but pretty cool nonetheless.

While it would make for an interesting story element, I doubt that the owners would fall in love, too, since they would probably be kids, unless they are adult toy collectors like Al.

Regarding Bo Peep, would you have rather had her shatter and/or go up in flames in the incinerator scene? Honestly, I'm kinda glad Woody never got together with anyone. The main character doesn't always have to "get the girl".

Besides, since he's always so obsessed with Andy, he might have other interests.

I do kinda agree with the last statement . Just based on that TS3 already added some romantic elements, I don't see the problem with Woody's own love interest. In official statement, the main reason was presumed to be that the writers had no future plan for promoting BP anymore.

I think there are many other ways to deal with BP's delicacy, being a pure damsel in distress is one (passive) way. And honestly, I don't really think we've seen any "feminine but brave" type heroines in Pixar's canon. Violet may count, but her potential is still born by nature.

Back to the topic, as mentioned, TL3 had already included romantic scenes, however letting toys develop romantic or family relationships could be very tricky since these could be easily changed by their oweners decisions. Unless we're considering that the toys have the rights to enjoy their own private life, unlike the real-world case.

Edited March 7, 20159 yr by Dorayaki

And honestly, I don't really think we've seen any "feminine but brave" type heroines in Pixar's canon. Violet may count, but her potential is still born by nature.

Talking about bravery, you seem to have forgotten Merida from Brave?

Talking about bravery, you seem to have forgotten Merida from Brave?

I mean to see sophisticated heroines show brave actions that we usually don't expect her role to do so. In Brave's case, Merida was already described as a tough girl from the beginning despite she needs to maintain a traditional princess image during the story need. And just like you said, Disney Princess's are more well-known for this type of characters.

The upcoming Inside Out would focus more on girl's viewpoints, but since it's idea is very different from traditional action animated films, not so sure if it'll provide us enough references or discussion to compare with other films.

Edited March 7, 20159 yr by Dorayaki

It could be nice if done properly, but I don't know if a Toy Story movie will work without being friendship-themed.

Well, we do already have an animated movie about friendship coming out that year. Although I do agree that TS was unique in how it was more about friendship, I think TS4 might work since it wont really be connected to the first three.

Just based on that TS3 already added some romantic elements, I don't see the problem with Woody's own love interest. In official statement, the main reason was presumed to be that the writers had no future plan for promoting BP anymore.

Where was this official statement? The wiki page you linked to only said that they didn't include her because it wouldn't make sense as part of the story which makes sense to me.

Back to the topic, as mentioned, TL3 had already included romantic scenes, however letting toys develop romantic or family relationships could be very tricky since these could be easily changed by their owners decisions. Unless we're considering that the toys have the rights to enjoy their own private life, unlike the real-world case.

I think it's pretty clear that TS is not like TLM where the toys' relationships are just what their owner wants them to be. Buzz and Jessie's relationship and Ken and Barbie's romance developed outside of playtime (although in the case of the latter couple one could argue they were predestined to be together by Mattel). So the toys' relationships are definitely independent from what their owners pretend them to be.

Where was this official statement? The wiki page you linked to only said that they didn't include her because it wouldn't make sense as part of the story which makes sense to me.

I think it's pretty clear that TS is not like TLM where the toys' relationships are just what their owner wants them to be. Buzz and Jessie's relationship and Ken and Barbie's romance developed outside of playtime (although in the case of the latter couple one could argue they were predestined to be together by Mattel). So the toys' relationships are definitely independent from what their owners pretend them to be.

Yes, almost like that, as I remembered. It's my personal thought, but I never feel like it's reasonable.

My intention was to say that suppose that a singe toy is was appointed to be a gift to another owner, its relationship with other toys could be unable to keep going. Woody's accidents in the trilogy were mostly unintentional so think so far this series hasn't talked about this directly.

The way I could think about is get out of control from human so there is no more "playtime" thing, but I'm not sure if this existed in the rule of TS toys. Like Woody and Andy's case, toys would care their owners' heart more than their toys' relationships. He would like to stay with Andy even if he has to seperate from Buzz and the others. (yeah... it does make sense why BP's existence would be strange again )

Edited March 8, 20159 yr by Dorayaki

New trailer for Inside Out:

Looks a lot better than the first trailer, imo. Definitely interested in how it will turn out in the end.

Edited March 17, 20159 yr by The Deleter

New trailer for Inside Out:

Looks a lot better than the first trailer, imo. Definitely interested in how it will turn out in the end.

I agree. First trailer wasn't very good. This one is promising.