Toy Story 2 ended on a perfect note with Woody accepting his mortality and resolving to enjoy his time left with Andy as best as he can. The movie had already established their stance on mortality and toys having their owners grow up is supposed to symbolism death. What did Toy Story 3 add to this? So the toys get the easy way out and get adopted by a new owner. Doesn't resolve anything, they will just have to go through the process all over again. All Toy Story 3 was to show the process of things happening, which is really unnecessary if it adds nothing to the story and to the themes.
Seriously, what was with Jessie's line, "It's like Emily all over again"? The point of her character arc in TS2 was learning to accept love again, knowing the pain it would bring. All this thrown out the window with that one stupid line. That was the moment when I realized the writers had no clear idea on what they were doing, going for a bit of cheap drama at the expense of character development from the previous iterations.
It was a complete unnecessary movie. Just marketing. Note that only the "main crew", the one that went to rescue Woody, remained. Also, asshole Woody, who gave a speech to Lotzo, not ending with something like: That child loves you so much that their parents should buy another Lotzo to trick her, she didn't replaced you, but, "she only left you behind!" Plus Boo Peep gone and being just a line in the movie.
I completely get your point.
I, too, felt Toy Story 3 to be entirely unnecessary, treading old ground. I think it was born out of two insignificant reasons: the traditional belief that a trilogy is appropriate and that a single sequel is somehow awkward, and to provide closure to the inevitability that the kid WAS going to grow up eventually.
Really it was telling a story for new audiences with just some tipping of the hat to the old, loyal fans. I mean it's still a kids movie and none of these kids today were alive for the first, so it's whatever.
>What did Toy Story 3 add to this?
This time it also showed Andys point of view of having to give up his toys.
Since the movies were always about the toys it obviously couldn't be 90 minutes of andys having angst over losing his toys and becoming an adult so they added the daycare plot in, but the main point of the third movie was: The toys are not andys anymore
>but the main point of the third movie was: The toys are not andys anymore
They flirted with the possible application of the same idea already in TS2. If you meant the point was 'Andy must give up his toys eventually', then that's probably closer to the truth.
I suppose TS3 IS distinct from TS2 in that it's about kids not lasting forever, rather than toys not lasting forever.
But the script for TS3 also follows the same formula of TS2 to the letter, with the addition of a bunch of really stupid and avoidable continuity errors.
>Doesn't resolve anything, they will just have to go through the process all over again
You missed the entire point of the movie. Eventually they'll get to an owner so autistic that he never grows up.
It works on a meta level. It's completely meant to be a nostalgia trip and goodbye to a franchise that was important to generation Y.
It's not about the characters, it's about the audience.
>This time it also showed Andys point of view of having to give up his toys.
....WHO THE FUCKS CARES!!. He's in goddamn college, most people give that shit up in Jr Goddamn High, that's not endearing that's pathetic
This. It came out right around the time that kids who saw the originals were starting college. It was basically Pixar saying directly to the viewer. "Your childhood is officially over. Fuck off."
>Landfill conveyor-belt scene.
>Slinky is pulled up to the ceiling by a huge magnet.
>Everybody else has to grab something metal, or be shredded.
>On the other side, all the metal is still on the ceiling, but everybody has jumped down.
>Slinky got down too, presumably by magic.
Killed the movie for me when this, and some other stupid shit, was pointed out to me.
>Seriously, what was with Jessie's line, "It's like Emily all over again"? The point of her character arc in TS2 was learning to accept love again, knowing the pain it would bring. All this thrown out the window with that one stupid line.
There's a big difference between accepting that something bad will happen years down the line and having to deal with it while it's actually going down. Are you seriously autistic OP? You sound autistic, focusing way too much on vague themes at the expense of in-character behavior.
3 is a far superior film than 2, I always thought 2 felt pointless besides introducing Jesse and whatnot. By the end everything is just neatly wrapped up with a little bow, but 3 felt so consequential, such a big shift in the story and characters. Plus it made me cry. A lot.
>"It's like Emily all over again"
I don't remember how she delivered this line, but I don't think it could have been that big a problem. Accepting a tragic event in your past and coming to terms with it is not the same as pretending it didn't hurt at the time, and that it wouldn't hurt again.
Yeah I guess you kinda have a point.
Still, I appreciate the toys facing their own mortality. I mean actually facing it, not just the idea of it. Both in being left in the attic and literally at the junkyard. It's easy to talk about love and happiness and appreciation during the good times, but then years pass and you're actually confronted with that terrible fate and it's like, damn.
It's like at the end of a sad movie when the couple realizes they can't be together long, because she's leaving or he's dying, and they learn to cherish the time they have together. Only then he actually does die and then you portray how to deal with it and move on.
Toy Story 2 was a rehash of TS1.
Woody is afraid of being replaced and loosing andy and comes to accept it
Woody is afraid Andy won't need him anymore and learns to accept it
It's about the cycle of death AND rebirth, OP.
Might be too deep for you.
>Woody is afraid of being replaced and loosing andy and comes to accept it
Very interesting point.
Although he doesn't actually accept it, or need to, as his fear of being replaced is mainly just his being paranoid (and is portrayed as such). Woody's arm being torn off in the second film, and his fear of being thrown away or otherwise unwanted, is a much more tangible threat.
Plus, the second film introduces the whole idea of toys being collected and put on exhibition, to last forever, and whether that is more or less desirable than being played with for a limited time but then grown out of.
They're both big themes of the second film, but the latter is definitely given more screen-time and emotional weight. If anything, the arm debacle serves more as a device to bring the movie to that point. So it's expanding on the original ideas, where TS3 just retreads them.