#i feel like jessie's owner in toy story

[doesnotloveyou]

*moves into new house* I will theme my room after the Southwest to remind me of home! woven rugs! distressed wood! rustic vibes!

*7mo later gets into a miami vice phase*

[gretchensinister]

Little Souls and Careless Gods: An Exploration of Worldbuilding in Toy Story

Sid did nothing wrong.

Or, let me clarify. The things Sid did wrong were: taking his sister’s toys and modifying them without her permission. That’s it.

Hi, my name is gretchensinister and I have a lot of thoughts about the worldbuilding in Toy Story.

I should admit at this point that I haven’t seen Toy Story 4, only talked about it with someone who has, so if some of my questions are answered by that movie or if it torpedoes some of my speculations, that’s just—that’s just an imperfection of this essay.

I barely know where to begin, but, I started with Sid, so I’ll keep going with Sid. Sid is a kid. Sid is a jerk to his younger sister, but she’s freely yelling across the house tattling on him, so it doesn’t seem like she’s suffering irreparable damage from this. Other things Sid does: wins a squeaky toy for his dog in a claw machine game, blows up toys with fireworks, takes toys apart and joins them to other toys to make new toys. Burns a toy with a magnifying glass.

None of these things is an immoral action, for a person who, through all lived experience (until the toy attack) understands that toys are objects. It’s not bad to give your dog an object to chew on. It’s not bad (morally) to blow up an object with a firework. It’s not bad to take objects (that are yours) and make them into new, different objects. It’s not bad to burn an object with a magnifying glass. From the toys’ perspective, Sid is a sadistic mad scientist type, but from everything he could possibly know, his “torture” of Woody is messing around with an object! His object! That he got from a claw machine! The pretend torture as a choice of play is worth questioning, but it’s not so uncommon as a media trope that an average kid would never have seen anything like that in an action-adventure context. And it doesn’t predict how Sid will treat actual living beings!

(As an aside, I’m firmly of the belief that if you own an object, you should feel free to do whatever you want with it. Set it on fire, take it apart to see how it works, use it as raw materials in a craft project, etc. And yeah I would make exceptions to this rule for like, privately owned culturally significant art or scientifically significant artifacts…but if they’re that significant…they shouldn’t be privately owned.)

So yeah. Sid gets traumatized because he treats objects like objects, and the objects don’t like that. Because they’re actually alive and have now promised to constantly surveil him.

And let’s be clear: Andy doesn’t know toys are alive, either. He never does. He just has a different play style than Sid, and more of an interest in keeping his toys intact. Andy has no empathy with Woody and Buzz, because he is not aware that they are beings that he could empathize with.

All right. Beyond Sid, what I really want to talk about is the nature of a toy’s mind/soul in the Toy Story universe. I will call this the toy’s animus. Much like with the soul and mind of a human being, the animus raises several questions. How is the animus created? Where does the animus reside? Is the animus a tabula rasa, or does it possess innate knowledge? Where does this innate knowledge come from, if so? Is the animus mortal or immortal?

The Toy Story universe offers various pieces of evidence to answer these questions, and they are all extremely worrying if toys and humans are both morally significant beings, though humans do not know this about toys.

Is a toy mortal or immortal?

In the Toy Story movies it is clear that toys believe they can die. Sufficient destruction of the body would cause a toy’s death. Sid’s plan to blow up Buzz Lightyear with a firework threatens his life. In Toy Story 3, the toys in the trash incinerator clearly believe that burning/melting will kill them. But, short of catastrophic destruction of the body, toys are immortal. Jessie suffers, but does not die, from withdrawal of her owner’s love. Stinky Pete was never played with by a child, and he’s alive as any other toy. Additionally, human-mimicking toys are not killed even when damaged in ways that would kill a human, though this does affect their ability to communicate. In the tea party scene in Toy Story, the headless dolls wave when they are referred to. (This raises more questions—how does a headless doll experience the world? They can still hear, but how? Also, why doesn’t the headless teddy bear move? Perhaps they simply don’t want to get involved in whatever’s going on with Woody and Buzz.)

I think, according to what we see in the movies, the animus is divisible, and each part of the divided animus contains only a portion of the cognitive ability of the whole. Moreover, the animus is not centered in the head, but rather dispersed throughout the body. I would further argue that splitting the body/splitting the animus, is traumatic, even when reversible. Consider that Buzz’s mental breakdown coincides with the detachment of his arm.

What does this mean for Sid’s creations? Well, it would explain why they don’t talk. The baby-doll head with the spiderlike erector-set body (aside: is this a reference to The Thing (1982)?) really has no reason to be mute, if a toy simply must have a mouth to speak. Its form is unconventional, but, I would say, still “complete.” But if the head only carries an incomplete animus, and the erector set parts carry no animus of their own (an assumption which will be questioned later) then the whole toy would not have enough animus for verbal communication.

Janie the doll and the pterodactyl, with their switched heads, suffer significant disruption of their animi. Would their fractured animi eventually merge to form a new animus for each new body, with a different personality than Janie or pterodactyl? What part of the “Barbie” personality lingers in the animus of the toy crane with Barbie legs?

There is an exception to the concept of the fractured animus, however, and that is Mr. Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head exists in several parts to begin with, and mere separation does not fracture the animus. Curiously, though, some parts of Mr. Potato Head do not appear to contain any part of his animus, such as his plastic potato body. He retains all of his personality and ability to communicate when he has to put his features on a tortilla (?—don’t remember this part well) even though he is from an era of Mr. Potato Heads where his features are only meant to be put in the plastic potato body, not random foodstuffs. (Another question here: what would happen if an even amount of Mrs. Potato Head and Mr. Potato Head features were put on one plastic potato body? Do both animi retain coherence?) It is impossible not to wonder how far apart the features of Mr. Potato Head could be spread and the animus remain whole. At least as far apart as different buildings, as shown in Toy Story 3, but how much farther?

Creation of the animus and innate knowledge.

We are now about to embark on the specific topic that fills my thoughts now when I think about the Toy Story universe. I believe I will first fix myself a vodka cranberry (note: not just vodka and cranberry juice. To make it properly you must also add a splash each of orange juice and lime juice) and read a synopsis of Toy Story 4. Forky’s creation is a deep source of trouble here, and I must fortify myself to face it.

Where do I even begin? Okay. Bonnie, a kindergartner, creates Forky from items salvaged from the trash and names him. He comes to life after being named. According to the synopsis Forky then suffers an existential crisis because he believes he his trash and not a toy. So in this case, the animus appears to arrive after naming, and the animus is not a tabula rasa. The history of the materials appears to have some effect on the animus? (What this might mean for Rex or the plastic army men is especially concerning here.) It doesn’t make sense for Bonnie to think of Forky as trash, so this conviction has entered Forky’s animus from somewhere other than his creator. Also Bonnie has created sentient life without being aware of doing so, probably before being able to write a full sentence.

That’s troubling enough, because, to the eyes of adults or even older children, Forky is garbage. I project Forky’s lifespan of play to be that of months. And he won’t get passed onto other children. Depending on how Bonnie’s community disposes of trash, he may linger with an intact animus, at a landfill, for longer than Bonnie’s own life. It boggles the mind. (And invites hoarding in the empathetic.) However, despite all this, I would be cool with it if this was the only way toys became animate: being owned/named/played with by a child. That could be a complete worldbuilding conceit.

But that’s NOT how animi are generally formed in the Toy Story universe. Let’s back up to Toy Story. Buzz Lightyear has a personality and memories of his history as a space ranger right out of his box. And as we see in Toy Story 2, every Buzz Lightyear comes with that same initial personality. A commercial in Toy Story shows aisles upon aisles of Buzz Lightyears. Something has enabled the creation of thousands, if not millions, of identical animi. There is no direction this can go that isn’t kind of batshit.

Buzz Lightyear and the story that forms his memories were designed and created by adults. It was someone’s (and probably a team’s) job to design a toy that would be popular for a specific demographic, with (if I remember correctly) a cartoon that elaborates on the story and can basically serve as a long-running commercial for the toy. There were probably team meetings, and focus groups, and brand analysis to come up with the name “Buzz Lightyear.” And in such an endeavor, while I would like to imagine that there were some truly creative people involved who cared about the design and story, the people involved would not be the ones playing with the toys as toys want to be played with. And this is where every Buzz Lightyear animus comes from? But how? A manager or director approves the name and then…what? Is there a wellspring of animus that forms? Is it tied to the prototype? The factory workers in Taiwan don’t care about Buzz Lightyear the way Bonnie cares about Forky, and yet their actions in completing Buzz Lightyears call the animi to the plastic bodies. (And the animi are there, without a child’s touch. Stinky Pete was aware in his unopened box. Other toys opened a new Buzz Lightyear and got a living Buzz Lightyear.) And even leaving aside how the animi get into the Buzz Lightyears, the fact is that with millions of Buzz Lightyears out there, we have to conclude that the process that created his animus/animi is orders of magnitude more powerful than what Bonnie did to make Forky. Even assuming some personal care held by Buzz’s designers towards their design, it gets weird. The imaginations of adult toy designers are that much more powerful than a little girl creating and naming her own toy? NOT the way I would expect such a story-world to be set up, but the evidence is there.

And what if the designers of Buzz Lightyear weren’t particularly passionate? What if their boss just said “space is popular now, make me a space toy” and that’s the only reason why they did? That could very well be the case for a different type of toy in the series: the claw machine aliens. Those toys were not designed as a soulful passion project. I’m trying to write this to not be mean to designers who work in not-so-great places, but seriously. We have all seen generic toys in claw machine games before. They were not made to be immortally loved. (And yet! This is what the animus of a toy inherently desires!) Now, the claw machine aliens do seem to have much less backstory than Buzz Lightyear, and have personalities (or maybe just personality)/culture based on the nature of the claw machine. That makes sense, since they wouldn’t have been given a backstory with creation. The point is, though, that they still have animi. In the process of creating these cheap, cheap toys, by the dozens and hundreds and thousands, somehow their bodies were invested with full, identical animi. Adult, corporate creation somehow gives more life to toys than individual, child-led creation.

There are more questions to ask. If adults still have the power (and MASSIVELY MORE power) to invest toys with animi that they also possessed as children, then what can be invested with an animus? What are the limits of toy-ness in the Toy Story universe? Is it the name? I don’t think it’s the face, because there’s Woody merchandise in Toy Story 2 with Woody’s face on it that doesn’t talk. And I think that some faceless toys are shown to move independently/have an animus (possibly including things like LEGO—are the bricks a hivemind? Do the minifigs live inside sentient structures? Can they communicate with these structures? Also, if so, the erector set legs on Sid’s spider baby toy should have added to its total animus. But that’s not the corporate intent, so they’re still voiceless.). Christine (1983) could fit into this universe if the name is of primary importance (movie backstory for Christine, not book). But this would also mean that literally every boat and ship was sentient, but secretly so.*

If the name isn’t the important thing, is it the intent that the object be played with as a toy? In this case, that would mean that Bo Peep’s animus was not mass-produced, as she was originally part of a lamp if I remember correctly. Child-created animi would therefore be more common among non-toy objects than manufactured toys. I also want to bring The Brave Little Toaster (1987) up at this point. In this movie a group of appliances behave similarly to Toy Story toys in some ways, including being played with by their owner and then missing his attention to a high degree when he goes to college. However in this film all appliances and cars have animi, and I personally do not want my vacuum cleaner to feel any kind of way about me, or ever think I have played with it, because I hate vacuuming and would neglect it to death if feasible. (That being said…roombas in the Toy Story universe can hardly avoid being invested with animi, I imagine, no matter the details of the worldbuilding structure.) I bring this up, though, because Wikipedia notes that the original members of Pixar worked on The Brave Little Toaster. Toy Story was released in 1995 and was Pixar’s first feature length film. There is a connection, is what I am trying to say.

I think I have to go with: intent of the object to be a toy and/or being played with as a toy invests a toy with an animus. If it was the naming, then many, many public statues would be as alive as Woody and Buzz, and the people of Denver I’m sure have enough to worry about without Blucifer (Jiménez, 2008) galloping around. Bizarre to say that the least troubling option places mass production on a higher level of investing power than a child’s imagination. And I mean what I say about the mass produced animi being somehow more powerful than child-created animi.

Let’s go back to Sid’s creations. What is wrong with them? Why aren’t they able to communicate like Forky? Possibility 1: Sid just doesn’t have the creative power that Bonnie does. I don’t like this because, as I said at the beginning, Sid is not doing anything wrong by making these chimera toys. He’s treating objects as objects, and the difference between Sid’s chimera toys and Forky is that Forky’s component parts were not originally part of mass-produced toys. So, (from a worldbuilding/Watsonian perspective), I have to go with possibility 2, which goes like this: mass-produced toys are imbued with animi because they are toys. Sid’s chimera toys suffer from their animi being fractured when he alters them. But these fractured, mass-produced animi retain enough coherence and power that Sid, a child, cannot replace the fractured animus with whatever he imagines for his new creations. He’s an imaginative kid! But the corporate animus cannot be expelled. The factory animus is the underlying animus and cannot be removed once the toy is a toy. It can develop with memory and experience, but it will always be the toy making corporation that brought the spark of life, not the child that actually plays with the toy.

And this actually corresponds to Sid’s toys’ decision to rebel and help Woody and Buzz. Their animi are more loyal to the corporate intent that first created them. Sid made them into something new, presumably plays with them, and yet they are not Sid’s. They are meant to be read as broken and tortured (Sid has changed them from their factory-created wholeness), not as new beings. A factory-created, owned object, is meant to be held with the same level of care and maintenance of coherence as a living being in the Toy Story universe. What a child imagines about their own toys has less creative power than a distant designer who’s been told to come up with something appealing to put in a claw machine. Children only have animating power for their toys when they make them out of raw materials.

On the one hand, it’s tempting to say that of course the toys aren’t Sid’s, they’re their own people—isn’t that what having an animus means? But Woody, for example, find it very important that he’s Andy’s toy—a possession—“a child’s plaything.” Andy writes his name on him and this is very important to Woody, enough a part of his identity that when Andy’s name is painted over by the restorer in Toy Story 2 the scene reads as an erasure of something important to him, not as a restoration of his autonomy. Time and again we see that toys want to be owned by children.

This is another place where things get weird. First, I raise the question: What do toys need to keep animus and body together? Not much—only a certain baseline of bodily coherency. They don’t need to take in anything from their environment. More interesting, though, is that they don’t need anything from the children they bond to. Shelved, boxed, and forgotten toys suffer, but they don’t die from these states. No toy will ever find a toy’s corpse the way a human could find a human corpse—whole in every way except for the absence of the animating spirit.

So: toys as entities need little. The next question is then, what do toys want? Toys want to be owned and played with by a child (I say child and not children, because the communal state of the daycare in Toy Story 3 is clearly not desirable to the toys). Woody relishes his place as favorite and most played with toy at the beginning of Toy Story. In Toy Story 2 Jessie grieves when her child outgrows her. Stinky Pete was ignored by children for years, causing him to develop the abnormal belief that it would be better for the Woody’s Roundup toys to be preserved in a museum.

(At this point, I spot another thread to follow. It seems that for a toy, the most important relationship in their existence is meant to be toy + owner. In Toy Story Woody is very invested in making Buzz understand that Buzz is a toy and not a space ranger—Buzz is supposed to stay with Andy. In Toy Story 2 the consequences of not being owned by a child are grief and violence. But at the end Woody tells Buzz he’s not worried about Andy outgrowing him, since they’ll always have each other. Now, Toy Story 3 builds up Buzz/Jessie and in Toy Story 4 Bo Peep returns and Woody leaves Buzz and the other group of Andy’s toys for a life with her, but Woody also leaves the toy + owner life to be with Bo. Toys aren’t made to have an independent existence, yet this is how they end up, also acting as matchmakers to help lost toys find new owners and enter into new toy + owner relationships? THERE IS A WHOLE OTHER ESSAY HERE.)

To stay within just one rabbit hole here, however, I must focus on this: Toys want to be owned and played with by a child. They bond with child owners who do not deliberately alter their bodies (I add this because again, Sid’s toys do not appear to be bonded with him). But within this framework, there must be essential pain within a toy’s existence. Toys are immortal unless destroyed. Toys will experience actual play with a child for, let’s say, ten years, maximum, and that’s if the toy is given to the child when the child is very young and the toy is more classic/versatile than most. That’s way shorter than the best human friendships and familial relationships, and at least human beings can often reasonably hope to have lifespans that are of comparable lengths. Oh yeah, and among human beings people are usually AWARE of the relationship that’s taking place. So toys want to form deep bonds with their children and want to have these relationships last. But the relationships can’t last. I’ll gladly state that play, in some form, is necessary for humans to thrive throughout their lives, but the kind of play that the toys in Toy Story find ideal is a childhood phase of play that that most people naturally outgrow. And even if a human did engage in play ideal for toys throughout their entire life, toys are immortal unless destroyed. All toys will lose their owners, and usually after a pretty short handful of years.

The aftermath of the owner + toy relationship is always painful for the toy. What are the options? To remain owned, but not played with: perhaps the “best” option, but it still leaves the toy with only a memory of a full life. Is a shelf life really a life? This is what was facing Woody, I believe, if Andy had taken him with him to college. Another option: to be outgrown and forgotten. This is what happens to Jessie, and it is a deeply, deeply painful experience for her. She develops claustrophobia from being stored in a box. To be donated or sold at a garage sale: also a source of trauma and panic for the toys, but still better than the worst fate, to be thrown out. But toys that have been separated from their previous owners are so often grieving and/or bitter in the Toy Story series.

This is troubling, to say the least, but it also loops back to questions about the animus and memory. Toys are not tabula rasa. Buzz has a strong personality and memory set from his unboxing. Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head do not need to court each other. Tour Guide Barbie will act as a tour guide in the absence of children. But with time, and accumulation of true memories as a toy, the toys will develop their own personalities, even if the animus starting point can often remain a strong influence. In Toy Story 3, however, we learn that certain toys, such as Buzz Lightyear, can be returned to the original animus state through a factory reset. I hardly know what to do with this. It wasn’t a permanent reset; Buzz’s memories and the personality he’s developed do come back. (But now he also has access to a “Spanish mode” that is…sexier (can such a word apply?) to Jessie than his English mode. Also other toys can put him into his mode against his will. There are so many worms in this can. Sexualization of Latinx people, can a toy expect bodily autonomy from other toys, etc.?) But not every toy has a reset button. Woody doesn’t. Slinky Dog, Rex, Mr. Potato Head, etc. don’t. Does the threat of a reset only affect toys with bodily components that could be considered brain analogues, i.e., microchips? But the animus is not the “brain” and neither does the “brain” store memories/personality. I really, really don’t know what to do with this, except it seems once again to assert the ultimate strength of the adult/corporate-created animus.

The point is, toys can lose their memories, but when we see that in the movies, it leads the toy to go back to their earliest state.

Now: a mystery. In Toy Story, Woody has developed enough memory and personality that he is well aware of being a toy and is involved with the life of Andy’s room in ways that neither his sheriff role or Andy’s imagination reasonably encompasses. (Consider the “Plastic Corrosion Awareness Meeting.”) All right. This would be of no concern if Woody was a generic wild west doll, but he’s not. He was made to represent a character on the Woody’s Roundup TV show in the 1950s. He would have had an animus strongly imprinted with that backstory just like Buzz Lightyear had his strongly imprinted space ranger backstory. Well, then maybe this means that Woody just never lost his memory. That would be the best explanation. That’s why he has a personality mostly free from this imprinted backstory, having been Andy’s favorite toy for some time. But Woody has lost his memory. In Toy Story 2, Woody learns (learns!) that he’s a representation of a TV character. He meets Jessie and Bullseye and Stinky Pete without knowing who they are at all. Woody has somehow completely forgotten his origins. He experienced memory loss that brought him farther away from his animus starting point.

Okay, so there are multiple kinds of amnesia for toys; I was wrong in my earlier assertion that memory loss tends to the origin animus. But I want to keep poking at Woody’s memory issues because of something else that Woody’s timeline leads me to conclude: Andy is not Woody’s first owner, OR Woody was boxed up and forgotten for DECADES before Andy. Actually, he’s probably spent a significant amount of time in storage or on a shelf regardless of whether Andy is his first owner or not.

Toy Story was released in 1995. If the story is set in the present, then Andy is very close to my age. Now, Woody is “an old family toy” according to Toy Story 2, and Al, as a toy collector, was so thrilled and astonished to find a Woody at a garage sale that he stole him when he learned he wasn’t actually for sale. This leads me to the conclusion that Woody toys aren’t in continuous production. Woody was probably only manufactured during the height of Woody’s Roundup’s popularity, in the 1950s. So there’s two options for Woody’s ownership history. I’m also going to presume in both cases that Andy’s father was the parent that previously owned him, though there’s no reason why his mother couldn’t have been the owner.

So, option one: the young parents/young grandparents option. If Andy’s grandparents had his father when they were about twenty, and then Andy’s parents had Andy when they were about twenty, then Andy’s grandfather could have gotten Woody at ideal playing age and then later passed him down to Andy’s father and then Andy’s father would have passed him to Andy. I don’t think this is the case, though, because Woody still has his incredibly rare hat and a functional voice box. If Woody had been played with by a child at ideal playing age at the height of the popularity of his character’s show, I think it’s likely that he would have gotten played with so much (and taken to places so much) that he would have lost his hat and his voice box would have worn out. Woody didn’t start off life as a collectible, and play causes wear and tear on toys. And if Woody was originally the grandfather’s toy, then he would have gone through another round of play with Andy’s father. Woody’s condition is too good for that. Unless, that is, Andy’s whole family is made up of people who are unusually careful with their toys? That’s sort of an intriguing idea, since it means that Sid’s actions look even more horrifying by contrast, and generations of “ideal owners” for Woody obscure the bizarre nature of the life of a thinking, feeling toy. However, the Toy Story universe keeps raising questions in Toy Story 2-4 about what it means to be a toy, so there doesn’t seem to be a motivation in the series for such obscuring. This is despite the fact that Woody’s amnesia does obscure some things about the nature of a toy’s life, at least in the original Toy Story. (I know the Doylist perspective answers all this easily—this isn’t what the audience is meant to think about, Woody’s backstory as a toy from a 1950s TV show isn’t important in Toy Story, and in fact this backstory didn’t exist until Toy Story 2 was created.)

Regardless, I don’t think the young parents/young grandparents option is the right one. Instead, I choose option 2: the slightly older parents option. Woody’s Roundup is a TV show from the 1950s. It was popular enough to lead to a lot of merchandise, not just the dolls of the main characters. Brief research shows that in the 1950s television Westerns were incredibly popular, and there were Westerns made for kids and Westerns made for adults. The question I’m trying to get at here is trying to figure out how Andy’s grandparents would have known about a kid’s Western show. But, it’s really not that difficult. In this timeline I’m building now, Andy’s father would have been born in the 1950s, making him in his early-mid thirties when he became Andy’s father. Given this timeline, it’s overwhelmingly likely that Andy’s father has siblings, including older siblings, that might already watch Woody’s Roundup. Or, even if Andy’s father was the oldest child, it’s also overwhelmingly likely that Andy’s grandparents’ friends had plenty of kids of their own and probably talked among themselves about what kids liked. The significant thing in this timeline is that Woody would have been given to Andy’s father when Andy’s father was very young. Perhaps too young for a Woody doll, but perhaps also with the assumption that Andy’s father would grow into the doll. So Woody is unboxed and waits on a shelf for a couple years while Andy’s father grows a little. My theory is that Woody’s Roundup was no longer on television by the time Andy’s father was at the right age to start playing with a doll of Woody’s type. This would have two consequences. One: Andy’s father would have been unguided by the TV show in regard of how to play with Woody, meaning that Woody would have formed many memories unrelated to his original animus in this early stage of his life. Two: even though Woody was played with, he never was Andy’s father’s favorite toy, which is why he was able to be passed down to Andy in good condition (and still with his hat).

In this option 2, which I feel is more likely, Woody has probably spent at least 25 years on a shelf or in storage. So why is this important? I think it’s important because Woody doesn’t act like he’s been through the decades-in-storage experience, or the experience of having an owner outgrow him. He sympathizes with Jessie after learning her story, but he says nothing about having experienced anything like it himself. And as far as the movies are concerned, his worries about Andy outgrowing him are new worries. But they can’t be new! He’s already been outgrown at least once before! I mean, with Andy he’s a favorite toy, so that’s a unique owner + toy relationship status that he (probably) didn’t have before. Maybe that amplifies what he’s going through this time?

But there’s another aspect to Woody’s experiences that I want to touch on. All the other toys he would have known as Andy’s father’s toy are gone. There are no other “heirloom” toys in Andy’s room, or at least there is no evidence of this. All of Andy’s other toys seem to have been purchased just for Andy, and purchased new. There is no reference to garage sale trauma, previous owners, or anything like that. And as we’ve seen from other toys throughout the series, toys remember that kind of thing! But Woody doesn’t. His animus is one that shows years of experience building over his character backstory, but he never acts like he’s experienced being outgrown or losing all his toy friends.

Or at least he never says anything about such experiences.

I think it makes sense to read Woody’s amnesia as genuine. But I also think it would be reasonable to read his character as one that has undergone traumatic experiences and has responded by burying them so deep within his mind that he has no conscious access to them, even though they influence his current personality and life. (It’s impossible to know, but do toys in every household respond to birthdays and Christmas with such intense monitoring—with the desire for even the slightest early warning of replacement? Woody is the one who worries most about these celebrations, extremely anxious of his own status as favorite toy.) That the ending of Toy Story 4 removes him from the cycle of ownership and outgrowing can’t be ignored. Better to not have an owner than to experience losing an owner again, and again, and again?

But I do think there is one other possibility: Andy’s ownership of Woody caused him to lose all his memories of Andy’s father. A child may not be able to give a manufactured toy a new animus, but by possessing a toy in a play relationship (as opposed to a collector relationship) a child may be able to overwrite any memories of the toy’s previous owner. The process doesn’t happen instantaneously, as Andy’s toys don’t immediately forget him upon being transferred to Bonnie, but it would certainly explain why Woody makes no reference ever to a previous owner, even though he was most likely manufactured at least 35 years before coming into Andy’s possession. However, Jessie’s story argues against this. While she is happy among Andy’s toys, there’s nothing to show that she is forgetting her own past.

The possibility of a new child owner driving out all thoughts of the previous one is interesting, as it puts some degree of power over the toy’s animus back with the child. However, in the Toy Story universe, it’s clear that if this is the case, it’s not an instantaneous process. And if it’s not an instantaneous process, then it becomes overly complex. What memories would be driven out? For toys less adventurous than the main characters of the Toy Story movies, their whole lives are centered on their owners. They live in their child’s room/house. Anything that took place there would have to be forgotten to not bring up thoughts of the previous owner, including conversations with other toys that were friends of that first toy. At this point we approach a state of complete memory loss before the claim by a new owner. A gradual process would at least allow continuity of personality, since new memories under the new owner would be continually being made. But then, some new memories would have to fade, also. For wouldn’t a toy talk about their past while they could still remember it? And wouldn’t their new friends maybe bring up their past in conversation sometimes? They might even talk about the process of forgetting. That process would be noticed and known among toys. No, after thinking about it, I would say that there is no inherent forgetting process. Memories will mostly tend to stay, with whatever pain and joy they bring. And there will never be any transition process that is easy for the toy.

Woody’s amnesia remains his own, and remains his best defense against the trauma of being outgrown and shelved or stored for many years.

Toys have a strange and painful lot in life, semi-immortals being made to be silent companions to the briefest stage of a mortal lifespan. They live because they are made for children, but for most, in this world of mass production, children do not create them. Their animi are the spawn of creators who have no intent to create thinking, feeling beings. Escaping the stamp of such thoughtless creation means living long enough to know the deepest loss a toy can experience. Sometimes the only way to move forward from such loss is to forget. And yet, there is little will for most toys to move beyond this cycle. Toys overwhelmingly retain their roles as objects. I’d like to say that maybe this means that play is worth it, that temporary joy is worth it. But maybe it’s just the nature of being a toy. After all, if there’s any intent in their creation, there was the intent that they should be objects.

*I would never leave a dangling asterisk. My previous point was about ships and boats, but, if seagoing vehicles live because they are named, then there’s no reason why land vehicles would not do the same. It might be possible to argue that the Cars universe came about after some cataclysm wiped out humans and left only named vehicles behind.

Other avenues of investigation that were beyond the scope of this essay:

1) The situation between the Diamonds and every other gem in Steven Universe is highly analogous to the situation between humans and toys in the Toy Story universe, save for the crucial difference that the Diamonds have no excuse to not know that the other gems are complete feeling, thinking beings and to treat them as such. It was actually parallels I saw between Spinel + Pink Diamond and Jessie + her owner that got me thinking about aspects of the Toy Story universe in ways that I know are meant to be ignored. Also Pink Diamond bringing all those little pebble people to life just by crying on them. That’s a lot of responsibility coming from a solitary expression of emotion!

2) I’d be curious to know if a hugely popular series based on the agency of objects has had an effect on fan culture at all. Or it might at least be a way to examine actions taken on behalf of characters. Fictional characters, after all, don’t feel any kind of way about the situations and relationships people envision them in. They’re mental objects like toys are physical objects. In the real world is anyone going to argue that putting the faces of dolls or action figures together and making kissing noises is something to worry about? Is anything about putting a naked Barbie on top of a naked Ken a harmful act? In the real world I would say no. Also, with full awareness that this is a can of worms, what is the impact of such things in the Toy Story universe? Obviously this wouldn’t be addressed in any canon. But the Toy Story universe is supposed to be like reality with one big secret so there are kids that are definitely using their toys to play out love stories and stories including a vague understanding of sex. And another aspect to all this…if you’ve seen Booksmart, consider one of the characters’ uses of her childhood stuffed animal. I understand that this is not uncommon.

All right. I think I’m done now. And that I will probably go get another drink.

(I had a few baby dolls as a child that included their own toys as accessories. H—how would THAT work?)

[thecomposerofstories]

Information on Amy.

(Be warned it's a ~little bit~ long, any other pieces of information you want to know I'll gladly answer if you ask.)

~General Information~

Fandom: Toy Story.

Name: Amy the Ragdoll.

Nickname, if any: Amy, Ames, and Doll-Face(usually by more villainous characters or used in a joking manner).

Gender: Female.

Sexuality: ??? (I mean I know the gender of who she has a crush on, but I'm unsure on what her actual sexuality should be tbh)

Age: Mentally, mid-twenties in the first story second movie, thirties to forties in the third and fourth. Physically, she doesn’t have an age, but in regards to when she was made (the 1950’s) makes her fifty to sixty.

City they currently live in: San Francisco, apparently that’s where Toy Story takes place.

Any pets: Would Rex count? He just follows her around like a nervous puppy.

Current occupation: I mean she’s practically a therapist, but she’s a toy and she only treats Rex so it probably doesn’t count lol

~Physical Appearance~

Height: 10 inches.

Body type: Stocky, but a bit gangly too, similar to Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Eye colour: Black.

Skin tone: Light.

Clothing style: Pale green/turquoise shirt with short puffed sleeves, with a denim dungaree dress with a daisy print in the centre over it. She wears yellow rain boots.

Hairstyle: No style, it’s just there. It’s messy and gets in her face easily and is made out of dark brown thin string.

~Speech/Language/Communication~

Amy speaks quietly and politely, rambles a bit if left without a reply or under pressure, very nervous in front of intimidating characters.

First language: English.

Learned languages: A bit of Spanish (Ya’ll remember Toy Story 3!)

Accent: American.

Pitch of voice: High, but soft, not quite annoying, unless she’s stressed, then it gets very pitchy and shrill.

~Behaviour/Habits~

Amy tends to just stand there when she can’t find anything to do, and will immediately try to find Rex, Hamm, Buzz or Jessie if surrounded by strangers (Though she’s not sure if it’s for their comfort or her own) Amy is very polite.

Spending habits: She doesn’t like to be made a fuss of at all, the very fact of someone giving something to her is unnerving (even if the thing never costed anything at all) and she feels compelled to give the giver something in return.

Morning routine: She gets up same time as the others, but wishes she could stay in bed a bit longer though. Before she came to Andy’s room, her sleep pattern was all over the place.

Bedtime routine: Similar to above, now she goes to bed the same time as the others, but before she just slept and got up willy-nilly.

Nervous habits: Amy will try to find Rex if she’s nervous, and she’ll pretend it’s because she’s worried for him, which is quite true, but she also just feels most safe with him. Speaking of, Amy will let Rex hold her hand and squish it whenever he or Amy is nervous, it’s calming to the both of them.

Bad habits: Not a very good exerciser, but then again, she’s spend basically half her life in a small attic, so I’ll give her a break.

Skills/talents: She’ very logical, mind-over-matter, (mostly, very good at calming others down and/or convincing them. She’s very good at spelling and knows quite a lot of words, some of which others haven’t even heard of.

Hobbies: Reading, talking (especially with Rex, Jessie or Hamm), and generally just lazing about or walking around somewhere, on her own or with a friend.

~The Past~

Amy’s first owner was a little girl called Alice. Alice loved nothing more than to read Amy stories (Mostly fairy tales), but of course, Alice grew up like all kids do, and she left Amy in the attic for someone else to have her.

Amy waited for many years, and all that time she’d never given up that someone would find her.

She thought she’s hit the jackpot when Andy and his family move into Alice’s old house, but they don’t go up into the attic to collect her. Some weeks later, though, Andy’s mother brings a set of boxes filled with junk into the attic and leaves. Woody, Buzz, Slinky, and Rex were trapped in one of the boxes (Call me a cheater but this part was actually inspired by a Toy Story comic, where those four toys get stuck in the attic that way and have to escape. It struck me odd that they never met at least one new friend there, so I made one. It was also my first story, I needed some inspiration!)

Amy, in a fit of panic, goes and hides.

But then she’s found by Rex as he and the others try to find a way out.

They then decide to let the strange, dust-covered ragdoll come back to Andy’s rom with them. (well, Rex did, anyway.)

Home town: Would Alice’s old room count? But it’s now Andy’s Room, so it won’t count will it?

Happy or sad childhood: Pretty normal to be honest, as normal a life as a toy could have anyway. And as for sadness, having spent all that time on her own for all those years, having missed out on so much, is a little sad. But Amy made sure she never became bitter over it or used it as an excuse for anything.

Earliest memory: Waking up in her toy store, with a friend of hers for company (a ragdoll Prospector, a much as she remembers) and as she gets bought by Alice’s Auntie, she says she hopes he gets picked up by a kid. (Unbeknownst to her, she would meet him again in a while to find out he never got to experience it)

Saddest memory: One, being left by Alice, yet being so happy for her and how much she’s grown up, if she could cry tears of joy for her owner, she would. Two, some (or most) of the days she spent waiting for a new owner to arrive. And three, watching Rex have a mental breakdown of anxiety.

Happiest memory: One, the time she and Alice went to the park, (Amy absolutely adores nature) Two after sliding down a drainpipe to get to Andy’s room, and three, having known she’d helped her friend out.

Significant events: Being bought, being left in an attic, being rescued from the attic, while gaining some new friends.

~Family~

The entirety of Andy’s room, whether they like it or not, they’re all in this together and are some kind of mish-mash, found family in a sense.

Siblings: I’ve been thinking of giving Amy a brother (since I based her on Raggedy Ann, a matching bootleg Raggedy Andy seems reasonable) bur I’m unsure about it, since I’ve already mapped out Amy’s entire series of stories (Around six or seven all together, so far I’m currently writing only the third) and I can only fit him in the fifth or sixth if I can.

~Relationships~

Romantically? I’d like to say she has a crush on Rex, I don’t know why I thought of it, I was contemplating it one day as I sketched a rough (and terrible) sketch of her, and I drew Rex too because he’s just so fun to draw and I wanted to make a scale for Amy’s size, and one of my friends (who had been watching me) immediately said “I ship it!” and well, the rest is history, I made the decision to ship it too.

Friends: Jessie, Hamm, Buzz, and Rex are her closet friends, but she’d like to say that all the Gang are her friends. Later on she becomes good friends with Mr. Prickle Pants, Buttercup, Trixie and Totoro, and she absolutely loves the peas and Forky.

Best friend(s): Hamm, Mr. Prickle Pants, Jessie, and Rex.

What do people like about them? Amy’s pretty easy to talk to, she’s polite and attentive and will sit in companionable silence with someone if they need it. But she won’t hesitate to give hard truths and advice if it’s needed.

What do people dislike about them? Amy is quite a doormat, if someone is rude to her or breaches anything she just lets it happen, and sometimes she’s too indecisive about her own stuff, unsure whether she’s going to offend others or not over the smallest things, which annoys others quite a bit.

~Mentality/Personal Beliefs~

Amy is a toy of logic, and though she believes others can do it if they set their minds to it, she doesn’t quite believe in herself. She believes she must follow the rules of being a toy at all times, no matter what.

Phobias: Dust. She hates it. It took a good five weeks to brush all the dust out her hair and clothes, and even so there’s still some in her pockets and places she can’t reach. And being alone, too. Now she can’t be alone for more than an hour before she starts to get antsy and nervous. And for a short time books gave her a strange tiredness, after reading them for so long and for so many years she couldn’t even stand the sight of them.

But of course, not for long, since Amy found out Andy had a copy of Red’s Dream by a Mr. William Reeves.

Optimist or pessimist: Depends on the situation really, if her mind can’t come up with a solution, then there’s no point in trying anymore. Unless someone else can think of something, that is.

Personal philosophies: “You are here to make good things happen. No person here is made for one reason only, or even only one. There’s no point in pretending to be someone you’re not just for the attention of others, no matter how cool they are. We should find are own meaning, as we’re the only ones who have control of it.

It’ll take a while, but I swear, it’ll be worth it.”

Biggest dream/wish: Amy wants nothing more than to find meaning for herself, but finds it rather hard to do so. Of course, that doesn’t mean she’ll settle for someone else’s meaning. As cheesy as it sounds, she just wants an adventure. She doesn’t necessarily want to be the hero, though, she’s just happy to go along with the ride so long as it gets her out the house for a few hours. She also, above all else, wants Rex to find meaning too, even if she never does, it would be nice to know that he had.

Greatest strength(s): Persuasion, story-telling, logic, and good grammar.

Biggest flaw: Despite being a ragdoll, Amy can’t sew because of her fingerless hands, which are just soft mittens in shape. Amy is also quite a doormat, as I said before, so if her calm persuasion and reasoning doesn’t work, she’s left to be walked all over.

Regrets: Staying in that dratted attic too long, the window was open, she could’ve just climbed out, but no, she had to stay there for some mind-rotting decades. But if she had just escaped, she would never have met her new friends. Amy just wishes she had met them a lot sooner.

Achievements: Escaped the attic, slid down a drainpipe, leapt onto the windowsill (though nearly knocking Woody and Buzz over in the process) stopped her friend from having a panic attack, and managed to remember the entire Dictionary and is able to recite it down from A to Z, and even Z to A.

Secrets: Not much, just strange feelings for one of her friends, but it’s not much of a secret, Bo knows, and Mr. Potato Head and Hamm could see it from a mile away, and the others have their suspicions.

Goals: Read the entirety of Andy’s (and later Bonnie’s) bookshelves, become more confident in herself, have her own book-worthy adventure, and figure out what those strange feelings for her friend is.

~Likes/Favourites~

Favourite colour: Even before meeting Rex, Amy’s favourite colour was always green. Every time Alice had taken her to the park, Amy adored watching the sunlight pour through the leaves with a golden-green glow.

Favourite book(s): Because it’s sentimental to her, being her owner’s favourites, she loves Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and The Wizard of Oz. They all hold similar plots (a little girl in a blue dress goes to a fantasy land, has a few adventures, and then leaves said fantasy land to go home to her family and responsibilities) but it reminds Amy of her old owner Alice (who was actually named after Alice from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland) and their playtimes together.

Favourite Book Quotation(s):

“Green is the prime color of the world, and that from which its loveliness arises.”

“There is no living thing that is not afraid when it faces danger. The true courage is facing danger when you are afraid.”

Favourite movie: Amy does much prefer books, since they allow her to imagine the setting and characters in her own way, but doesn’t mind movies, and isn’t picky on what they watch, though she does quite like horror films.

Favourite song: Amy likes any kind of music, new or old.

Favourite game: Amy never really cared for games, the competitiveness always bothered her and stressed her out. But she’s more than happy to watch Rex play his video games and cheer him on.

~Relationships with other characters~

~Rex~

- Hit it off pretty quickly.

- Amy helps him with his anxiety, and helps him find confidence in himself, she acts as a certain therapist to him.

- Both become very stressed without the other around.

- Rex will hold and knead at Amy’s hands sometimes; it calms him down.

- Rex will let Amy ride on his back if she’s tired or needs to see something (Because she’s so short).

- One of them can basically be talking about the most boring-est things ever, yet still the other will hang on to their every word.

~Jessie~

- Became friends pretty quickly.

- Will drag Amy along anywhere.

- Get along fairly well.

- Jessie does the talking and Amy does the planning.

- Jessie always pranks the other toys and makes Amy tag along (along with Hamm).

- Introvert/Extrovert dynamic for sure.

- Both were left in alone for years so like to find solace in each other.

~Hamm~

- Hamm begrudgingly warmed up to the timorous ragdoll.

- Surprisingly good pals.

- Have full conversations without saying anything.

- Like to sit and look out of the window together.

- Hamm makes Amy laugh when she really shouldn’t (mainly when he makes fun of the other toys, mainly Woody).

- Hamm makes fun of Amy having a crush on Rex every once in a while, though he doesn’t mean any harm.

~The Potato Heads~

- Mr. doesn’t really interact with Amy much, but finds her surprisingly tolerable, if a bit high-strung and annoying.

- Like Hamm, Mr. makes Amy laugh at the most wrong moments.

- She and Mrs. Are quite good friends, and she sometimes lets Amy take care of the aliens if she and her husband are busy.

~Woody~

- Are aquianteces.

- Don’t exactly interact much, even though the whole room practically revolves around him, in Amy’s opinion, though she would never say it to his face.

~Buzz~

- Amy thinks he’s super cool (then again, he is Buzz Lightyear, he practically invented coolness)

- Both are just as clueless as one another when it comes to social cues and interactions.

- Amy helps him with vocabulary and spelling every once in a while.

~Mr. Prickle Pants~

- Are absolute BFF’s.

- Go back and forth with book quotes to the point of driving the other toys insane.

~Bo Peep~

- Amy's not exactly sure if Bo has befriended her or not.

- (She has)

- They later become good friends.

- Amy misses their talks, Bo was one of the only toys she could talk to that could keep a secret.

[justforthesakeofitt]

How You Like That (M) Chaelisa (top rosé bot lisa)

Chapter 1

hi. this story contains many mature and adult themes that can be triggering and are just for fictional use. i don't condone any of this in real life, and this is pure fiction. so, therefore, if you can't handle that, please just leave this. but don't report this story. 

enjoy 🤍

///

\

\\

///

(warning. contains strong language, human trafficing, mentions of degradation, corruption, meansé, topsé, idek but the story in general is dark and mature. so if you can't handle that please don't read!!)

🌸

🌸

🌸

roseanne smirked and swirled her glass around that was filled with her favorite champagne. the armand de brignac brut gold, which cost a mere two thousand two hundred dollars, had made it into the woman her favorite lists, when she tasted it for the first time when she was in France, at the age of nineteen. it made her feel as if she was drinking creamy silk with a lovely flavor, and she was all for that.

her silver hair, with a blueish undertone, was straightened and hung down

her back and over her perky breasts. the tint of her hair matched perfectly with her lamé velvet jacquard mini dress by one of her favorite brands, saint laurent. the dress was a perfect size, as it had been custom adjusted, and hugged her slim waist yet pretty wide hips quite well.

she was seated alone in her comfortable chair, her three bodyguards surrounding her so that she was protected at all costs. being rich had its many perks, but it also came with lots of downsides, such as constantly being exposed to the cruel world that was playing underneath everyone's feet. normal people usually weren't aware of half of the things that were going on behind the scenes of the portrayed world.

the dim and sensual lights that were present in the room, contradicted quite a lot with the chandeliers hanging from the ceiling. it seemed as if a night club had meet merged with a dining hall in an expensive mansion, yet they somehow made this entire look and vibe work.

and it was dangerous to know these secrets. behind all the glimmer and glamour of being rich, a lot of dark poison was hiding. and simply being aware of the poison, and knowing about how everything was really being run, was dangerous.

it was dangerous knowing which big companies, who were known for their customer service, actually had ten thousand upon then thousands of illegal so-called 'contract workers' working for them. people in the normal projected world thought that the people working for the minimum wage were being treated as slaves and inhumane, but they never saw the layer of people that were working even lower up than the minimum wage workers. and those were plenty.

billions upon billions of dollars would go down the drain if someone were to reveal that the biggest vegan chain in the world, also owned one of the biggest meat industries. if the companies that were known to fight climate change and induce eco-friendly ways of making products were owned by the same person that was one of the biggest carbon emitters.

if people know, that you know their secrets, your life is at great risk. and since the richest people in the world, all play the same game, you always had to be on your watch. this was no soccer game, where you had a theme behind you. this was like wrestle mania. only the strongest and smartest could survive. and the people that you would think are your friends, are the ones that wouldn't even hesitate to hire an assistant the moment they find a weak spot in you.

"number 603 thirty thousand dollars! going once. going twice. sold to miss kang!"

roseanne chuckled as the blonde girl got pulled off of the stage by her leash that watched attached to her neck. her head hung low and tears were streaming down her face as you could see them shimmer in the dim lights,  which made it all more amusing for the woman.

all of them looked like pathetic little lost puppies, getting pulled one by one to the stage where their new fate would be laid out for them. it all depended on who they ended up with.

her best friend, jennie, had found her own little pet this way and had suggested it to her. after years of being alone, and watching her best friend with the girl, she decided to finally come and see for herself. maybe she'd find something interesting here tonight. 

jennie's pet, who's name was jisoo, was quite a lucky girl. while jennie was quite a mean and tough person on a daily basis, she had developed a soft spot for her pet. it wasn't that she let the girl get away with shit, but she treated her well. better than these girls usually got treated.

jisoo had behaved so well and served her so graciously, that after one and a half year of her possession, jennie had granted her the privilege of being addressed by her name, which was quite rare for the girls that came from here.

not may of the owners ended up granting their pets the status of being called by their actual birth-given name, and rosé wouldn't be one of them either. while jennie was more of a dominant woman who loved for jisoo to worship her and take care of her, roseanne was the sadistic type. 

where jennie received pleasure by letting jisoo worship her feet and have the girl smothered underneath her wet dripping slit, eating her out until her thighs were trembling and she was panting heavily, roseanne wanted the girl to be laying at her feet, whimpers escaping her cracked lips as bruises and cuts were layered on her skin. 

the twenty-seven-year-old woman's eyes gravitated towards the podium once again, before she slightly shifted when she saw the girl that got pulled by the thick leather leash. 

her black lingerie contrasted beautifully with her pale skin, and her black hair had been put into two sideways ponytails with big red bows attached to them. that could only mean one thing.

she was a virgin.

girls with their hair loose were previous prostitutes or whores that they picked up from the streets, giving them the lowest value in the entire lineup.

girls with ponytails were normal girls that they managed to kidnap but weren't virgins anymore. 

but girls with their hair in this innocent style, and cute bows attached to it to give

them an even more pure look, were virgins.

and they sold for the highest prices.

almost everyone wanted a little virgin pet. it was a thrill knowing that all they would associate sex with was their owners. no previous partners or experiences to draw

comparisons from. 

just them.

when roseanne saw the girl's face, her doll-like features with her big doe eyes, and her plump pink lips, she knew that the girl was going to be hers.

"number 209! her price starts at a mere five hundred thousand dollars. who bids higher

than that?"

chaeyoung immediately held up her bidding board that had her slim fingers wrapping around the wooden part, "one million!"

another voice rang through the room, a few seconds later, with an offer of one and a half million dollars. but this girl was going to be hers. no matter the cost.

the bidding went on for a while before her offer rang throughout the room of "twenty-five million dollars." 

the man, that previously was bidding for the same girl, chewed on his bottom lip before shaking his head.

a smirk grazed roseanne her dark blue colored lips, "number 209 twenty-five million dollars! once! going twice! sold to miss park!"

her eyes locked with her newly bought pet, and she mindlessly licked her lips. the girl's eyes were glossy and looked with a terrified gaze at her. 

"yes...--" chaeyoung muttered to herself with s grin, "--be scared, doll. you aren't ready for what I have in store for you."

there were only a few girls left, so she patiently sat through it all, satisfied with her purchase of the evening. non of the girls could top her pet. and for once, she was glad that she had listened to jennie's advice.

after the auction was over, she walked to the back and got handed two briefcases by one of her bodyguards, which she delivered to the woman that was behind all of this.

"you made jessie very happy. i hope the girl will make you happy too."

roseanne hummed and watched as the men were counting the money, before turning her attention back to the woman in front of her, "everything is clean right? no traces. no record and no evidence."

jessie nodded and smacked her bright red lips together, "everything is clean. we tripled checked. the police have already been paid to drop the missing person case, so she has been declared dead. the parents are quite poor too so they won't be able to afford to search for her or take any legal actions. she's dead and has been reborn the moment you bought her."

roseanne smirked and, with a firm handshake, greeted the woman before she made her way into a dark hallway that led to where the girl should be.

she opened the door to a room and saw a black wooden crate, which had been sealed by a lid at the top, sitting on the floor in the middle of the room.

when she saw that it was the correct one, she snapped her fingers, making two of the three men quickly make their way over to the side and lifted up the top.

she once again, almost immediately crossed eyes with her toy, and saw how panicked and vulnerable she seemed. this made her feel only more in control and boosted her ego.

there were soft pleading whimpers coming from the bound girl, but she ignored them completely.

after a few seconds of further inspection, the crate got closed again.

"deliver her in an hour to my address. make sure that she keeps whatever bodily fluid she has inside of her. i don't want her to arrive in filth at my place."

she got helped into her thick fur coat, and flicked her hair back, before putting on a peeked black cap.

the men nodded in understanding and turned their attention on the crate. one of them followed her, also functioning as her driver, while the other two stayed behind.

there were two small holes on the top of the crate in the cover, which made sure that the girl got enough fresh air to stay conscious, but not enough to make her feel great, so the chance of her throwing up or peeing herself was a big possibility.

she just hoped that the girl could hold it in, as she was sure that she wouldn't hesitate to hose the poor thing down immediately. 

she climbed up the stairs before walking outside. 

\\\

it was dark, already around the one at night, so the streets were fairly empty. these illegal legal things, were mostly done at night, just to give extra security and privacy.  "ready miss?" her chauffeur asked making her nod, "yes. take me home."

she stared out of the window, the snow slowly cascading down while the streets of Seoul were already covered in a thick layer of the frozen crystals.

it was only november, yet the heavens had sent them snow already. and to be fair, roseanne wasn't complaining. 

she smiled as she started to move up the hills, knowing that she was approaching her lovely home.  

her and her best friend, jennie, were actually neighbors, which was quite fun. this meant that she could show her new purchase off very soon, as all she had to do was go to the mansion next door. even tho it was a five-minute drive.

the moment the car stopped at the entrance of her house, she got out, hugging her black fur coat tighter around her body, before grabbing her purse and made her way inside.

"the room is ready right?" she asked one of her maids, who nodded and bowed slightly, before helping her out of her coat "yes ma'am. it is exactly like you wanted it to be."

she grinned and stretched herself before yawning a bit and walked inside.

"good. now, all we have to do is wait."

///

\\\

[jihef03]

 People have theorized a lot about what makes the toys come alive in the Toy Story verse and honestly I don’t think Pixar ever thought about it /will give a definitive answer, but I’d be inclined to believe that toys come alive through care and attention. Of any kind of love really. And they get to store that sh*t like batteries.

Children’s  love is of course is the most effective and primal source. Toys that are dearly loved by their children owners are full of vitality don’t really need a lot of sleep, and have enough energy going on through the years, until they’re hopefully passed diwn to another owner or in a daycare . I’m reffering obviously to Andy’s toys, Bonnie’s toy, they guys have a pretty big toy life expectancy. And honestly even Sid’s toy can count, because Sid does love and play with his toys, even if they see it as torture. And that’s why “unconventional” like Bo Peep ( a porcelain figure) and Forky ( trash) are alive, because htye were loved and considered as toys.

Another is..brand recognition. Y’know, those popular toys that everyone know and love. That’s why the toys we see coming to life in Al’s Barn are mostly Barbies and *one* Buzz Lightyear : the toys themselves don’t have owners per say, but every kid knows them and loves them. (that and  because Pixar probably didn’t have the time, brand deals and technology to put other toys but shhh)

A similar deal with toys being sold at fair. They’re usually a bit less lucky ,but faires are still places for children, so toys get to come to life there too.

And then there are collectables toys, like we see with the Woody’s Roundup gang . Jessie and Bullseye did fine (probably in huge part because they’re coming from loving homes), but Stinky Pete had his energy coming from brand recognition. And sure Al is a gross sleazy ass bastard, but I’m willing to believe his obsession with the show comes from a place of love. Greed has obviously taken the wheel, but c’m on, no matter how greedy you are, you don’t spend a lifetime collecting stuff you’ dont vibe with at least a little bit. (I’m still waiting for a good counterpart of Al btw : Woody and Bo end up in care of a kind collector who fix them up and they go in retirement, c’m Pixar !)

Also toys interacting with humans are important for them but the relationship toys can form between each others are vital as well and should not be disregarded. This is why it’s kind of a toy’s inate reflex to move in groups : no one gets left behind.

 I don’t think the toys themselves know it. Like us, some probably think about their own mortality too, but the general consensus among them is that one day you just feel..tired . Too much tear and wear, and most the important people in you life are gone, so you go still and you don’t get up is all

[karliesbuzzcut]

thats the thing that scares me about this whole thing, or what i feel is really going in the wrong direction in the fandom overall. fans who think criticising every single little thing of someone you claim to love, projecting your wants into her, to fit her to your own wants than seeing her as her own person, choosing to believe taylor’s lying to everyone’s faces, she’s manipulative, she’s using fans for money, to think thats the right way of being a fan; (1)

I think the reason I have the image and opinion of Kaylors that I do has to do with my first impression of them, which touches on some themes you mentioned.

Barely a year ago I thought Kaylors didn’t actually thought the girls were romantically together. I thought they liked their friendship and they wanted them to be together. Maybe some of them did have the theory that something was happening or had happened between the girls but in a chill way, you know? Like the people who theorise Andy’s mom from Toy Story was the original owner of Jessie. You connect some dots, make a Twitter thread, people go “ooh!” “ah!” And then everyone goes home.

It wasn’t until the infamous “community that I'm not a part of” interview that I discover this little corner of the internet. People were discussing Kaylors on reddit and they linked me to TTB and @thetaylorfiles (I bet they didn’t realise they were about to change my freaking life). And I was expecting to see people disappointed but no, they were angry. And not angry as in “Taylor has been baiting us” but as in “Taylor is gay -I’m not changing my mind about that- she’s just fucking with us”.

But regarding the “are they dangerous?” I don’t think so. There are unstable individuals who if, instead of getting help, are pushed into hating someone or something can become dangerous. But if you avoid any topic that would trigger them, you’d end up with no internet at all. And I’m always very cautious about blaming an entire community for the actions of a few. This is, of course, a case-by-case basis.

I know I give Kaylors a lot of shit... but hopefully it’s clear that I’m only discussing that small percentage who take things very seriously. And in such cases, I think the most damage they’re going to make is to themselves.

[alwaysahiccupandastrid]

I...am in two minds about Toy Story 4.

On the one hand, I grew up with Toy Story. I grew up with Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Andy and the gang. I have that nostalgia from having my own Woody/Jessie/Buzz/Bullseye (my Woody was given to me by my late nan when I was little, which is why I have an even more emotional connection to the series).

There were bits of Toy Story 4 I liked - it kept up the overall tone of the other movies, it was humorous, it was enjoyable. The animation was beautiful too. I did love it when I watched it and I want to watch it again at least once more.

But the more I think about it, the more I start to feel conflicted because there’s stuff that ruined it for me. It feels like Pixar abandoned the messages from the other films - the messages about friendship, for example. Woody basically left the gang and did a total personality heel turn to (as someone so adequately described it) “tap some porcelain ass”. Perhaps that wording is a bit strong but the fact is that Woody basically had a midlife crisis and abandoned his lifelong friends to be with his girlfriend.

And I’m not hating on Bo Peep - while I wasn’t a fan of Bo in the original film when I was little, I grew to appreciate her more as I got older. And I liked Bo in this one too. But Pixar could have easily had Woody realize that his friends need him, he’s their leader, and it doesn’t matter if he’s playing second fiddle to a spork.

Toy Story 4 seemed to take elements from the other three films and do a shit on them, to be honest.

It’s not the first time we’ve seen Woody being passed over for a new toy - in the first film, he gets jealous because Andy suddenly seems to prefer Buzz. But Woody didn’t leave because of that - he realized that he wanted to be there for Andy, regardless of whether he was the number one toy. He just wanted to be there for Andy. Yet in TS4, it’s like “Woody feels abandoned so he fucks off lmao” - like where is the Woody who would fight to be there for his kid??

Bonnie isn’t Andy, granted, but Woody’s character throughout all the films has always been very strongly in the “the most important thing for a toy is being there for a kid”. In Toy Story 2, Buzz even reminds him “a toy once told me life was only worth living if you were being loved by a kid” - and that’s why Woody ultimately decides that he wants to return to Andy. Even when Andy no longer plays with them, Woody still remains there to watch Andy grow up. I know he doesn’t have that same attachment to Bonnie, but it’s just baffling that he did such a 180.

Speaking of character assassinations...first of all, Buzz was made to be so dumb. Yeah, the inner voice gag was funny but they made Buzz out to be some absolute moron who didn’t understand metaphors or whatever. Buzz isn’t a moron.

Another character assassination? Bonnie. Look, I get that she’s five and she has her favourite toys and a short attention span, bleh bleh bleh. But given the fuss she made about having Woody in TS3, plus how much she loved him in the shorts released between 3 and 4, the fact that she didn’t care at ALL for Woody in the slightest made me mad. It’s not just “she’s not playing with him” - it’s the fact he went missing and she literally didn’t give two shits. If ANY of my toys had gone missing on a trip somewhere, 5 year old me would have been distraught as fuck. I get her attachment to Forky, that’s not what makes me mad, it was a problem even before she made Forky. They turned her from a sweet little girl who loves toys into a careless girl who didn’t care about a toy that was clearly loved and valued by their last owner. Remember how she looked like she was going to cry when Andy hesitated about giving Woody to her? Yeah, I don’t blame Andy - he knew Bonnie was bad news.

All of the other characters were just...there. Usually you get to see lots of the aliens, Jessie, Rex, Bullseye, Hamm etc., but in TS4 they were just there to fill background space and provide the odd line. Mr Potato Head is understandable since Don Rickles sadly passed away before recording any lines and they were using archive recordings. But the others? Jessie had maybe five lines in the entire film, and while she kicked ass in her own way, Pixar made her secondary to Bo. I get that Bo was a big focus in the film but...seriously? While I loved Ducky and Bunny, I’d have rather had more Jessie screentime than two brand new characters created solely for gag purposes. Jessie is beloved and important in the franchise - for her to be delegated a back seat is not only senseless, but it’s also OOC for her.

Woody really did have it worst when it came to character assassination - gone is the lovable cowboy doll who’s always there for their kid and for the gang...now we have Woody being hopelessly in love and whipped to the point where he abandons his lifelong friends because “LoL Bo Peep pretty”.

So overall, I don’t know how I feel about Toy Story 4 - I’m disappointed the more I think about it. Like I said, there were many good parts about the film, including the overall tone and the animation has come a long way, but the story wasn’t nearly as strong as the other 3 movies were - it’s like Pixar wanted to take Toy Story out from the shelf again just for a) money and b) to answer the Bo Peep question. Honestly, I didn’t need a whole movie to explain what happened to Bo Peep - hearing in TS3 that she was gone was enough for me. It allowed me my own idea of what could have happened to her, you know? If they had really wanted to show what happened to Bo, why not create a short like “Small Fry” or “Toy Story of Terror” to explain? Simple fact - again, it’s money. This movie just wasn’t strong enough to hold up the way the others have - in context with the first three, it’s an OOC mess.

Again, there were bits I liked and it’s not a bad movie really - it’s just that there was so much that was bafflingly OOC and stupid. The Woody in the first three films would NEVER have left his friends like he did in TS4, he would never have allowed himself to be a lost/free toy like he did just because he wanted to stay with Bo (who he hasn’t seen in over a decade, mind you - it’s unbelievable that he’s gonna stay with someone he hasn’t seen in over a decade instead of friends he’s been through thick, thin and death situations with).

[bewhoyouarebopeep]

Purpose, belonging and subversion in Toy Story

From the beginning, the most important thing for a toy is to belong to a child. The most horrifying thing is to be lost. This is a logical and straightforward foundation on which to build the social and moral world of toys. 

There are no villainous toys in the first Toy Story film. Buzz is an antagonist, and it’s worth noting that his flaw is that he doesn’t understand his purpose in life. His resolution comes when he embraces his place in the world. He flies when he accepts that he can’t actually fly.

Happiness comes from the love of a child. Fulfillment comes from accepting your purpose. These are the rules of Toy Story. 

Toy Story 2 and 3 elaborate on this. Some have noted that TS2 and TS3 deviate from the original Pixar vision of telling stories without villains. But the fact that they went down that road posed the question - what makes a toy (as distinct from a miniature human, which is something that the writers were always avoiding turning the toys into) evil? The answer is: rejecting the rules laid out for them, rejecting their place in the world. 

In Toy Story 2, Woody is presented with the option of not belonging to any one child - and, not being played with ever again. Living forever, without really living; freeing oneself from pain by freeing oneself from joy. Obviously, this is something bad, and it’s explicitly stated to be by Buzz - not because being in a glass case forever is horrifying if you think about it for a minute, but because it flies in the face of everything Woody taught him about being a toy. It’s a rejection of a toy’s purpose.

It’s abstract love, love from a distance, without play, without risk. The toys who want this are tragic cases, broken by rejection, or by never being loved by a child at all. 

Being deprived of a child’s love, the Prospector develops into someone evil. He doesn’t want to belong, or to be played with. He doesn’t want to risk damage. His punishment is to be forced into the arms of a child, one who is guaranteed to damage him. 

Jessie, on the other hand, accepts the risk of belonging to a child, and she is rewarded. She gets to belong to Andy. By fulfilling her purpose, she has the best possible life for a toy. 

Toy Story 3 presents another way of not belonging to a child. Instead of being kept in a glass case, toys belong to a collective of children, and by belonging to everyone, they belong to no one. 

Again, with Lotso, it’s being deprived of a child’s love that drives him to become a villain and reject his prescribed role. He wants to be played with, without belonging. He wants love without commitment, he wants the good without the bad. His punishment is that he is affixed to a single owner, and like the Prospector, to be loved in a way that is damaging. 

Of course, it's not just the fact that they reject the norms of toy life that makes Lotso and the Prospector the bad guys, it’s that they do bad things to get what they want. But their motivations are clearly portrayed as deviant as well. 

They don’t just do bad things, they are wrong for wanting the things that they want. In Toy Story 3, Andy’ s toys come to a reasonable conclusion: they think they’re about to be thrown out, and try to find a new place for themselves - and they’re punished for it. There’s a weird subtext to the caterpillar room, that if a toy doesn’t give and devote themselves to one child, then they won’t be respected; that if they’re played with by multiple children, they’ll be used and abused by all of them. The fact that that’s not the only toy-kid dynamic taking place at the daycare keeps that from becoming a message, but it’s still something that’s present.

And again, it’s when the toys accept their duty to Andy, when they accept their place in the world, that they’re rewarded. They’re rewarded with the same life they’ve always had, belonging to one child, the best possible life for a toy.

While I’m being pretty sharply critical, I want to be clear that this isn’t meant to be a condemnation of TS2 or TS3 (although the more I think about TS3 the less comfortable I am with it). Every fictional universe has it’s rules, and fiction reflects reality, and a work doesn’t need to have multiple layers of self-awareness, or be subversive, to be enjoyable or good. 

But, by subverting the established rules, Toy Story 4 did something inspired. 

Woody follows the rules. He does what he’s supposed to do. He does everything right. And thing do not turn out for him. 

As an aside, people talk about the Toy Story movies tracking with the life experience of their original viewers, and this is a great example of that. If following all the rules and not getting the life you were told you would get doesn’t encapsulate the experience of millennials, people who struck out on their own after the 2008/2009 crash, then I don’t know what does. But anyways...

For the first time, Woody is not rewarded for following the rules. And for the first time, not belonging to a child is shown in a positive light. It’s interesting that people theorized that Bo would be the villain in TS4, because her values place her among the bad guys of the previous installments. Gabby Gabby, on the other hand, has the exact same values as Woody. Woody is preoccupied with the past, and he keeps trying to reassert the old order, to give himself a place in Bonnie’s life even though he’s been rejected. It’s not until he witnesses Gabby being rejected in spite of not doing anything wrong that he can accept that the old order of his life has fallen away.

The subversion is effective, it doesn’t feel like a gimmick or like the writers are trying to be edgy, because it doesn’t throw away the old rules entirely. 

The goal of lost toys is still to be played with, but on their own terms. Instead of trying to feign belonging, to create a system where they have a constant supply of love without sacrifice, they belong only to themselves. Bo doesn’t try to escape from the ups and downs of life, she embraces them. She doesn’t try to wall herself off from damage or pain, she bandages herself up and keeps going. What she wants doesn’t hinge on getting something from a child without giving in return, it doesn’t hinge on a child at all. She wants freedom and experience, she wants the world.

But play is still part of her life. She rejects the status quo without rejecting being a toy. The toys in the playground offer a different kind of play. Instead of belonging to a child and experiencing life with them, they have one afternoon in the sun. Instead of the lifetime of memories that Woody tells Forky about, it’s one memory, with a novel toy that’s not theirs, a unique and transient experience, that’s still special and valuable. 

There is more than one way to live. You can do everything right and have your life turned upside down through no fault of your own. You can find purpose and meaning in something wholly unexpected. It’s brilliant that TS4 was able to tell that story. And it wouldn’t have been able to without the first three movies setting up the rules of a toy’s existence so solidly, to give it an established framework to question. 

[oak23]

toy story 4 script doctor:

Okay so here’s how I would have tweaked Toy Story 4

Give more of a timeskip between films so Bonnie is like, grade 4 or so, so anything that happens in the film doesn’t immediately undo the last film but also doesnt have the immediate issue of her outgrowing toys

Bonnie loses interest in Woody because he gets worn down again and Bonnie doesn’t wanna damage him any further instead of just losing interest in him despite begging Andy to give Woody to her

just drop the whole Forky subplot and focus on the fact Woody isn’t relevant to Bonnie’s play style and him dealing with Andy

Woody gets lost and comes across the Antique store with Bo

Gabby is more of a Mafia style character Godfather and Woody is trapped in the store cuz of his pullstring shit

 Bo leads the rebel toys of the store and she’s deeply more connected to them and she’s built this lost toy life with her found family

Jessie and Buzz’s b plot is them working together to find Woody and it’s just Buzz being a romantic doofus and trying to impress Jessie rather than the whole inner voice thing

Ducky and Bunny are dropped entirely

Woody and Bo’s main conflict comes from him wanting to be with Bonnie as he wants to do what Andy gave him to do but Bo’s driving force is “We’re getting old! We’re both literally falling to pieces and kids can’t play with us! We need to look after each other when our job is done”

Gabby’s sadness plot is played up more and it shows her isolation even with the dummies drives her to do mean shit to prevent other toys being picked over her

Woody’s voicebox is broken in the final climax, irreparable and broken as a symbol of both his and Gabby’s purposes.

Gabby gets picked up to play in spite of her defects and it gets resolved showing Woody that no matter how damaged or defective he is, he still has value to a child

Bo’s misfit family feel free to get sold off and loved by children

idek Bo realises she was never a toy and gets sold to an adult collector who fixes her up and shit and because Pixar makes us think she’s dead, we find out no, Woody can still visit her cuz the adult is someone Bonnie visits frequently but like, the conclusion to her arc goes from jaded by the world to realising there is humans who care about her even if they don’t play with her like Andy

Woody’s arc finishes with him becoming a sentimental display piece in Bonnie’s Room because he really is too damaged to be a toy anymore but knowing he’s loved by his owners

And it ends with Woody keeping in touch with Bo as they joke about being old pieces of shit and Woody visiting her cuz Bo was bought by Bonnie’s aunt or something

[ashleybenlove]

I saw Toy Story 4 today!!

Spoilers under the read more and it’s long. 

Now, I have no idea what’s the mood from other folks in regards to the ending re Woody staying with Bo and leaving the Andy+Bonnie’s room’s toys, but yes, while I see it being kind of another story in the last while to do the whole separation of good friends (I’M LOOKING RIGHT AT YOU HTTYD3 and WIR2, RIGHT AT YOU. I’m glaring at you through angry tears, especially HTTYD3 and DWA)... I didn’t have a problem with it. Mostly because it made sense to me.

Because yeah, as this movie shows. WOODY DID NOT GET OVER ANDY. This is fact. It’s clear as day. He did not get over Andy. Plus, given the way that he ran Andy’s room, in which they were coworkers ostensibly (which is pretty much Word of God, from previous movies and their commentaries), he obviously tried to do that with Bonnie’s room. And Dolly, obviously was not having that. The way Bonnie’s room was like, was a theatre troupe, and that’s also from the commentary track of TS3, from what I remember. Plus, Woody? He’s used to feeling the center of attention, especially with Andy. And he didn’t get that with Bonnie. She was quite content with being eclectic with her playtimes.  So, yeah, that left Woody in this state of, feeling useless and purposeless.

So that ending? It makes sense to me. I mean, yes, I can see how it causes some issues with previous iterations (such as TS3, where Buzz was SO ADAMANT!!! the Most) about them sticking together as a family, because yes, the former Andy’s rooms toys are a family. But even with TS3, Woody was the one to leave them in the first place. 

It makes sense that Woody would leave. 

And post-TS3, I’ve always kinda headcanoned that Woody would essentially go into a state of retirement, of some sort. Like, it made sense to me. But he sort of didn’t do that in Bonnie’s room. Because he felt he didn’t have that option, I suppose. And now he does. 

Woody retired with his ladyfriend. 

Also, yes, it is very upsetting that he lost his voice box to help Gabby Gabby, but he doesn’t seem all that fussed about it? He’s had... since the 50s after all. 

ALSO. OTHER THINGS. I loved lines he had about, where he told Bo “You weren’t around when Molly was a baby” (or something along those lines) and the same with Buzz where he said something to the effect of “You weren’t around when Andy was really young.” Which is good info because given the age of Molly in movie 1 (where she was in a crib and still sort of...in babyhood? Probably less than a year old), that means Bo was probably the newest toy to the Andy-and-Molly rooms before Buzz. And Buzz didn’t show up until that birthday in movie 1. Plus, Woody has likely been around since the day Andy was born. 

Though, the movies never acknowledge the kid that Woody had prior to Andy, because if he’s been around since the 50s... he most definitely had at least one owner prior to Andy circa 1990s. I highly subscribe to the headcanon that his previous owner was Andy’s dad and Andy’s dad died within a year before TS1 (basically very likely either before Molly was born or shortly after). So assuming Andy was born 1990, Andy’s parents are probably folks born in the 50s or 60s. But it could explain a lot, like why he took losing Andy so hard. 

Anyways. I love that Buttercup kept wanting to get Bonnie’s dad in trouble, and also Jessie sort of taking control of the sitch by causing that flat. Also Jessie getting Woody’s sheriff star was a good touch, indeed. She and Buzz as the co-leaders of the room is something that seems like I’d like. Or rather, Dolly as leader, Jessie as second, Buzz as third. 

Also, now there’s a canon explanation as to how they lost Bo Peep, and yeah, their life doesn’t really allow them to say goodbye to their friends/family/loved ones, and what’s really nice about the ending is that... they got the chance to say goodbye to Woody. Jessie and Buzz got to give him hugs. And Buzz gave him a big one!

Also, I really love how like, Buzz was confused about the whole conscience thing. Oh, you silly baby. But hey, his internal voice box thing helped! A lot!

Also, KEANU REEVES WAS GREAT. 

Also, I loved that skunk robot thing they used to get around! 

Overall, I enjoyed it. I’m fairly happy with this movie. 

You’re welcome to talk to me about the movie, however, keep the tone positive because I am uninterested in criticism of things I love, thank you and have a nice day. 

However, do not reply to this post (it’s so others can avoid spoilers!). There are other ways to talk to me such as asks, PMs, or reblogs.

[starberry-cupcake]

I just finished watching Toy Story 4 for the first time and...yeah it’s what I expected, more or less. 

It feels very ominous that after the whole deal with the movie, the various controversies and all the mess we knew there was, they chose to end it that way. 

I mean, the facts that we know for sure are:

1) The movie was originally based on the relationship of L*sseter with his wife (source)

2) Rashida and Will left Pixar because they felt women and people of color weren’t treated with respect (source) 

3) The vast majority of their script was canned in favor of re-writes that caused the actors to come back and re-record (source)

4) The sexual assault allegations and testimonies against L*sseter, with his own admissions of the facts, arose after Rashida and Will left (source, source, source) and permeated the production of the movie, to the point that it had to switch releases with Incredibles 2 (source)

5) L*sseter remained working at Disney/Pixar for a lot longer than he should have, Bob Iger still talked about him with utmost respect and he remained as consultant until the end of 2018, after which he was immediately employed on another studio (source) 

With all that background, I can’t help but feel like this movie was very drenched in all that, whether intentionally or not. 

The idea of Woody’s parallel with L*sseter initially (with Bo as his wife), is enough to put me on edge, but this ending where he leaves, going elsewhere because he has “another purpose”, he’s “set free” and “without his ‘voice’”, leaving the role of Sheriff to Jessie (let’s remember Jennifer Lee was left as head of DA)...I don’t know, it feels a bit like an idealized self-insert meant to close the series for good, not because it’s a good closure (like movie 3 felt) but because if he isn’t around, nobody can have Woody. 

Which is laughable to me, considering L*sseter himself didn’t even blink when taking Brave away from Brenda Chapman, making her share directorial credits with a man and pretty much not giving a shit about Brave being her story, based on her personal life and experience as a woman and a mother (source). 

This movie felt unnecessary in so many ways. It was an unnecessary story, with an unnecessary problem and an unnecessary characterization of a female character they had pretty much abandoned in the last movie. 

Because making Bo a fighter and an action lady is enough feminism to cover all the controversy surrounding the movie, even if there isn’t room for characters like Jessie to show up more than 2 seconds, or that the antagonist, also a female character, ends up taking Woody’s “voice” away, even if we’ve learned time and time again, in Toy Story movies, that what makes toys different ends up being what kids are drawn to. 

But Woody. The victimization of Woody on this movie. He’s put through so much it seems like an episode of Saint Seiya. He’s crushed and stomped on, he’s sacrificing himself for the happiness of Bonnie, who doesn’t appreciate him, he’s put aside and loses his purpose and sacrifices himself once and again to satisfy her and fulfill his loyalties, his purpose. 

Which, in tow, makes it so that audiences antagonize with Bonnie, because who is this girl to reject the toy we’ve grown up to love? this toy Andy had entrusted her with? this toy she doesn’t get because she’s a girl, so she’s giving Jessie that spot instead? 

This is the kind of female portrayal written by men that get other men upset at women in media, instead of questioning whose writing that is. Because they know how loyal audiences are to Woody, to Andy’s legacy, and making Bonnie reject Woody and dismiss the sacrifice he’s making, even unknowingly, is putting Bonnie in a position in which she’s not as good a character to identify with as Andy was. Grown ups who grew up with Toy Story and kids who watch Toy Story now all love Woody and Bonnie’s indifference isn’t going to be amiss to anyone. The decision to write her in this way, especially after all those lovely specials between movies 3 and 4, is absolutely appalling to me. 

We’ve seen Woody sacrifice himself before, we’ve seen Woody do the impossible to help his kid, but never to the extent of feeling like he’s constantly attacked and undervalued, constantly underappreciated, and none of the toys help him out keeping Forky in or doing what he’s doing. They all stand by and stare and barely even speak. Every ensemble toy is a secondary character to the story of how Woody abandons his life’s purpose (to make a kid happy) in order to live with Bo and redirect toys to new owners, but not belonging to a kid anymore. 

And this parallel idea of L*sseter makes me sick if that’s, intentionally or not, a reason for Woody to disappear as a martyr. To sacrifice himself over and over, unappreciated, and having to leave behind his Sheriff star to a female character who barely spoke throughout the movie and whose leadership was not developed or showcased in the movie, aside from ruining a tire. 

So yeah, I don’t know, I wish this movie hadn’t happened, to be completely honest. Sorry to everyone else who worked in it, though, I’m sure there’s a lot of awesome people involved who don’t deserve my salt. 

[courtneysmovieblog]

“Toy Story 4″: The sequel we didn’t know we wanted

“Toy Story doesn’t need another sequel!” we said.  “Toy Story 3 was the perfect ending!”

And it was.  But Pixar once again proved that the magic of the series is brighter than ever with the latest (and final?) installment, Toy Story 4.

When we last left Woody and the gang, they were settling into their new home with Bonnie, and things have been great -- mostly.  Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks) is happy just to have a kid again, even though he finds himself lacking a purpose with Andy gone and Bonnie not playing with him as much.  He just does what he can to make her happy -- including babysitting her self-made new toy, Forky (voiced by Tony Hale).

Forky, however, is not thrilled to be a toy.  Convinced he’s better made for the trash, he keeps trying to throw himself away.  One escape attempt winds up with him and Woody lost on the road during Bonnie’s summer road trip.

While Buzz (Tim Allen) and the others search for their friends, Woody encounters his old love, Bo Peep (Annie Potts), who was donated by Andy’s mom years before.  Bo is now a lost toy and loving it, preferring to be a temporary toy to various children rather than a one-owner child.  With her help, he must rescue Forky from a general store run by creepy doll Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) and her creepier army of ventriloquist dummies.

The plot might seem simplistic, but the writers make sure that this sequel isn’t just a cash grab.  The series’ overall theme of the toys’ fear of abandonment and desire to be loved by children is expanded, pushing Woody to consider if maybe it’s time to consider his own happiness instead of focusing on his owner.  Tom Hanks once again knocks it out of the part, giving Woody even more emotional depth.

After years of being a background character/love interest, Bo Peep finally gets her spotlight.  She is still very much the pragmatic, sensible doll she was in the first two movies, but her new and fierce independence feels like a natural progression of her character.  Her and Woody’s romance is just as emotional as Buzz and Jessie’s blooming relationship in Toy Story 3.

Speaking of which, sorry to say that Buzz and the other toys are kind of sent to the background this time, yet they are still as wonderful as ever.  However, we get some great new toy characters that will easily win your heart: Canadian action figure Duke Kaboom (brilliantly voiced by Keanu Reeves), carnival toys Ducky and Bunny (the ever-hilarious Key and Peele), and of course the scene-stealing Forky.  Even the “villain” Gabby Gabby will touch your heart.

Toy Story 4 feels more like a lighthearted romp compared to the last movie -- at least until the final 20 minutes, which has Pixar’s usual rip-your-heart-out poignance.  No, it won’t be as wrenching as the incinerator scene, but I guarantee you will be emotional.

If Toy Story 3 was the perfect final chapter to the series, then Toy Story 4 is the epilogue that provides satisfying closure without erasing any of the previous’ movies impact.  A good ending is hard to come by, but Pixar managed to stick the landing beautifully.  Well done.

10 out of 10

[golivethemagic-blog]

So I have Feelings About Toy Story 4

So. Hello. It’s been a while since I posted here, huh? Like usual, I’ve been skeptical on Disney as a business: ensuring there will be less movies made more expensive by devouring the competition, not letting Galaxy’s Edge Cast Members tell people where things are outside of Galaxy’s Edge, their anti-union policies…nothing they have been producing lately has felt interesting to me. Tumblr has also gone to shit and over half the blogs I used to follow are gone, but I still like it a hell of a lot more than any other social media site. I still use mobile, but mostly to transfer images from my phone to my computer.

But I saw Toy Story 4, and I have feelings about it.

Disney sure is on a trend of writing movies that have nothing inherently wrong with them but leave the fanbase screaming. While I have no interest in associating myself with the toxic and childish Fandom Menace, I can sympathize with them. Star Wars was a series that they had invested a lot of time and emotional energy into, and to see the series take such a left turn—old characters die or change their characterization completely, new characters take center stage, the black and white morality of the series become much more grey and complex—makes you feel like it was all for naught. This doesn’t excuse ANY of their actions, but I digress.

Toy Story is my Star Wars. And Toy Story 4 is my Last Jedi. And I have feelings about it.

Let’s talk about the good things first. Toy Story 4 is an absolute masterpiece in terms of CGI animation, and even animation in general. I have no idea how animation can improve from here. Most of the time when there was something onscreen that I hated, I was just watching the textures of characters, or how they moved around. The plans the toys hatch in order to move around and save the day are some of the strongest writing this series has ever had. The villain was excellent; just as sinister as Lotso or Pete, but still human (for lack of a better term) and able to be sympathized with. Forky is great, and the montage of him and Woody just walking down the highway was my favorite scene in the whole movie.

It’s good to see Bo Peep back. Her being missing was one of the things I really hated about 3. But I really dislike her redesign. It feels like the creators thought that, in order for Bo Peep to be a strong female character, they needed her to be a Strong Independent Woman. Bo Peep in the first two movies was already a strong, competent character--the fact that she was not an action hero does not change that. She was always kind to the other toys, she worked alongside them despite being so fragile, and she took control of the room when Woody and Buzz were gone. The prologue of the movie showcases this quite well. But also the prologue requires wild leaps of logic in order for the story to start and for Bo Peep to be missing during 3. Yeah, she was not Andy’s toy, but Andy still played with her and relied on her like any of the other toys, and furthermore, Andy’s toys were her friends.  The whole movie I was waiting for Bo Peep to have a wild make-out scene with Woody like she did in the first two, but it just never happened. Because the nature of their relationship had changed so much, it never felt quite as romantic, no matter how many times they relied on Woody looking at Bo lovingly while she was looking at something else (aka, my favorite romance trope. They used it twice.). Now I get that there are 9 years of separation between them, but it wasn’t like there was any bad blood between them before.  

Speaking of wild character leaps, all of the characters seemed to take one at some point. Andy’s toys mostly took a backseat, particularly Mr. Potato Head, who had to rely on archival recordings for his voice. Buzz and Woody spend almost no time together. But we still have Buzz thinking his inner voice is literally his voicebox (Buzz is dumb, but it’s been 20 years. He should know something), Woody sulking that he isn’t the favorite toy anymore (despite, I dunno, THE FIRST MOVIE BEING ABOUT THAT),  Bo Peep accusing Woody of caring more about a kid that doesn’t really like him than caring about his friends, and tons of other small things that didn’t really make me like any character. Towards the end of the movie, Bo Peep asks Woody what’s so important about saving Forky, and the fact that Woody says anything other than “Because he’s a toy, and no toy gets left behind” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Woody’s character.

And then THAT ENDING…strap yourselves in, kids. I need to talk about spoilers.

Very quick final thoughts for people who don’t want to read under the cut: Toy Story 4 is not a bad movie. It’s a wonderfully animated movie full of action and heartache alike. But’s it’s poorly told. I can’t recommend this to longtime Toy Story fans, but admittedly, it probably wasn’t made for us. There’s a whole new generation of Bonnies to play with now. If you ignore all the character history behind it, it’s fine. But I probably won’t be giving this another watch.

So. At the end of the movie, Woody decides to stay with Bo and travel the world. He says goodbye to everyone and gives his Sherriff badge to Jessie, effectively making her the new leader of Andy’s toys (although Dolly was the leader of Bonnie’s toys and I don’t even think she was in the RV but whatever), and they go their separate ways. On paper, it is a great way to end the series. It is the end of the friendship of Woody and Buzz that was forged in the first movie. Woody isn’t dead or anything, but there’s no possible way that they can get back together except for extreme circumstances. It is the end to Woody needing to be someone’s toy in order to feel worthy. It is the perfect use of the theme that it is okay to say goodbye and let go.

But here’s the thing: I hate it.

Like I said before, Woody’s whole first movie was about him dealing with the fact that he was not the favorite toy anymore and learning to get along with Buzz despite that. Why is not being Bonnie’s favorite such a big deal? Furthermore, Woody admits that he was made “sometime in the 50s”. Let’s be generous and say that he didn’t even become aware until his toybox was opened (debatable throughout the entire series, but sure), and let’s be even more generous and say his box wasn’t sold until the 70s. Who was Woody’s original owner? Why wouldn’t Woody feel bad about leaving them? Why wouldn’t he have experience dealing with the loss of a kid in 3 that leaves him okay to move on in 4? Or why wouldn’t he bring him up as well if he did have problems? Woody was an important doll to Bonnie, even if he wasn’t prime playtime material, because someone had given him to her. Wouldn’t she notice he was missing? And considering how Andy switched back to playing with both Woody and Buzz, wouldn’t she eventually switch to wanting to play with him?  Also remember Toy Story 2, aka the Best One? In that film, Woody seriously considers going to Japan and becoming a collector’s item. But he listens to his show’s version of him sing the theme song, and he realizes how much he’ll miss his friends. Sure, context is different, especially because of Andy, but I feel like it adds to the same point: Why is Woody leaving his friends? Why do we have to have such a sad ending to our childhood franchise? whY aRe yOU ruINinG my C h I l D h o O d pIXAR

The ending feels forced. It feels like they wanted to end the series once and for all. I may not like 3 very much just because of how cynical and sad it can get, but it at least gave us a happy ending. Now? Screw you, Woody and Buzz are a thousand miles away and there’ll never be a Toy Story 5.

With all of this said, I don’t think there was a version of this story I would have liked. I had no interest in seeing the series end with Toy Story 3, I had negative interest in seeing the series end with Toy Story 4. Apparently, there is a Bo-Peep series in the works on Disney+. I think I would have preferred that as a sequel. Instead of being a feature-length film, make a series of short episodes about Bo Peep travelling the world, helping lost toys, and maybe even piecing together where Andy’s toys could have gone. It would have cost like half the budget, and it would have everyone interested in a Disney+ subscription.

Toy Story 4 is not a bad movie. It’s a wonderfully animated movie full of action and heartache alike. But’s it’s poorly told. I can’t recommend this to longtime Toy Story fans, but admittedly, it probably wasn’t made for us. There’s a whole new generation of Bonnies to play with now. If you ignore all the character history behind it, it’s fine. But I probably won’t be giving this another watch.

[frigfridge]

just finished rewatching toy story 1 thru 3 over the past few days, wanted to share my thoughts:

i love these movies a whole lot. the first 2 hold a bunch of nostalgia for me because i was A Baby when 2 came out and when i was also A Baby i would just watch our VHS copy of toy story 1 over and over again. this also makes me the exact age group to be emotionally destroyed by toy story 3, which came out just as i was entering high school and hit really close to home

individual thoughts:

toy story: the first thing i noticed was it still looks really nice even watching in 2019!! which i think is kind of spectacular for the first feature-length computer-animated film. it no doubt helps that the plot is mostly focused on little plastic dolls without realistic hair or clothing to animate but the semi-”cartoon” art direction means the human characters also look pretty nice without going too far into the uncanny valley.

also, the plot is WAY darker than i remember?? not because of sid and all the body horror toys, but because for like half of the movie woodys friends think hes an actual (toy) murderer carrying around the severed arm of his victim (!!) like, its hilarious, but also wow theres a LONG way to go between there and the climax of toy story 3.

the soundtrack is probably my favorite of the bunch. part of that is probably nostalgia but i just really like the consistency of having randy newman singing every song. it sort of elevates him to part of the story, like an omniscient narrator singing woodys (and later buzzs) inner monologue. 2 (and especially 3) didnt have as many musical numbers, which i can understand with a shift to a larger-scale approach to storytelling, but i really like the feeling it gives number 1. “you got a friend in me” is an obvious classic thats been remixed and brought back in just about every piece of toy story media im aware of, but “strange things” and “i will go sailing no more” deserve just as much recognition and praise. there just isnt a weak number among them

toy story 2: heres where the story started getting bigger and more existential, which basically becomes the new direction of the series. which makes sense! this one released 4 years after the first, and while theres no real timeskip in the story (maybe 6 months?) it had been a little while since we last saw woody and the gang. everybody in the real world had gotten older, and with the turn of the millennium approaching, the theme of impermanence loomed large in the collective unconscious. well, maybe not in my unconscious, because i was 2. but its really interesting as kind of a “time capsule” to what people were thinking about as the 90s came to a close.

so toy story 2 was a little more grounded, a little more focus on the human world, but it was also more fantastical in its presentation. the opening “video game” sequence (which still looks amazing!!) and woodys nightmare (”i dont wanna play with you anymore...”) show the animators at pixar really found their groove and started getting experimental. and to great result!! the fantasy sequences are a lot of fun and help 2 really stand out.

i would be remiss not to mention jessies flashback song here. its something else they hadnt really done in the first film and i think it really works. jessie in this film unfortunately doesnt get to do much other than fight with woody about whether he should stay or go (except for when she saves him in the end) but this song makes her character work. it also helps that it destroys me every time

also i think this is the movie that gave me an appreciation for the acting of kelsey grammer. i dont really agree with his politics (i also dont know specifically what they are) but he is a damn fine actor and gives the prospector a very genuinely intimidating edge after his heel turn. the casting really makes the character here, but thats nothing new for toy story-- every voice works. if i were the casting director, i probably wouldnt have pulled erudite kelsey grammer for a character named “stinky pete,” but as it is now i couldnt imagine him voiced by anyone else.

the last thing about toy story 2 is it feels like there were a lot more pop culture references? at least as far as i noticed. there are apparently even more than i noticed but i caught on to the “also sprach zarathustra” riff in the opening, and the jurassic park rearview mirror gag. and of course the extended star wars reference with zurg vs. utility belt buzz (and i guess zurg in general.) the references are cute and mostly unobtrusive but really i could take or leave them.

oh yeah also al is hilarious. just this rude, neurotic businessman whos incredibly self-important for the owner of a minor(?) toy store chain. hes such a puffed-up jerk, every time hes on-screen is a delight

toy story 3: this one kills me to death. i always get misty-eyed during “when somebody loved me” but the ending of 3 where andy introduces his toys to bonnie and plays with them one last time made me sob the first time i watched it. and it still does! thats the long game right there, thats the payoff of over 10 years loving these characters. its an emotional ketchup bomb, everything gets all messy and soggy and sweet. hopefully 4 can follow up, but im not really worried about that-- ive heard some good things. damn, its been 9 years since this movie came out, though! it really doesnt feel all that long, but i guess i havent been doing all that much

i actually dont know if i have much else to say about 3. the opening with the re-imagining of the previous films openings (woody versus one-eyed bart, buzz and woody vs. the evil dr. porkchop) is a highlight, although theres a conspicuous lack of bo peep. ive heard she has a big part in 4, but it was kind of weird to see a lot of toys missing and their absence (mostly) glossed over after the first few minutes. i miss r.c. and lenny, but i get they wanted to narrow down the cast so all of them could get in on the plot.

speaking of which, the escape scene is great too. its kind of a crystallizing moment of how close these characters are, and how well they work together. it reminds me a lot of the escape from sids house in the first movie, but there woody was working with sids body-horror toys and seemed to strike up a rapport with them bizarrely quickly. (speaking of which, i miss those toys! their designs were super cool, but i cant imagine they got much merchandise, especially babyface with the sharp, metal spider legs.) here, though, woody and the gang cooperate the best they ever have, and it really paints a picture of how close theyve become over the years, and justifies the emotional climax in the landfill. this is what i was talking about when i said i was surprised how dark toy story 1 got! these toys all hated woodys guts back then for what they thought he did to buzz. they kicked him out of a moving truck! its just weird to think about that conflict between them when you know how long they end up sticking together. but thats, like, neat, so its ok. it feels earned, its just kind of crazy in hindsight.

toy story 3 was also obviously made long after the first two-- by comparison, the lighting is way more sophisticated, the humans are a lot more detailed. theres just a lot more detail In General. the main cast is, like, super dirty for the middle 90% of the film, and it feels like, yeah, We Have This Technology Now. we can render so many individual glitter sprinkles suck to hamms ass and they will be in every single scene. the “fur tech” on lotso and buster is also an obvious clue, especially in the flashback to lotso trudging through the rain back to his owners house. its like “look! we can make this teddy bear SO wet!” and wow! yeah! you did! so wet!

lotso himself is also an interesting villain in terms of sheer bastardness. he is just a huge jerk. he could have hit that button so easily! and he was so mean to the baby! but at the same time hes a great character in how he slowly “changes” throughout the movie. he is kind of an obvious “pixar ‘twist’ villain” but again, the amazing performance by ned beatty really saves him. also he does get a nice comeuppance at the end, which was necessary because hes really the biggest villain in the series so far. hes knowingly malicious and doesnt have any greater motive, hes just an embittered megalomaniac who (apparently) has sent other toys to be broken, thrown away, and incinerated at the landfill. he honestly deserves worse than being strapped to the front of a truck but it works for a family movie.

i have a couple more thoughts on 3 (i guess i did have a fair amount of stuff to say about it) but im getting tired of writing. the music is good as usual, but the vocal stuff being entirely back-loaded (in the credits) is a bit disappointing since ive always been a fan of the songs, but i get that they were going for something different. the jokes about ken being, uh, ‘flamboyant’ felt out of place, mostly the one at the end (”uh, buzz? barbie didnt write this”) because it comes from one of the gang and not unnamed lotso goon #3, but i guess its pretty tame in the scheme of things.

overall im really looking forward to seeing what 4 does with the series. whew!

[leavemebetosleep]

toy story 4 thoughts

gonna be spoilery so it’s under the cut

Alright whew, where to begin. 

I am of...mixed feelings. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a bad movie. But it was also....hmmm. 

Part of that is my own expectation, and it was not what I expected. Which is fine, that’s not inherently bad. But it’s also that, it feels very different from the other toy story movies?

It feels like a very well written fic fiction; I think that’s the best way to put it. It’s good, but at the same time feels removed from the source. It pushes in ways that can feel like a bit much, a good example is how bold the toys are. 

They sabotage the RV multiple times, move a lot more even with humans in the room, Buzz at one point just openly blurts it out when he needs Bonnie to remember her backpack. I can’t picture any of that in the first movie yanno? 

There’s also less character moments than I was hoping, they spend a lot of time with comic relief. The jokes aren’t bad, but it’s have been nice to have some more screen time devoted to seeing everyone react to each other.

Like, Forky and Bo? They talk once. Bo and Jessie? They get a quick hi/bye moment. Jessie’s barely there in general. I know the cast had gotten pretty big over the years, but it’s a shame considering this is the last time they all see each other before the end.

Speaking of the end! Well, here it is the big spoiler:

Woody and and gang go their separate ways after all, and he stays with Bo. 

it’s definitely bittersweet, but they do make a good case for it. Bonnie just doesn’t care about Woody enough, and she has plenty of toys. That said, I wonder how Andy’s gonna feel if he pops over to see their family friends and finds she’s lost his old favorite cowboy he almost kept?

I feel this part of the movie will not be popular with everyone, seeing Buzz and Woody say goodbye after everything is a tear jerker for sure. Esp when it happens in a sequel not many people wanted for fear it’d “ruin” the 3rd’s ending. 

And well, it kinda does? Just not in that way.

It works for what the movie builds up. Some people just won’t want this ending.(there’s def a part of me even that was hoping for a third option ending to happen, but that’s how my fanfic would end I guess lmao.) 

It really marks one of the main differences between this movie and the third, namely that it’s not trying to pander as much to the kids who grew up with toy story. 

So what’s next uh

New characters: how do I like them? Giggles was a pretty natural inclusion. Duke was fun enough, Ducky and Bunny had some good jokes. Mostly they had the issue I brought up before, not enough deep character moments. They don’t feel like a group the same way Andy’s toys felt in the first movie, their story arcs are pretty quick and isolated. 

Oh, and speaking of quick, Forky’s arc is pretty much done by the first third of the movie. Which seems like a missed opportunity, considering how much time he gets to spend with Gabby, who’s story is wanting to be a child’s toy. 

It could’ve been a nice back and forth with him not wanting to be a plaything, and her wanting nothing else. But nope. He’s already ready to be Bonnie’s toy by then.

You know, typing that makes me realize why Duke, Bo, Woody, Ducky/Bunny, ect, they don’t feel like a gang because everyone who had good moments split up.

If Gabby, Woody, Bo and Forky were all together they’d feel like a new group of friends. They actually do have moments, Woody’s sympathy for Gabby’s never having had a child, Woody’s being a dad to Forky for the first third, Forky and Gabby’s bonding, Bo and Woody’s moments. They’d all feel close, but Forky stays with Bonnie, Gabby gets an owner and is on her way, and it just leaves Bo and Woody.

Bo and Woody, now what do I have to say about them? 

Bo changed a lot, so their interactions are very different from what they had in the first 2 movies. 

I kinda wish for old time’s sake they’d have had one moment where she pulls him with her staff, but the romance is very downplayed. It’s a shame, I love how openly flirty and endearing their old moments were. 

That’s not to say I didn’t like their interactions! They had some great moments. But it could’ve been more. 

What is comes down to is that Pixar has changed, how they tell stories has changed, and even their staff has changed, and this movie is a stark marker of that, when you have the first three movies in your head. 

All in all, I think I just need to get used to it before I can really say if I really liked it or not. Because I really don’t know right now. 

I had very high expectations I guess, and more than that; I knew there would be things I’d want to see whether the movie needed them or not. 

Maybe one day I’ll see it again and think, you know what, now that I know what to expect, I do like this movie a lot even if it didn’t pander to my expectations. Or maybe it’ll be a deal breaker and I’ll make up my own canon.

It comes down to, Pixar had too much too live up to. Toy Story peaked at the second one, so I say, no matter if I like 4 or not, please, please, just let this be the real last one, okay? 

[hairylime]

Toy Story 4

The Pitch: Tom Hanks’ Woody and Tim Allen’s Buzz Lightyear are living in a post-Andy era with Bonnie (Madeleine McGraw), the sweet little girl that adopted them in the last movie. But as the years have passed, Bonnie has proven to be a different kind of kid than Andy. Buzz, Jessie (Joan Cusack), Mr. Potato Head (the late Don Rickles), Rex (Wallace Shawn), Slinky (Blake Clark), and most of the old favorites are still in rotation. Yet Woody seems to be stuck in the closet far more often than not. Horse opera’s retrograde these days, after all.

The Toy Story movies to date have served as exemplars of family storytelling, blending humor, heartbreak, sticky situations, and themes of growing pains. Toy Story 4 is no different, but it’s even busier than previous installments. In this adventure, Woody accidentally aids Bonnie in the creation of a new favorite toy named Forky (Tony Hale, with full Buster Bluth neuroses), becoming a de facto dad in the process. Meanwhile, Bonnie’s family gears up for a road trip, and the toys pass through a small town with a traveling carnival and an antique shop.

It’s at the shop that Woody runs into his old flame Bo (Annie Potts), a now-emancipated toy free to roam without a child. Woody also must negotiate with Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks), a ‘50s doll with an aura of longing and mannered malice about her. Plus there are new characters like a pair of plush toys with the voices of Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, Keanu Reeves having the time of his life as Canadian stuntman toy Duke Caboom, cameos from Mel Brooks and Carol Burnett … my goodness. And the jokes, the sight gags, the little zingers? It’s all pretty terrific.

Pixar Power: To be blunt: Toy Story 4 is critic-proof. The Disney monopolization of content is in full swing, and Toy Story 4 is a guaranteed smash IP with a massive built-in audience. Proven fans of the 25-year old franchise (some now bringing their own children, funnily enough) will see this baby and be satisfied no matter what the toys do. But thanks to Pixar writers Josh Cooley (Inside Out) and Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, Wall-E) working their magic, Toy Story 4 still manages to find joy in newness. New ideas, new sights, new humor, and new dramatics. And true to the series’ ethos, this is filmmaking as play, confidently balancing its game of cartoony chess.

Old characters manage to affect the things audiences have always liked about them, all while finding new wants and fears, such as Woody’s anxieties over his feelings of uselessness. Duke Caboom, while silly by design with his accompanying “Oh, Canada” music, still manages to sneak in a sense of lament as he tragically recalls his owner’s disappointment in Duke not being as exciting as the commercials. There’s also the joy of going to the fair without getting gunk on your feet. The fears of parenting, empty-nesting, growing up. And, of course, the feeling of having fun with your toys, so much so that you don’t want the time to end. The film moves in all of these meaningful directions by its end, nuanced and as heart-wrenching as ever.

Talking tough, and we’re trying our best in a mostly glowing review, but there’s really not much to protest here. Perhaps the running gag about Buzz Lightyear’s “inner voice” dumbing his astro-dude down? Didn’t he become grounded and not give in to flights of fancy after the first movie? Or what about the lack of screen time for some of the continually growing cast of characters? Or when the movie’s resolution dropped to 240p out of nowhere? (Just kidding on that last one; this is Pixar, and it’s every bit as lavish as that name promises.) All things considered, most complaints would be simple pettifogging for what’s otherwise a parade of great ideas and good vibrations.

Home From the County Fair, by Norman Rockwell: Go to YouTube for just a second, and look up clips from the first three films. It’s wild seeing what quantum leaps the animation has taken between each entry. That’s not to say the old ones look bad — the innovations of the original endure — but looking at Toy Story next to Toy Story 4 is like comparing Sock Puppet Theater to Norman Rockwell.

The antique shop is designed like a mix of The Shining and the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast. One minute there’s the creeping dread of an old shop’s cobwebs, electrical outlets and narrow shelves. The next, those spaces are offset with dazzling chandelier displays and stained-glass color schemes at a dusty micro-level.

You can see the rubber bumps on an old Godzilla, and appreciate the quality control in rendering. Buzz and Woody’s heads have never looked so plasticine … at least until the next movie. And the store and its surrounding carnival play within small town Americana, a kind of nostalgia that fits Toy Story 4’s themes of obsolesce and change.

Simply put, it’s quite the looker. Greetings from the Grand Basin, when you get there.

Parent Trap: One of the movie’s most ambitious new themes is parenting. Woody’s little stunt with Forky is an act of trying to help a child that goes far less smoothly than he’d hoped. It’s Bonnie’s first day of kindergarten, she’s about to lose it, and Woody gives Bonnie supplies from the trash to create Forky. The reasons are well-intended, but like rearing a child, the creation doesn’t go precisely as imagined.

Forky keeps retreating to the trash. He doesn’t understand concepts like, um, existence. He’s like a two-year old, constantly opening cabinets and perpetually in danger of hurting himself. Woody must protect him at all costs, for Bonnie’s sake. At one point, Woody suggests wearily that he didn’t think it would be so hard, and the sentiment is universal. It’s Toy Story 4’s best new idea, an age-appropriate one played up for gags and aches alike.

The Verdict: While the novelty will never be the same as it was the first time 24 years ago, curiosity and invention continue to be displayed in full force in the Toy Story movies. How’s this for praise: I left smiling. And that really counts, sometimes. In short, you get it. Seriously. You know the formula and frankly, it’s one of the best-working ones Hollywood still has: a fun-for-the-whole-family film. In a current market crowded with franchises and pricey theatrics, Toy Story 4 feels like a warm and welcome aside, spinning an epic yarn from an intimate vantage with all the amenities of Pixar’s supremely talented creators and animators. They’re still taking care of their toys with everything they have.

Where’s It Playing? To infinity and beyond, starting June 21st. If any of the last few Disney tentpoles are any indicator, this will be on over 4,000 screens. Like, Dumbo opened on 4,200 screens. This will be everywhere.