#toy story analysis

[dandymaximilian]

I feel like a fundamental quality of stuffed toys in the Toy Story universe is that their purpose isn't meant to be played with, but to be cuddled with. Being shown affection all around seen as a big honour for a toy, but usually kids only bring their stuffed animals to bed. (Andy was just a unusual child.)

Like, the bond between toys and their "kid" usually is strengthened within groups, within a hierarchy based on their roles in imagined play, and how much the toy is played with in general. Woody was Andy's favourite, and he was the hero. Buzz became his new favourite, and he was also a hero. Thus, creating a conflict within the hierarchy.

This is all thrown out of the window with stuffed toys.

Sure, they can be used in imagined play, but their purpose isn't to be played with. Instead, it's to provide comfort to their "kid." Therefore, the bond between a stuffed toy and their owner surpasses even the most treasured toy in the collection, because they are there for their "kid" when they are at their most vulnerable.

I think this is what is misunderstood about Lotto's character. As the audience see in Woody and Stinky Pete, lacking a purpose is enough to drive a toy mad. It's as if their worse qualities are brought out, bringing about a desperation that drives them to do terrible deeds, just so they get the attention they were literally created for.

For Woody, he needs to be played with. Plain and simple. Yet, he also needs to be a hero and a leader, because this was his role in Woody's Roundup, ingrained in his very fabric of being.

For Stinky Pete, any positive attention will do, as long as he is perceived. He was the comic relief in Woody Roundup. He was created with the purpose of making people smile and laugh. So being abandoned on the shelf, ignored, was his worse nightmare, the epitome of hell itself.

(His ending of becoming an art piece for a child was actually his best possible fate. Sure, he had an initial bad reaction to this, but in becoming a silly artsy toy, he will ultimately fufill his role as comic relief in playtime. He didn't really want to hurt the main cast at the end of the day, he just needed to be loved, so he faced no real karma.)

Lotso, on the other hand, needs to be a child's entire world. He needs to be snuggled with, he needs to be the listener, and the pacifier. He even smells like strawberries, just so he can comfort his owner. Heck, his name is even Lots-o'-Huggin' Bear!

The guy wasn't meant for group play, nor was he meant to have multiple owners. He was fully independent, and therefore, self centered by nature.

In the scene where Lotso was replaced with an identical, he basically had an existential crisis. He becomes the only member of the entire series who truly understands how unfair and wrong their existence truly is. His heart was crushed, and it never came back after that.

In finding out that he is fundamentally no different to his owner than any other lotso, something broke within his psyche.

Toys are meaningless to children at the end of the day. They are simply a future piece of trash, bound by a system designed by oppressive creatures toys can't help but crave the attention of. He even says the latter to the main cast, and I genuinely think that he believes it.

"I didn't throw you away; your kid did! Ain't one kid ever love a toy really! Chew on that when you're at the dump!"

"This is what happens when you DUMMIES TRY TO THINK! WE'RE ALL JUST TRASH WAITIN' TO BE THROWN AWAY! THAT'S ALL A TOY IS!"

So, Lotso took matters in to his own hands to gain some sense of control in his life.

He designated any threats to the room with destructive children, or had the toys join him. He created an oppressive environment within the daycare, and created a superficial hierarchy to put himself on top. A horrible thing to do, but it's what he felt was necessary so that he can fulfill his purpose without risk of being replaced again.

It's notable that none of the toys he picked for his gang feature another stuffed toy. I imagine stuffed toys were the first to be be sent to the dumpster, unless they aren't popular amongst the children, perhaps.

I don't think Lotso did this to "spite" any toy, despite what the flashback might suggest. His line, "If I can't have (Daisy), no one can," stems from his insecurity of being obsolete. His real karma comes not from being a foil to Woody, like Stinky Pete was, but in abandoning the main cast in the dump out of petty revenge.

I think Lotto's terrible fate is perfect. He was willing to let the main cast die in the incinerator, so he faced a punishment worse than death as a result. Trapped on a dump truck, surrounded by and treated like trash, next to toys, never to fufill his purpose. And even if he escaped, no child would ever love a trash embedded toy.

[speakofthedebbie]

notice how lucis snake opened its eyes when it formed his mock halo.

notice how it changed positions on his hat after with its eyes still open and returned to its dormant state after their magical costume change

its alive im telling you

[sweetmariihs2]

Canon-based headcanon: Buzz Lightyear (the character since the cartoon/movie and then the toy as consequence) has a type: readhead girls

Cuz there's no way. Every single character this man was ever attracted by was a ginger. Space Ranger Buzz probably has this type and then all other Buzz toys also do, since we know that personality traits don't go away after the characters aknowledge that they're toys. Probably types also don't.

Toy Story Buzz - Jessie

Toy Story 3 demo Buzz - Jessie (his memory was erased)

Toy Story 3 spanish Buzz - Jessie (his memory was erased again)

Small fry Buzz (literally other toy) - Jessie

Buzz Lightyear of Star Command - Ozma Furbanna

Toy Story Buzz FROM THE COMMERCIAL - EVEN THE ARIEL ANIMATRONIC????

We don't have any readheads in the Lightyear movie because the writers didn't wanted him to have a love interest lmao (it's a joke, i don't actually know why)

[theblueprincess590]

The Heart of a Toy-An Analysis of KH3

Ever since finishing Kingdom Hearts 2 Nomura has been insistent on including Toy story in Kingdom hearts 3 even going as far as to say in an interview with Jen Simpkins from GameRader’s Edge Magazine, “After we were done with Kingdom Hearts II and were starting to consider III, we started talks with Disney, I remember saying, ‘If we can’t use Pixar, then we can’t have a third game.’ It’s that important to the game series,” (Nomura). And it’s clear to see why Nomura put so much importance on Toy Story once you realize how much its story connects to and reinforces the themes and mythos of Kingdom Hearts.

Toy Box is a magical world. While it appears to be the same of our own it holds a great secret, Toys are alive. When a child looks away a Toy springs to life revealing a heart of their very own, but that begs the question, how does a toy possess a heart? In Kingdom Hearts 3 we learn the answer. A toy is given a heart by the love of children. When a child looks upon a toy they do not see a cheap piece of plastic but instead they see a friend with a heart of its own to be loved and cherished. And it is that belief which truly gives the toys a heart. This is what Woody means when he says the Toys within Galaxy Toys have yet to figure it out. That they have yet to realize the love of a child and thus are empty shells without a heart of their own.

As Young Xehanort himself points out this draws heavily parallels between the toys and Nobodies, both incomplete creatures searching for their missing Half, but this parallel isn't just there to establish why the heartless can possess the empty toys. The point of this Parallel is to answer a question that has haunted the narrative of Kingdom Hearts since the events of KH2, Why does Roxas have a heart?

Roxas, just like his somebody, is an anomaly in the world of Kingdom Hearts. He is a nobody that bears neither the face nor the memories of his original self. He is more shallow than any other nobody, less a body without a heart and more a broken shell. Yet not only was Roxas the first nobody to grow a heart but said heart was his alone. Throughout the events of Days Roxas grows from a barely living husk of a man to one who definitely proclaims his own existence and personhood. And this is thanks to the bonds forged in his first year. Just like how a Toy is given a heart through the eyes of a child Roxas was given a heart by those that were drawn to him. From those he shared ice cream with under the twilight sky, the trio he befriended ever so slightly on a lazy afternoon, the fairy tale heroes his somebody cherished, and even the forgotten longing of brothership from the King of Nothing Roxas began to be shaped by those around him. His soul is learning the rules of the world, the nature of a heart, the simple joys of friendship, the sting of betrayal, and the heartbreak of goodbyes. As Roxas’s newborn heart grew with every day he too gained the ability to see the hearts of others whether it be in the Flurry of Dancing Flames whose false smile became true or the Puppet who became a Real Girl. But perhaps the final proof of Roxas' heart lies with his own “Andy”. Sora at first refused to see his “Woody”, whether it be or out of ignorance or prejudice Sora denied Roxas existence, refusing to heed the clues of the other half or feel his presence in his heart. That is until Roxas forced Sora to acknowledge him. Within the very core of his heart Sora came face to face with Roxas and was forced to acknowledge their connection through the Keyblades in order to win the fight. With Roxas’s tragedy laid before him Sora is at last ready to accept the truth and later on in the realm of sleep acknowledge not only Roxas’s existence but that he has a heart of his own. Just like how Andy gave woody and Buzz hearts by writing his name on them, Sora gives his Nobody a heart by acknowledging him as his own person.

While Toy Box Provides many answers it also raises a new question. If A toy gets its heart from a child’s love what happens when a toy becomes worlds apart from its kid? This question plaques Buzz throughout the events of Toy Box. With every possessed toy they defeat Buzz sees himself in them more and more. He fears that as he continues to drift away from Andy he too will lose his heart and become just another lifeless puppet . Ironically enough it is this very fear of separation that allows the darkness to grow inside Buzz making him another weapon for the heartless. In contrast to Buzz Woody is able to resist the pull of darkness. Woody has already dealt with the fear of separation first through his anxiety over being replaced by Buzz as Andy's favorite toy and second when he became paranoid over the idea of Andy abandoning if he broke. Both events taught Woody something important that yes his time with Andy is not permanent, that someday they will part but that doesn't mean their bond will ever end. Thanks to the events of Toy story 1 and 2 Woody has the resolve to face the hardships of Young Xehanort’s trials and keep his faith in Andy. And this is why Woody is the one to challenge Young Xehanort.

ToyBox is ultimately an encapsulation of the themes of Kingdom Hearts. This can be seen through the many parallels between The World and KH as a series. We’ve already pointed out the connection between the toys and Nobodies but what about how the world is split in two just like in dream drop Distance. Or how about the toy's separation from Andy mirrors Sora’s separation from Riku and Kairi in KH1 with Woody managing to resist the pull to darkness and put his faith in the light because he knows the true strength of a heart thanks to his connections. And lets not forget Buzz’s possession calling back to Riku and Terra’s fall to darkness. Even Buzz’s salvation continues to draw parallels between him and Riku with how they are both saved from the darkness by their friends never giving up on them. Yes Toy Box is a world built up from the ground to parallel the events of Kingdom Hearts, but why is that? Why out of all the other worlds in KH3 was this one chosen to hold a mirror directly to Sora’s journey? Well that's simple because the story of Toy Story is at its core a story about friendship, about how bonds can last forever even if the time spent together is finite.

There is another purpose however for Why Toy Box is set up this way. Toy Box’s main role in the overall narrative of Kingdom Hearts 3 is to be a test trial for his destined clash with Master Xehanort. The main antagonist of Toy Box is Young Xehanort who split the world in two and took the toys away from Andy in order to conduct an experiment. Said experiment was to see whether or not a toy is not only capable of having a heart but if they can carry darkness. This is all done as part of the True Organization's goal to achieve their final vessel but as the world’s story progresses it becomes Clear that Young Xehanort has his own reasons for doing all this. Young Xehnaort wishes to use this experiment to validate himself. Young Xehanort is the earliest version of Xehanort and thus represents his cynical beliefs at their most immature. He believes that not only is darkness the heart’s true nature but that strength comes from isolation. That it is not bonds and connections that make a heart strong but instead the never ending darkness that is born from fighting alone. It is a fundamentally childish ideal not born from understanding but instead self serving cynicism. And that is why Young Xehnort was chosen to be the villain of this world as his childish ideals serve as the perfect test run for Sora, allowing him to confront a weaker version of Xehnort’s ideals and see just how far his own ideals can stand up against him. Ultimately Sora manages to pass the test but not without some help. In the End Woody is the one to ultimately confront Young Xehanort and Save Buzz. Using his maturity Woody is able to shut down Young Xehanort’s childish worldview and break the darkness imprisoning Buzz. So While Sora is victorious in the end it does beg the question, Is Sora truly ready to confront Master Xehanort?

Source

https://www.kh13.com/news/edge-magazine-interviews-tetsuya-nomura-and-tai-yasue-on-pixar-in-kingdom-hearts-iii-the-switch-to-unreal-engine-4-and-more-r2799/

[artist-issues]

I saw you answer an ask on Toy Story, which was super interesting, and also say:

"It’s an incredibly good movie series. Not Toy Story 4. But the rest of the series."

I didn't actually see Toy Story 4 because I felt the first three tied the story up very well, and we got a really good arc through those first three. It just felt unnecessary, and what I did see from it didn't make me eager to go out and watch it.

Could you expand on where you think Toy Story 4 goes wrong? If the other three convey selflessness, living and finding purpose, then what does that Toy Story 4 try to convey? Does it contradict the others?

I think Toy Story 4 goes wrong by trying to make Woody selfish. I mean, you could say that he isn't selfish to leave Bonnie and his friends and embrace the "Lost Toy" lifestyle. You could say "he just went from taking care of one kid who didn't really need him anymore to taking care of every lost kid who could need him, and finding lost toys homes. That's what was happening with the lost little girl at the end!"

Okay, you could say all that, but you'd be wrong, because 1) that is not what was happening at the end. And 2) even if it were, that is not a selfless ending for Woody. Furthermore 3) it undoes all his character development and progression from the first three.

You didn't see the fourth movie, right? So let me break it down a little.

Woody's character progression goes like this:

1: Obsessed with being The Most Important Toy to Andy --> Remembering that what's great about being a toy is being there for Andy when he needs them, regardless of how often or special that is.

2: Fine with no longer being The Most Important Toy to Andy, but considering leaving because Andy will eventually not need him, ever --> Realizing that being there means being there, even if it's just to watch and love from a distance, instead of protecting yourself to no end.

3. Committed to Being There even if he's not needed --> But this includes being there for his friends, even after they choose to abandon him and the mission. (It's important to note that Woody only offers ((by getting in the box to Bonnie's)) to leave Andy if Andy chooses to give him to a kid who needs him more.)

The whole idea is that Woody belongs to someone. He's not his own. He's a toy. Toys belong to their kid; they don't have the right to just leave. If they did, they'd be bad toys. Because you never know how much a kid will be heartbroken, or whether or not they might need you down the road. Every movie before Toy Story 4 is Woody doubting that, but then coming back to it. That's why in Toy Story 3, when everyone is in Andy's Room sad because he won't play with them and he's about to leave, Woody is totally onboard with staying in the Attic for years—because maybe they'll get to be played with by Andy's kids. He's loyal, and selfless, because he knows he's not his own. He's willing to go to Bonnie only because it'll mean staying with his friends where they're needed; but ONLY if ANDY willingly gives them up.

Enter Toy Story 4.

Woody's having a hard time adjusting to Bonnie's Room because 1) he doesn't get played with, his role in the games is taken by Jessie. So he's right back where he was in the first movie, stuck in a closet watching another toy get played with. And 2) Dolly is the leader of the room, so he's not even really allowed to be helpful to his friends during their off hours, because she's got that covered. So he feels directionless.

UNTIL Bonnie goes to school for the first time. She's not allowed to bring toys. Dolly is fine with this but Woody goes anyway because he's sure Bonnie will need something.

And in this beautiful first portion of character development for Woody, he does not sneak out of the backpack and get Bonnie to gain comfort from him, her one and only toy, at daycare. Even though he totally could've. He could've seized his moment in her heart. But he didn't. Because he already learned that lesson in Toy Story 1-3: he doesn't need to be everything to the kid. He just needs to do what's best for the kid, and to do that, he has to be there.

So instead he throws her a bunch of craft supplies to play with when nobody sits with her. She gets distracted by making Forky, a toy made from a spork and some pipe cleaner.

Bonnie is, from that moment on and throughout the rest of the movie, without exception, OBSESSED with Forky. There is no other toy in her mind. But Forky is a lot like Buzz was in the first movie after learning he's a toy: he doesn't understand what's so great about that, and would rather go back to being trash. He keeps trying to jump in garbage cans while Bonnie's family takes a road trip. And for some inexplicable reason, none of the other toys really care about this. But Woody, knowing what Bonnie needs, basically posts a 24-hour suicide watch on Forky and keeps pulling him back over to Bonnie, out of the trash.

The problem is, Woody isn't that excited about this. He is just doggedly resigned to it as his duty. He keeps rescuing Forky and getting no love in return; Buzz sort of tries to be supportive and offer to help, but nobody else seems to care about Bonnie and Forky, and Woody thinks this is his only way to be useful so he really doesn't want their help.

Which is stupid. Because if he were really committed to being selfless and loving Bonnie, he'd let everyone help. Because the point isn't "how will I feel if I fail to do this on my own? What's my purpose?" That's selfish. It's "you-focused." The point should be "How can we get this job done best for Bonnie?" with no consideration of "self." That would be selfless, which is the point of Toy Story movies.

Anyway. I'll speed up.

Basically by Act 2 Forky comes to understand (thanks to Woody) how great it is to be a toy. But no sooner does he want to go back to Bonnie (on the road trip) than Woody suddenly gets distracted. His whole life's mission of doing what's good for his kid is derailed because he finds Bo Peep again. Meanwhile, Forky is captured by a villainous antique doll with no voice box, who is fixated on being bought by a little girl and thinks that if she had Woody's voice box her dreams would come true.

Bo Peep has been living as a Lost Toy. Basically the movie sets this up as if Lost Toys take care of each other, patching up injuries and having fun together even when no kids are around: they're just doing the same sort of thing that the reformed toys at Sunnyside Daycare do. But in a playground/fairground setting.

Bo Peep doesn't want to be with one kid. She wants to keep doing this more selfish lifestyle, where she can be played with whenever she wants, help toys whenever she wants, and avoid the heartbreak of a kid abandoning her.

Understandable.

But thats the opposite of everything Woody's learned in the last three (and a half) movies. He could've made the decision Bo Peep is making at any point in Andy's childhood. But he's already learned that being there means Being There, regardless of what the kid can do for you.

I mean, I hate to point it out, because I know people will try to make it an allegory for "staying in an abusive situation," even though that's NOT what I'm saying, but seriously—think back to Sid's House in the very first movie. They don't lead all the broken toys to a life of freedom. They force Sid to be a better kid, but the broken toys stay there. Because they're Sid's Toys.

Contrast that with the "hardship" Bo Peep has been through...Bo Peep just...got pawned off. She didn't have body parts removed and sewn onto other toys. She didn't get strapped to a firework or melted down. But she's treated like this revolutionary, independent, strong-woman toy who's introducing this great concept of freedom to Woody.

That's all wrong for Woody. And for most of the movie, he resists it, so that's good.

But what it comes down to, at the end, is Woody deciding to choose what he wants over his ideals of selflessness and loyalty. He wants to stay with Bo Peep (because romance) and he wants to be needed. Lost Kids and Toys "need" him more than Bonnie.

To be fair, they try to build up to this in a way that makes sense for his character. They try really hard, they do. They show that Woody is still selfless when it comes to the happiness of kids and toys; he willingly gives up his voice box so that Forky can go back to Bonnie, and the doll villainess can have a shot at her dream. They show that he's ready to support that villainess and help her find a kid she could be true to even after the kid she wanted rejects her. They show that he really was going to leave Bo, even at the very end, even though he didn't want to—and it takes Buzz insisting that Bonnie will "be all right" without him for Woody to give it all up.

They do try.

But that's the thing. The only way they could set up Woody's decision to abandon his friends and his kid for life as a Lost Toy was by centering it around this idea of "where I'm needed."

But 1) "where I'm needed" is too self-focused for Woody, because of all the reasons in Toy Story 2 and 1, and 2) you can't have it both ways. You can't say Woody's all about "where he can be of service best" and all about "what he wants." Those two focuses contradict one another, in Woody's case.

That's what it boils down to. They took the characters that are literally made to say, "live your life for others, love regardless of whether or not you're loved back," and they try to say, "nooo, actually, that's toxic, you have to do what you want, what feels most fulfilling to you, self-care, etc." And they do their best to shoehorn Woody into that by saying "what he's most fulfilled by is being needed."

That's all wrong for Toy Story. Woody developed away from making all his decisions based on where he's "needed" in Toy Story 2. Woody expressed loyalty to both Andy and his friends perfectly in Toy Story 3 by putting himself in Bonnie's box and letting Andy decide, his owner decide, where he should be.

And then Toy Story 4 comes along and says, "No, Woody gets to decide, and he decides where he's needed, and he's fine with separating from not only his kid, but his friends."

This post is already too long but also, if you try to spin it so Woody's still in-character and selfless by helping Lost Toys find kids, it starts to make no sense. If the Lost Toy lifestyle is so great, because you can pick up playtime with kids and put it back down whenever you feel like it—and you should, because kids will always get older and throw you out—why should Woody ever help Lost Toys find a kid to go home with? Why wouldn't he say, like Bo, "hey that's nice but eventually they'll grow up, it's a dead-end, just stay out in this playground with us. That's what's best for you. Be a Lost Toy like us."

The only possible answer to that question, which IS supposedly Woody's fulfilling ending, is, "Because maybe some toys just 'want' to go home with one kid. And if they do, they should be allowed to do what they want. And Woody can help them, because helping them is what he wants."

Allll back to "what YOU want" which is the opposite of being a toy. Anyway. The horse is dead, I'll quit beating it.

[the-mercurial-star-o-vesper]

I'll believe Chara Undertale is evil, when you can convince me that Woody Toy Story is evil.

I'm gonna give you something that's gonna sound like craic.

They're the exact same archetype, same kind of character; a character who loves deeply and feels deeply, who bonds / gets attached.

( Chara with the Dreemurrs / Woody and Andy )

Which conflicts with their other aspect as the highly-responsible, one who will go to any lengths. Lots of Determination, you could say.

( Woody's many death-defying stealthy adventures / Chara's plan with Asriel about dying to give him their human soul )

Who has a high-understanding of those around them, and thrives on the relationships they have and maintain.

( Chara help Frisk in the Pacifist and Neutral routes and the understanding of the monsters they encounter / Woody and the rest of the Toys, such as Buzz )

See a Need, Fill a Need, is this archetype's entire goal, with the conflict being, mistaking reactive desires for needs or bending a reactive desire to think its a need.

( Chara's beef with humans with the monster's need for a human soul / Woody's beef with Buzz in the first film as a means to maintain his relationship with Andy and others. )

Once they realize they've messed up, if not careful, this archetype may have a truly disproportionate response to themselves, giving a awful mixture of their high-responsibility with their high-passions... but neglecting self understanding, under the belief it's more just to others instead.

This archetype is far too prone at costing themselves, in exchange for others.

( Woody's claims that he deserves to be strapped to a rocket / Chara's death by Buttercups over Asgore's poisoning )

But their greatest strength is their capacity to combine high-responsibility, with high-passions, and high-understanding, to effectively become someone who will go to any lengths for you and themselves.

On the surface, its too easy to see this character as a Villain, and indeed, they can get up to some antagonistic stuff...

But the difference between villain and antagonist, is that a villain ignores the steps to improve and ignores the lesson and still inflicts suffering, but an antagonist is a role played, not a consistent behavior--you can be perfectly nice, and still get in the way of the hero.

But these characters, this archetype, learns from their antagonism, and strives to do better and be better, though they may run into new situations.

In Chara's case, we see the entire No Mercy Route. Compare that to the various neutral routes... It takes an Absolute Unstoppable Force, to truly break this archetype, because if its not unstoppable, then they are immovable.

This is a character who doesn't break until the last straw... and then probably more straws we didn't notice.

ADDENDUM:

Chara and Woody likes dogs. Just throwing that out there.

There is in fact, a related and named Archetype, for this kind of character: And that's the "Lover"; one is empowered by passion and the relationships they form... Prolly should get a better name for the new modern, lest someone get the wrong idea. I'm not gonna call mine the "lover". Carl Jung can have his schtick, and I'll have mine.

Huh, y'know, Woody on a No Mercy Route Toy Story (If you can translate that idea...) would be Terrifying. Chucky the Doll wishes he was a hypothetical no-mercy Woody.

Not gonna lie, was not expecting to see such comparisons between Pixar's first major CGI and a 2D 8bit game character. BUT HERE WE ARE, PROVING THAT ALL IDEAS ARE RELATIVE NO MATTER THE MEDIUM.

[quantomeno]

The Gilded 7 Casino

This song is clearly influenced by Take 5. Or at least I want to think it is. I discussed time signatures in my previous song analysis, but like I said then the most common time signature is 4 4 (it's even called common time). It's 4 crotchet beats per bar. If you can dance the Macarena to it, it's 4 4 time. If you can dance a waltz to it, it's 3 4 time. Take 5 uses a very unusual time signature: 5 4 (5 beats per bar). Take 5 also always makes me think of casinos, even before I played this game.

Now, the Gilded 7 Casino also has a relatively uncommon time signature, but it sadly hasn't got the number 7 in it. This felt like a massive missed opportunity but it would have also been quite odd to write so I can accept it.

Anyway, to the actual analysis: the song is written in 6 8 time. Note that both numbers are different from usual. The unit beat is different: instead of a crotchet (quarter note) it's a quaver (eighth note). This is known as compound time. It's the time signature used for songs such as Greensleeves or INXS' Never Tear Us Apart.

It is my favourite time signature.

A waltz has the accent repeating every three beats (1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 for an example see this video at 1:22), and so does 6 8 (but it's more like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). You have to imagine it like two beats played per bar, and those two beats are split into thirds.

The easiest way is to say 'coventry' two times a bar.

Take a listen. Note that the tempo is quite slow relative to each 'coventry' (it's almost one coventry a second, I think it's 48 a minute), but because it's three little beats per each two big ones, it feels quite fast.

(Note that I've seen people write sheet music for it using 3 4 time. I think this wrong, but if you change the tempo the two time signatures are virtually indistinguishable, so who knows.)

So, why 6 8 (or 3 4 even)? What does this bring?

Let's take a step back and look at the rest of the song first.

It's rich. The piano feels weighty, with nice, heavy chords punctuated by deep, low notes which anchor us to the beat. You have that warm, arco violin paired with that husky-voiced saxophone. We have that constant heartbeat of the piano along with a walking bass in the back that fills out the sound nicely. It is a thick texture that is veritably thrumming with life, yet... there is still something not quite wholesome about it, isn't there?

My sources tell me it is written in D minor. This accounts for part of the discomfort it engenders. The minor key brings a sinister atmosphere to the piece; you feel like something bad is happening, if not evil than at least something dodgy. Exactly how it feels to be in a casino, surrounded by all the money being thrown around and the shady dealings going on. The casino is a Family-run business after all.

(D minor to me is also an elegant and rich key, that evokes deep purples with touches of crimson. It's because of the D being the tonic. It just is OK.)

The dynamics are decidedly loud, again creating a bustling atmosphere. I feel it is pertinent to note here that the first time we hear this song (correct me if I'm wrong but I distinctly noticed this last time I played) is during the slot machine gun scene. Unless you voluntarily choose to go back to the casino afterwards, this cutscene is the only time you'll hear the song. This piece is designed to evoke a sense of chaos and thrill.

And now, we reach the rhythm.

6 8 time. It evokes a waltz or a ballroom dance, which aids in building that elegant, luxurious vibe, but, being 6 8, it is notably quicker than a normal waltz would be. It gives the piece a briskness, but since each fundamental beat (the 1 and the 4 I pointed out earlier) is quite slow, it doesn't lose that languid, almost bloated feeling.

Then we have the violin and sax. The violin tends to jump between playing short, detached, strongly accented notes (e.g. at 0:52) and longer, smooth notes, but never really losing any intensity (e.g. 0:41). The saxophone is much the same (listen from 1:20 to 1:43). Again we have this contrast between the stateliness, the weighty feeling of wealth, and the buzz of the casino. It's a bit like the ostentatiousness of the nouveau-riche compared to old money: the casino has cash and it's showing it off. The elegance here is all bought and as a result it ends up feeling tawdry. It also helps with the action-packed scene that it features in. This is further evoked by the sax's tendency to add ornamentation to its longer notes: little flitterings of notes at the start of the drawn-out ones. It feels like it's trying to impress you.

Also, big shout out to the percussion: that cymbal crash really brings out the bam! and could be a bit of a play on the sound of coins falling. The drum beat enters quite late, at the same time as the sax. It doesn't quite work to keep the beat, however, if anything it seems to land on off beats, opposing the regularity and pacing of the piano. Once again, we have a song that brings out unease but also bewilderment and hustle and bustle. The song feels fun, it just has a dark undercurrent.

Exactly how the casino should feel.

It is not Layton-esque, and it highlights how future London has become a seedy city ruled by criminals. Recall that Layton, a man of simple elegance and refinement, who appreciates the craftmanship of a simple lacquered stool, is now (supposedly) the owner of this den of iniquity.

It evokes all the things Layton patently isn't and in doing so encourages a sense of revulsion that things could become so bad. The whole casino makes me feel sad, because it stands opposed to everything Layton believes in, and the thought he has changed so completely he would forgo those values hurts.

[idiosyncraticrednebula]

Toy Story 4 went from an installment I mildly tolerated to a movie I absolutely despise now, specially thanks to an excellent in-depth analysis that broke down why this movie doesn't work on a fundamental level both as a movie and as a sequel, but even more as a sequel. Toy Story has been a metaphor for parental figures since it came in November of 1995, which, if applied to real life, would be like a father leaving his whole family behind for a piece of ass. Woody has been the patriarch (by patriarch, I mean the male head figure of a household, not the institution of patriarchy or whatever bullshit y'all have come up with) in some sense, and taking that subtext into consideration, boy does he really, REALLY look like a terrible person. It's been nearly 5 years, and the movie is still a dumpster fire and a massive insult to a franchise as groundbreaking and memorable as Toy Story. Also, I find it funny that people TRASH Ariel for leaving everything for a man, but yet nobody outside of Toy Story fans lambast Woody for leaving everything for a woman who, mind you, treated him like he was LESS than her on every level and made sure to put him and make him like shit in damn near every part of the movie. Many years will pass and this movie will still be a disgrace. Idc

[mexicanblanket]

So i was thinking about Toy Story at work today, and how them toys most likely sent Sid to the Psyche Ward and gave him psychological trauma and a phobia of kids toys.

Like what parent is going to believe that their child's inanimate objects came to life. They probably felt bad that he's so terrified of toys now, and thought he needed therapy. And that probably screw him up more knowing no one believes him, and knowing that he did not imagine it or dream it.

and THEN we see him, allegedly, in Toy Story 3 as the garbage man here:

Throwing old toys away whenever he picks them up from the curb might feel very satisfying to him, after years of possibly forced therapy.

[caruliaa]

me realizing that i have been ruined for the rest of my life now i will never be able to be in any situation were the songs riptide or formation are playing without it awakening a media studies sleeper agent within me

[confused-possum]

I saw a deadline article saying Toy Story, Frozen, and Zootopia all have sequels in the works. It made me think about how I feel sad for Toy Story. I watched the movies a lot as a kid (apparently; I don’t remember — these are my mothers words you have to trust) but I don’t have much love for them. I think they’re objectively very well made. Even the fourth is well made on a storytelling and technical level (in a sort of vacuum, I’ll get there). But every movie after 3 feels sad. Like they’re being announced as proof of ROI to investors, not a good story to make. The third might have also fallen under that end of things as well.

The first two Toy Story movies came out at a time when Cinematic Universes were not common. As far as I know the more common practice was of a shared world/universe or a shared setting of some kind. Things like how maybe all the Pixar movies connect and some have a real Pizza Planet car in them. Very reference based, in the background. Enjoyable to those who notice but not a sticking point (or marketing point). Which, to me, is what makes these new projects feel more hollow. Their original idea goes beyond analysis. The story gets incredibly complex in the overall look because somehow these toys have to say goodbye to a major part of the original movie AGAIN. This is what makes the storytelling fall flat in TS4. While most of the movie is technically, logistically INCREDIBLY well made, the ending falls flat. We watched the toys say goodbye before, it was a big part of the third movie. In fact, outside of the movie the audience related MORE to that goodbye because most assumed there would not be a forth installment in the Toy Story series. Extratextually, this final goodbye is equal to the toys and the audience. It was a very powerful moment…that has become less powerful since it actually wasn’t the final goodbye. The story has been extended beyond its natural end.

Zootopia! This is a different fucking movie by a lot. This movie came out the SAME YEAR as Captain America: Civil War. The MCU has arrived and will not leave. The story of this movie is clear made to serve as a way to display an entire world of animal interaction that had been worked on long before the movie came out. There were initial plans to make more movies/series in the world. There was an idea about an island where all the birds you didn’t see in the movie are floating around. And after watching this movie I was left wanting more. This is a slight dig at the movie and a true feeling of being excited about this world. (Confession: animals are my special interest and I will pay 100x more attention to every aspect of something of the characters are animals) So clearly I’m biased but also the movie was designed with the intention of being a UNIVERSE. It was a selling point as it had been established by the MCU for the people who give movies money. It’s added movies feel way too late, it feels like the movie didn’t return on investment the same way the MCU did and instead of investing in the new IP to create fondness it prioritized what made them money in the short term (because all public companies require constant growth with no limit because capitalism has festered like a horrible disease in this nation).

Frozen is weird. It doesn’t have the built in wider world that Zootopia has but it’s continued existence does feel like it’s pushing past the boundaries of its story like Toy Story does. Frozen, as a basic idea, had been in the minds at Disney for decades and in the works since 2008 (with a small development break until Tangled did well and then they moved the idea to a 3D project). The movie was not expected to be…what it became. The productions since then have felt like scraping the bottom of the barrel because this franchise made Disney so much money they can’t leave it behind. That would scare the investors (they’re skittish). The second movie got rushed to release which meant it’s a lot of set up for no real payoff that makes sense.

Funnily enough, the original frozen idea began from an idea of looking at an act of true love differently than other Disney movies, which is what ultimately happens at the end of that movie. Productions past it, especially undeveloped and rushed productions, have LITERALLY moved past the original idea. It mirrors the transition into cinematic franchises that came around the same time of it’s release. For context, Frozen’s release year also included: Iron Man 3; Man of Steel; Monsters University; THE SECOND OF THREE FUCKING HOBBIT MOVIES; F&F 6; and fucking Oz the Great and Powerful. The movies making money/being funded were with IPs and we’re with shared universes. The development of this movie took long enough that the media landscape changed and it impacted every sequel frozen will ever have.

I don’t know what to do with all of this but like…it’s saddening. Many franchises are extending beyond their natural stopping point (I haven’t said Endgame yet but I’ll say it here) and there are movies made to be franchises being passed up and rarely given the chance to forge fondness for the original world. This is just a constant cycle that “proves” the belief that only IPs make money more. As long as we have our power set the way we have it I don’t see the system changing anytime soon. Just kinda sucks.

[sweetmariihs2]

I feel like Jessie's background with Emily resonated with me the most because of the way it portrayed girlhood.

The Toy Story movie shows a lot about childhood in a boy's eyes (Andy), he lives in a "boy" room, has "boy" toys, watches "boy" cartoons and even the main characters, at least in the first movie, are all masculine characters. We see the adventures he creates with his toys and most of them are stories of action, with male characters as protagonists, it's not like there's anything wrong with that, but it's more focused in a boy's childhood itself, from the toys, to the media he likes to watch, to the room, and everything.

But Jessie... Jessie had a girl owner. And that only scene, with the "When She Loved Me" song, portrayed that very well. Not only because they added a girl but because the world around Emily and Jessie is a girl world. A "girl" room, "girl" adventures, even the fact that she enjoyed a cartoon fron her time and liked it through a girl's eyes and you girls know what I'm talking about, just has a big emotional impact on me. Some of you reading this post maybe felt like me: had the Monster High fever in 2014. Watched all the Barbie movies. Had everything princess themed.

I like how Emily didn't cared much about gender steriotypes (dresses and makeup) when she was younger, just like Jessie. Most of us don't, and after a specific age we start to care and enjoy. And I liked how the movie emphasized this, that Emily has changed and grown up, but Jessie hasn't. It's almost as if Jessie had a childish soul forever, which in fact is quite real due to the fact that she's a toy. Maybe what Emily left behind stayed in Jessie. I think the fact that Emily was the one who took Jessie out of the box also affected her a lot, because Jessie learned to live through Emily, and whether she liked it or not Emily helped shape her personality, like sharing opinions and liking the same things. I think that was also one of the reasons Jessie got so sad, because she and Emily were so similar and so well-matched that it was almost like losing a part of herself. Emily probably saw herself in Jessie's character, the red hair, the brave and sweet attitude, the cowgirl style and the love for horses.

Many of us identified with a character growing up, for example, I loved Raven Queen from Ever After High and everything about Ever After High, I had products, toys, dolls, even my school backpack, I watched the cartoon and carried my doll everywhere, I made her watch it with me, wanted to have purple highlights in my hair, and I thought she looked so much like me. Today the show was canceled without an ending and the dolls are no longer made. I still have mine, but... do you notice how familiar this story is? (I also didn't liked makeup and clothes much back then.)

When Emily started to grow up she changed, and also started to enjoy things that we, for example, started to enjoy. Makeup, music artists, stylish clothes, which are also part of the huge girlhood experience, one way or another. The little girl that loved Monster High is still in you, but now she's grown up and she enjoys listening to music and getting dressed. I listen to Lana Del Rey and Aurora now, like many of you probably listen to your favorite artists too. I went to concerts and own albums.

And that's why I love Jessie's flashback so much: because while the whole series is based in a boy's childhood, there are some small moments that weren't, and those moments were so perfectly represented, because every girl has a story like this. Yours was with what? My Little Pony? LPS? Barbie?

I feel like the Barbie movie got that really well in some moments too. It's the kind of thing you don't see in media that much. Girlhood truly is an experience.

[angstandhappiness]

INTERESTING

What he says: im fine

What he means: in Toy Story 2 Woody is treated as the rarest of the toys from Woody’s Roundup when he’s the main character of the show. That would mean he would have had a higher production number than any of his costars, and in fact probably would have been made for the longest and earliest of the toy line. Stinky Pete, by being the fan unfavorite, must have had a smaller run, and less of his toys would have survived in the 50s as kids would have needlessly damaged or destroyed him making him the rarest of the group and Woody the most common. If anything, the plot of Toy Story 2 should have revolved around Al stealing Woody’s hat as it would have been the item most sought after by collectors as it’s easily lost and not attached to an otherwise common doll. Fundamentally, Al’s apartment should have been littered with Woody dolls in various states of damage, all missing hats and maybe a handful of decent condition Woody dolls needing a hat while Stinky Pete is the rarest and most expensive as a collectors item.

[artist-issues]

Hi there! I just followed, and have been reading through a couple of your posts on my dash. Love what you're doing, by the way, I absolutely love how in depth you get on these things you write about!

Anyways, I saw your post on Toy Story 4, and first off I totally agree with the points you made about Woody. Additionally though, another aspect of the movie I found irritating to watch was just how much they mischaracterized Buzz.

Now, I'm a bit of a Buzz fan, and it was sad and annoying to watch how Buzz had been going through the first three movies, learning what it means to be a toy, grappling with his own identity, and taking up a leadership role with the other toys, only for that to be completely tossed out in the fourth movie. The whole "Inner Voice" thing is just ridiculous.

For me, if Woody is half the heart of the franchise, Buzz is the other, and honestly I felt that the fourth movie failed both of them just so much. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Hi! Thank you! Very kind!

I haven't revisited Buzz in a while (I do love him, I love the Toy Story cast in general) but I think I understand where you're coming from.

Buzz spends the whole first movie confident that he knows who he is and what his purpose is. Until Woody pulls the rug out from under him (which is what Buzz also did to Woody by becoming the favorite toy, but whatever) and tells him he's a toy. Then Buzz doesn't so much grapple with his identity as he does give up.

When he gives up it's because he doesn't understand the purpose behind being a toy. Buzz Lightyear, the Space Ranger, was a very driven "character." He had a goal: "Fix my ship and stop the mass weapon of destruction Zurg is building." But you take that goal away and what's he left with? Nothing. No sense of value.

But then Woody helps him see his purpose.

And from that moment on, while Woody is learning all the depths of what "being there for Andy, as Andy's toy," means, Buzz is in the background, solidly being there for Woody like Woody was there for him.

In Toy Story 2, he reminds him what it means to be a toy and risks everything to rescue him.

In Toy Story 3, Buzz has lost sight, a bit, of "what it means to be a toy," but only because he's so focused on staying together with his friends. Then by the end he's back on board with what it means to be a toy.

The idea is, that after he learns what it means to be a toy, Buzz Lightyear knows who and what he is. He's solid, loyal, and dependable in the background of Woody's story from movie to movie. While Woody is learning to "always be there" for Andy and what that looks like, Buzz is demonstrating "always be there" for his friends, and what that looks like. And they each remind each other what being a toy means throughout the movies.

...which makes it Hiccup-and-Toothless-splitting-up levels of stupid that the third movie ended with Buzz and Woody parting ways.

It's not like they've never been willing to leave each other before. In the second movie they have a falling out and are going separate ways, same thing in the first part of the third movie. But the reason is usually a difference of focus: one of them is hanging on to "being there for your kid" and the other wants to let go of that--the other usually comes back around.

That's not why they're parting ways in Toy Story 4, so it's stupid, because nothing LESS than that philosophy should be enough to split them up.

But anyway. Buzz in Toy Story 4.

I actually don't mind that he's got that running "inner voice" gag. It comes about pretty organically. Buzz is just doing what Buzz always does--"being there for his friends." He's asking Woody how he can help with Forky, Woody mentions the inner voice thing, and Buzz goes with that. The whole reason he presses the button and listens to his "inner voice" throughout the rest of the movie is when he doesn't know how to help Woody. But the goal is still "be there for Woody," so that's good.

What's a little silly is that Buzz never had any trouble figuring out how to help Woody in Toy Story 2, when they were similarly on separate adventures. He took the lead with the other toys and solved all the problems without any insecurity or indecision. So in that sense, even though they found a way to make his motives in-character, they did really dumb him down and solve the whole thing lazily.

Buzz figuring out how to cross a busy street, or Buzz showing up in the nick of time underneath a plane to catch Woody, or Buzz resolutely returning to Andy even if Woody won't come, is very different from "can't find Woody...what now, inner voice??" Buzz.

So I get what you're saying. I think it's a combo of the storytellers willfully tossing aside that core philosophy that made Woody and Buzz a great team in the first place, AND trying to figure out what to do with Buzz besides doing the same old "and then we get to see the Buzz that believes he's a real space ranger again!" trope.

Not to beat the dead horse. But C.S. Lewis said that friendship was not facing one another, like lovers, focusing on each other. He said friendship was standing shoulder to shoulder, both of you looking at the same goal. Buzz and Woody do that, with various losses of focus and then reminding each other of that focus, for the first three movies. Then in movie four Woody loses focus and Buzz just lets him, honestly, because we're not even sure Buzz is focused anymore either.

[theres-whump-in-that-nebula]

The most uncomfortable feeling ever is watching Sausage Party while eating.

EDIT: Okay ignore the tags. I watched the last 25 minutes of it and they were certainly not as profound as the beginning. I knew there was a food sex scene but holy mother of god

[carnellousthecat]

I think Toy Story is about fatherhood.

I've been moving out of my childhood home, donating or giving away a lot of toys, and I've been thinking about Toy Story a lot and I think I've cracked it. Toy Story is about fatherhood and family, the toys are Andy's family.

Woody himself is the dad. We never see a father in any of the movies, but peculiarly his absense is never felt. That is because Woody fills that role. He's a cowboy, a typical symbol of old style masculinity. Older men, especially back when the first movie was made, might enjoy cowboy movies still from their childhood or their own parents. We open to the song "you've got a friend in me," during which we see Andy playing with Woody. He does things like sitting and playing on an armchair too big for him along with Woody, as a child might sit on a father's lap. Ergo, Woodie = Dad.

But what happens when another dad comes into the picture? The arrival of Buzz Lightyear is a portent of doom for the old fashioned cowboy. Andy is HIS child, Andy loves HIM, not this new fangled space toy. This perhaps represents how a new father figure has arrived into the picture. Buzz is the perfect toy for Andy, he outdoes Woody in almost every way. He's clearly expensive, battery operated, all the other kids want and love him, and he's a space ranger, essentially a version of a cowboy that appeals much better to a modern audience than an old fashioned one would. Woody feels thoroughly threatened by this. He feels Buzz is an enemy stealing away time and love from his son Andy, and tries to get rid of him, in the process stranding them both away from the kid.

It is only after having both been gone from the child's life does Woody realize that Andy needs both of his father figures. Andy is devastated that he lost botth his most favorite toys, he doesn't mourn one over the other. The final shot of the film is Andy holding both of his toys tight, ecstatic that both of them have returned to him, giving them equal love. Woody had been imagining things. Andy always loved and needed them both.

This of course represents these two father figures putting aside their differences to co-parent their child.

Next we have the second film. In it the central theme is a father losing out of his child's love due to his flaws, and how it takes a village to raise any child.

The film opens on Andy playing with his toys, until something happens and Woody breaks. A tear on his shoulder exposes some cotton. After meeting wheezy, a penguin toy who lost his squeaker, he sees a portend of his future. Broken toys are not played with, they are forgotten and thrown away. This shakes him to his core. Now that Woody is broken, how could Andy want him anymore? A stress dream puts this plainly to us, showing Woody's perspective as Andy loses interest on him and drops him into a garbage can. True nightmare fuel.

A garage sale occurs wile Andy is away on a trip, and a toy is mistankenly taken to the yard for sale. Woody springs into action and attempts to save the toy, and ends up being stolen himself by a toy collector himself.

The toy collector himself, Al, is an adult who believes toys are most valuable as collector's items, not when given to children. He owns a toy store chain not because he loves children, but because he believes toys are intrinsically precious when they become rare enough and expensive vintage commodities. Al pays an inordinate amount of money for a toy repair man who gives Woody what will assuage his fears by repairing his ripped arm, along with other improvements like a fresh coat of paint. This however means that he's no longer the toy that Andy loved, symbolized by the brush covering up Woody's boot.

Woody has made an unfounded assumption about the quality of his parentage. His body suffered a fault, which may be symbolic of both a character flaw and/or a physical one that makes him believe he is no longer fit for parentage, and his son will see this and abandon him. Expecting this result, he goes looking prematurely for other ways of feeling valuable as a person besides being a dad, or at the very least one finds him.

He finds others like him, a found family of sorts. All are cowboys just like him, and all are no longer loved by their children. In Jessie, Woody finds what it looks like when his fears are realized. Jessie was abandoned when her daughter lost interest in her, no longer caring to have her mother in her life. They played together as Jessie raised her, but in the end she was given away and forgotten by a daughter that didn't value her and simply left.

Once more Woody is shaken. Parents can lose their value to their children, and the thought terrifies him. He vows to make sure he and his friends remain valued forever, as he is the missing piece in the collection that will allow them to be recognized as a set and purchased by a toy museum, where they can be valued from afar by adults rather than risk raising a child that might abandon them

But Buzz Lightyear knows better. He knows their son, and he knows Andy will never stop loving Woody. He makes his own vow, he will stop at nothing to rescue his friend and bring him home where Andy will love the two of them again. He rallies a whole village of co-parents intent on this mission, and they all risk everything, for their friend of course, but also because they know Andy will be devastated when he comes home and finds Woody is gone. "Andy needs us," they say, and set off on their adventure.

Back in Al's apartment, everything is being prepared to take the toys to the museum. The gang arrives just in time to convince Woody that Andy still loves him and will forever love him, regardless of any flaws he might have. Woody convinces the others that Andy will love them all too, and they all decide to take off together.

This is when the villain of the film is revealed. Stinky Pete, one of the toys in the collection, refuses to trade his chance at being placed in a collection for the sake of one child's happiness. Stinky Pete is an unwanted toy. He is ugly, old, and uninteresting to children. Without the others to complete the set, he feels zero confidence in his own intrinsic battle, traumatized by being left on the shelf while all the other toys are taken. This is Woody's shadow, a dark reflection of who Woody might have become had Buzz not shown up to change his mind. Woody would have lost all faith in his own value as a father and never attempted to raise a child again.

Syinky Pete closes and screws in the gate to prevent the others from escaping, so when Al appears to fetch them immediately after they have no choice but to be stored for the journey, sealing their fate. Hijinks ensue, and the gang rescues Woody and the others and brings them home. Andy is ecstatic when he sees his toys again, and immediately welcomes these new parental figures into his life, proving to Woody that his value as a father has not been lost. Andy repairs Woody's newly broken arm himself.

I won't spend too long on the third film because it's more centered on a political argument, but the themes of parentage persist. Andy is going off to college now, every parent's worst nightmare. The toys are left behind, and are eventually given to a child care center. Perhaps this represents them giving up on parenting any individual child, as they believe their own is lost to them, and they take a job working with children instead to fill the void left by Andy.

However this does not prove fruitful. They are not valued in this way, and so eventually end up at a landfill. They are saved at the last minute, and discover that Andy changed his mind. He's returned from college and finds he still loves his parents, it's only that he's grown old enough that he doesn't need them anymore. Still wanting his parents to be valued, however, Andy gifs his entire collection to a tiny baby child brand new to this world, who is in need of new toys of her own. Andy has reminded that parents are always needed, even if no longer by himself specifically, and after teaching them this they gain the confidence to parent once more with a new child.

I haven't seen the fourth one. I hear it's about not needing to be a parent as the only meaning and value you can find for yourself. Idk, look it up