Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
Yesterday, I watch Toy Story 4, the closing film to the Toy Story franchise. It also may be the last Pixar sequel ever. That means, Cars is finished, Monsters is finished, Finding Nemo is finished, incredibles is finished, and other Pixar films that haven’t received a sequel like Coco and Wall-E will never get a sequel. 2019 is also an interesting year for film and television. Game of Thrones has ended, South Park may come to an end, there are closing films to the MCU Infinity Era films, Star Wars Skywalker Saga films, and Toy Story films, and there are several other interesting movies like Lion King’s live-action remake, Pokémon’s first live-action film, and Frozen’s sequel.
What was good about Toy Story is that there has never been a decline in quality. First of all, they have always been family friendly. All four Toy Story movies were appropriate for kids to watch while none of them are too childish (such as fart jokes). Secondly, there has never been a decline in characterization. Granted, most of the main cast from previous movies (such as Bronco, Slinky, Hamm, Rex, and Mr. Potato Head) have been reduced to background characters in the fourth movie, but none of their traits have been exaggerated while others are dropped. Nor did they introduce traits that make the characters dumber, meaner, or more annoying. And when they introduced new characters, they weren’t as bad when it comes to ruining the movie. Finally, they have always embraced the purpose of toys in all of them. While most film series that comes in fours decline in quality (especially Shrek and Ice Age), Toy Story has never done that. It took 20 years to make three sequels to the original movie, and they have always done good. It took half as long to write five Transformers movies, and you how poorly they did. It’s hard to retain quality as the series rolls by.
That last part is a very important thing to keep in mind when writing a story based on objects. In the case of Toy Story, here’s why they embrace toys:
Toy Story wasn’t the only movie that embraced the purpose of what they’re based on rather than just have adventures. The Lego Movie did that too. The first movie embraces creativity and playing with, not collecting and gluing sets together. The evil villain wanted to separate different themes to different worlds, then glue the entire universe. It is based on the father that owns the Legos, who likes collecting them and doesn’t want his kids to play with them. In the second movie, it embraced sharing and respecting others’ creativity. It seems like some of the hero’s friends were being kidnapped by the foes, but the live action scenes shows that the older kid does not want to share his Legos. That final apocalypse towards the end, that was the last altercation between the two kids where they were punished by not being allowed to play with Legos. And guess what, the second movie was just as good as the first (and if it’s not as good, the difference in quality is negligible).
Before Toy Story, there as The Brave Little Toaster. Its story is like Toy Story 3’s story with elements from 1 and 2 (like when Sid tortured toys). It didn’t necessarily contradict the purpose of appliances, but it shows affection, abandonment, and loyalty. Just like toys, the appliances do not want to be abandoned (like the five main characters) or rejected (like the cutting edge appliances). The Master, despite being gone for quite a long time, still had affection for them, and even went to the cottage to pick them up. The appliances also left the cottage on their own because they’re still loyal to the Master. The sequels were just about adventures with inanimate objects that did not embrace the purpose of them. Both of them sucked, though the rescue one was better than the Mars one.
Now what about some ideas you shouldn’t write about. If they don’t embrace the purpose of what you’re writing about, it may be just another generic story. And if you contradict the purpose of them, then it wouldn’t be a good movie. Take for instance, Sausage Party. It contradicts the purpose of groceries by showing that eating or cooking foods is torture, as the humans are evil for doing it. It’s either they get eaten, or they get thrown away, and if either is bad, they basically contradicted the purpose of food. The other movie that should’ve not been written is the Emoji Movie. It’s more about an adventure involving emojis rather than embracing the purpose of emojis. In fact, it kinda contradicts the purpose of emojis. Other than texting, it doesn’t really show what the purpose of emojis are. It’s actually more of a movie based on a trend rather than based on objects.
And that’s it. When you make a story based on objects or anything in general, you should at least embrace the purpose of what you’re writing about.
What was good about Toy Story is that there has never been a decline in quality. First of all, they have always been family friendly. All four Toy Story movies were appropriate for kids to watch while none of them are too childish (such as fart jokes). Secondly, there has never been a decline in characterization. Granted, most of the main cast from previous movies (such as Bronco, Slinky, Hamm, Rex, and Mr. Potato Head) have been reduced to background characters in the fourth movie, but none of their traits have been exaggerated while others are dropped. Nor did they introduce traits that make the characters dumber, meaner, or more annoying. And when they introduced new characters, they weren’t as bad when it comes to ruining the movie. Finally, they have always embraced the purpose of toys in all of them. While most film series that comes in fours decline in quality (especially Shrek and Ice Age), Toy Story has never done that. It took 20 years to make three sequels to the original movie, and they have always done good. It took half as long to write five Transformers movies, and you how poorly they did. It’s hard to retain quality as the series rolls by.
That last part is a very important thing to keep in mind when writing a story based on objects. In the case of Toy Story, here’s why they embrace toys:
- Toy Story 1 shows us that toys are meant for playing with, not torturing. As you see, when Andy plays with toys, he plays with them like how they should be. When Sid plays with toys, he tortures them, like blowing them up and making creepy mutations. When he was about to do that to Buzz, the toys he tortured ganged up on him as if they were alive (which they aren’t allowed to do). The last thing Woody said that scared Sid completely, that’s what the purpose of toys are. To play nice.
- Toy Story 2 shows us that toys are meant for playing with, not collecting and leaving them on display or in storage. In the movie, we learn that toys love to be played with, and when a kid doesn’t want to play with them anymore, it’s like the worst thing that could happen to them. And Woody, when he has a choice between rising to fame or going back to Andy, he rather stay with Andy. It’s more than just loyalty. It’s about being played with. If he were to rise to fame, nobody will ever play with him. Stinky Pete, upset that he never got purchased, rather rise to fame, but in the end, even when he faced his defeat, he got what he originally wanted, for someone to own him.
- Toy Story 3 shows us that when you grow up, it’s time to give up your toys as they go to a new owner. In the movie, Andy is already old enough to go to college. He is already too old for toys, as he can only bring one toy. Even when he’s an adult, he still has affection for Woody. It also shows us what owners you should give your toys to and what owners you shouldn’t give your toys to. Between Bonnie and the younger kids in Sunnydale, Bonnie is old enough to understand toys, as she was the rightful new owner of the toys. But the younger kids are a lot rougher and tortured the toys. Therefore, the toys aren’t suitable for the caterpillar room. Granted, we know that Sid tortured toys before, but he knew what he was doing. On the other hand, the toddlers are too young to understand them. And at the end, we saw the garbage truck drivers tie toys to the front of the truck, which have rotted and are covered in bugs. Even though Lotso got what he deserved, as that is one of the most grim fates any animated villain could suffer, the garbage truck drivers shouldn’t own the toys if they rather let them rot.
- Toy Story 4 shows us that every toy deserves an owner while toys should remain loyal to their owners. In past movies, Woody wants to be played with by Andy, even if he doesn’t want him anymore. You see the opposite with Forky, who doesn’t want to be a toy, even if Bonnie loves him more than anything. Later in the movie, we meet a toy named Gabby Gabby. All she wanted was to be owned by someone. And so did a few others. Even though she got rejected by whoever she wanted, she was eventually accepted by someone else. Despite the ultimate irony with Woody at the end, he at least is good at loyalty and trying to keep toys loyal to their owners.
Before Toy Story, there as The Brave Little Toaster. Its story is like Toy Story 3’s story with elements from 1 and 2 (like when Sid tortured toys). It didn’t necessarily contradict the purpose of appliances, but it shows affection, abandonment, and loyalty. Just like toys, the appliances do not want to be abandoned (like the five main characters) or rejected (like the cutting edge appliances). The Master, despite being gone for quite a long time, still had affection for them, and even went to the cottage to pick them up. The appliances also left the cottage on their own because they’re still loyal to the Master. The sequels were just about adventures with inanimate objects that did not embrace the purpose of them. Both of them sucked, though the rescue one was better than the Mars one.
Now what about some ideas you shouldn’t write about. If they don’t embrace the purpose of what you’re writing about, it may be just another generic story. And if you contradict the purpose of them, then it wouldn’t be a good movie. Take for instance, Sausage Party. It contradicts the purpose of groceries by showing that eating or cooking foods is torture, as the humans are evil for doing it. It’s either they get eaten, or they get thrown away, and if either is bad, they basically contradicted the purpose of food. The other movie that should’ve not been written is the Emoji Movie. It’s more about an adventure involving emojis rather than embracing the purpose of emojis. In fact, it kinda contradicts the purpose of emojis. Other than texting, it doesn’t really show what the purpose of emojis are. It’s actually more of a movie based on a trend rather than based on objects.
And that’s it. When you make a story based on objects or anything in general, you should at least embrace the purpose of what you’re writing about.
