Anonymous #3 8w

Yeah exactly, the original point of the movies was the whole 90s-2000s aesthetic. It doesn’t work beyond that

49

Anonymous #4 8w

Yeah, 4.

7

Anonymous #4 8w

4 made no sense. In 3 they had the big ending an finished it all and then they decided it fuck that up for money not for content

5

Anonymous #5 8w

Most movies are made for money bruh, if 2 didn’t make money then 3 would never have gotten made. At least they take the time and energy to make a decent movie instead of phoning it in. 4 isnt an amazing movie but its still good

5

Anonymous #3 8w

i personally loved toy story 4. i can understand why people didn’t find it necessary, but i like that it gives woody some closure, less as a toy, and more as his own person

7

Anonymous #4 8w

Yeah but it was clearly just pumped out with no other thought in mind

2

Anonymous #5 8w

Dont make me defend the billion dollar company man, there was clearly thought and effort put into Toy Story 4 and it came out almost ten years after 3. It was not “Pumped out”

-1

Anonymous #4 8w

Babes it was not in production for those 10 years don’t act like it. It came out 10 years later because after all that time they said “wait let’s just make another sequel! That’ll make cash” then pumped it out

4

Anonymous #5 8w

Exactly my point from before, of course they knew it was gonna make money thats why they made it lmao. But the fact it took them longer means they didn’t “pump it out” its obv not as good as the others but its not bad just cuz it exists

1

Anonymous #4 8w

It was far worse than the others. They only thought of money and threw out plot to make it easier and cheaper

4

Anonymous #5 8w

I personally feel as if the movie justifies its own existence, to me theres enough there to grab onto. It was obviously green lit because they knew they’d make a billion dollars but I don’t think it makes the film bad

3

i wouldn’t say it is “wrong.” i’m sorry you don’t like it, but i’m glad it exists. i like 3’s ending more as a penultimate installment and 4’s as a finale. of course, that makes me a bit more cynical about toy story 5 lol

1

Anonymous OP 8w

abysmal take

0

when op said that the 90s-2000s aesthetic is what makes the franchise

1

i dont agree on the animation part but ur second comment actually makes a lot of sense ur smarter than me

1

Anonymous #4 8w

Agreed! And I think the premise for 5 is going to be very timely. I don’t remember four much but their such beloved characters and if creatives think they have more to say (which for 5 I’d really think is true with the tablet addition) then why not. Kids will watch it and parents trust the franchise enough to bring them to see it

5

the trilogy is all about the importance of ownership, while toy story 4 primarily concerns itself with the horrors of symbiotic existence and personal value. the trilogy is all about the rules of being a toy, but toy story 4 offers an epilogue that reassures that those rules are not essential just because you’re a toy. i do think a good chunk of the middle is the usual recycled toy story/pixar formula, but that ending just means so much to me.

4

sorry, i guess i’m not describing it the best; i just woke up lol. yeah though, i’m just saying toy story 4 is important to me because it doesn’t completely disregard those rules, but stresses that you probably shouldn’t abide by that coda if it doesn’t work for you.

1

it works better as a sendoff because i like it. it’s subjective.

4

Anonymous #6 7w

The toys aren’t supposed to be their own persons. They’re supposed to be defined by their relationship with their owners. They’re not supposed to be these strong independent women that don’t need no kid, that’s ridiculous.

0

Anonymous #10 7w

Can you ask them to stop making mediocre ass rides for it?

-1

Anonymous #13 7w

KEEP SLINKY DOG DASH’S NAME OUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH

9

Anonymous #13 7w

so you think the toys should be forced to live within those restraints? they can’t just live private lives? they have to have an owner and be defined by their dynamics with their owner and whatever other toys they own?

6

Anonymous #6 7w

Correct. Making them nothing more than tiny people misses the point. They’re not people, they’re toys. Wanting them to have independent lives is like wanting dogs to have independent lives. Dogs don’t want to be independent of humans and they’re not better off when they are. Same with the toys in Toy Story until 4 ruined it.

0

Anonymous #13 7w

no it’s not? the toys in toy story aren’t dogs; they’re fully conscious beings with a level of self-awareness, abstract reasoning, and communication that is much closer to human sentience than dog sentience. whatever the case, i’m sorry the movie ruined the franchise for you. i love the movie, and especially its final moments, but i feel for you. i definitely know how it feels to feel betrayed by a sequel all too well.

6

Anonymous #6 7w

I never said they were dogs, I said they were LIKE dogs. All you’ve done is point out differences between them and dogs as if they invalidate the similarities. Dogs were bred to need humans. Toys were manufactured to need humans. If you want to deny this, then what you’re saying is that every toy in the Toy Story universe just happens to have some weird codependency for humans they all have to get over, which is incredibly lame, much worse than them being just made for humans.

0

Anonymous #13 7w

at no point did i say that you said the toys are equivalent to dogs. this is such a non-issue and you’re putting words in my mouth over it. i like the movie. the ending means a lot to me. you don’t like the movie or it’s ending. you and i aren’t going to find common ground here, so let’s not waste our time with this any longer.

1

Anonymous #6 7w

okay, upon looking at my earlier post, i can see how it looks like i’m accusing you of saying the toys equivalent to dogs. sorry for that misunderstanding

1