Jump to content


Toy Story 3


  • Please log in to reply
303 replies to this topic

#21 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 22 September 2009 - 01:53 AM

Jim Hill reveals one or two more quasi-spoilers that I hadn't heard before (though they will apparently be revealed in the next Toy Story 3 trailer).

#22 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:59 AM

The international trailer:



#23 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 9,060 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:08 AM

Please, please, please let the "lackluster Pixar trailer doesn't equal lackluster Pixar movie" principle hold.

Even though I can't imagine where this story could possibly go that would be satisfying.

C'mon, Pixar guys. Amaze us again.

#24 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 09:52 PM

An almost two-minute clip.

#25 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Riding the crest of a wave breaking just west of Hollywood

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:10 PM

Meh. With the trailers, my nostalgia for TOY STORY was enough to keep me excited. That clip, however, was dullsville. Couldn't they have selected something more exciting?

#26 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 01 January 2010 - 11:27 AM

Nothing really new here, at least not to me, except for a brief glimpse of the Timothy Dalton character:



#27 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 10 February 2010 - 04:03 PM

Apparently the "final" trailer comes out tomorrow. In the meantime, we have these new characters to gawk at.

#28 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 10 February 2010 - 10:37 PM

New teaser, apparently unembeddable. ("Unembeddable... that's what you are...")

#29 Rachel Anne

Rachel Anne

    Member

  • Member
  • 683 posts

Posted 10 February 2010 - 11:36 PM

An improvement over the previous trailers. I am less worried.

#30 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 10 February 2010 - 11:58 PM

bowen wrote:
: An improvement over the previous trailers. I am less worried.

I agree that it's an improvement. But note: it emphasizes wacky! wacky! action! rather than the plot details that were key to the previous trailers. For those who think Pixar movies of late have tended to start on good notes and then got lost in wacky! wacky! action! sequences, this shift in advertising is not necessarily THAT much of an improvement.

Then again, this is a sequel to Toy Story, after all. It needs to be judged by the precedents set in those 1990s movies, not by the higher aspirations of Pixar's more recent output.

#31 Ryan H.

Ryan H.

    Riding the crest of a wave breaking just west of Hollywood

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:19 AM

I'm still worried. The trailer was an improvement, but only slightly. Maybe the full-length trailer will do more to assuage my concerns.

Edited by Ryan H., 11 February 2010 - 12:21 AM.


#32 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:22 PM



#33 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 17,304 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:25 PM

Note who appears at 0:49.

#34 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:40 PM

So, if these characters are still "attached" to their body parts after they have been dismembered, how does that affect the depiction of the hybrid characters in Sid's bedroom in the first movie? (Or does this remote connection only apply to members of the Potato Head family? But wait a minute, aren't Potato Heads DESIGNED to be dismembered and passed around? Can an eye or an arm be said to belong to one Potato Head and not another?)

I also cannot help but wonder if this movie will clarify whether Andy's family (or the daycare, for that matter) is AWARE of the fact that Woody and Jessie are vintage '50s collectibles (as per the retconning in the second movie).

And, a la the movie version of Where the Wild Things Are, I cannot help but wonder if Toy Story 3 will finally explain why we never see Andy and Molly's father. (Although, hmmm, according to Wikipedia, there are indications outside the films that Andy and Molly's father is DEAD. Considering Molly was still a baby in the first movie, that's... interesting. Could add a whole new subtext to the seemingly happy birthday party at the beginning of the first film. Or explain why Andy is so desperate to cling to toys like Woody, who is presumably a hand-me-down from his dad.)

Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 11 February 2010 - 12:41 PM.


#35 Rachel Anne

Rachel Anne

    Member

  • Member
  • 683 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:57 PM

So, if these characters are still "attached" to their body parts after they have been dismembered, how does that affect the depiction of the hybrid characters in Sid's bedroom in the first movie? (Or does this remote connection only apply to members of the Potato Head family? But wait a minute, aren't Potato Heads DESIGNED to be dismembered and passed around? Can an eye or an arm be said to belong to one Potato Head and not another?)


You're over-thinking a movie about talking toys here.

#36 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 01:09 PM

bowen wrote:
: You're over-thinking a movie about talking toys here.

I refer you back to Tolkien's essay on the difference between creating belief in a sub-created world and suspending disbelief because the spell is broken.

And since I spend a lot of my time with Potato Heads and other toys these days, yeah, I've got plenty of time to think about this stuff. Just imagine how much time people must have to think about this stuff when they're being PAID to do so!

#37 Rachel Anne

Rachel Anne

    Member

  • Member
  • 683 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 01:34 PM

bowen wrote:
: You're over-thinking a movie about talking toys here.

I refer you back to Tolkien's essay on the difference between creating belief in a sub-created world and suspending disbelief because the spell is broken.


There is no way to get someone to suspend disbelief in talking toys who is determined to dig deep enough. You can either choose to enjoy the story or not.

#38 morgan1098

morgan1098

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 01:43 PM

(Although, hmmm, according to Wikipedia, there are indications outside the films that Andy and Molly's father is DEAD. Considering Molly was still a baby in the first movie, that's... interesting. Could add a whole new subtext to the seemingly happy birthday party at the beginning of the first film. Or explain why Andy is so desperate to cling to toys like Woody, who is presumably a hand-me-down from his dad.)


Indications outside the films? Are you talking about the Wikipedia entry itself, which states as a matter of fact that Andy's dad "got killed and died"? That sounds like typical Wikipedia BS to me.

Also, why are we to presume that Woody is a hand-me-down from Andy's dad?

Not being argumentative here, just genuinely curious.

#39 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:14 PM

bowen wrote:
: There is no way to get someone to suspend disbelief in talking toys who is determined to dig deep enough.

Perhaps not, but since you're not referring to me (when have I ever expressed any difficulty believing in talking toys?), that has nothing to do with what I said.

: You can either choose to enjoy the story or not.

Really? That sounds a little like saying you can choose to fall under the spell or not. Maybe Tolkien would have agreed, maybe not. But it sounds to me like the condescending-to-suspend-disbelief that he described is more of an active choice than the being-under-a-spell-that-has-not-yet-been-broken that is the ideal state of anyone on the receiving end of an act of storytelling.

morgan1098 wrote:
: Indications outside the films? Are you talking about the Wikipedia entry itself, which states as a matter of fact that Andy's dad "got killed and died"? That sounds like typical Wikipedia BS to me.

Yeah, I don't credit that line at all. But the entry also refers to some sort of "Ultimate Guides to the Films" that apparently indicate Andy's mom is a widow. I don't know what these "Ultimate Guides" are or how canonical they are, though. Assuming they even exist. (If, however, Andy's dad had recently died or left the family, it would certainly explain why Andy's mom was planning on moving the family at the beginning of the first film: they all needed a fresh start. And if there HAD recently been a divorce in the family, it might explain why the toys are so much more acrimonious to each other in the first film than they are in the sequel(s). Too many bad vibes in the air.)

: Also, why are we to presume that Woody is a hand-me-down from Andy's dad?

Well, Woody is old, for one thing. As per Toy Story 2, he's a 1950s product that was apparently discontinued after the launch of Sputnik and the rise of space-themed toys towards the end of that decade. Andy's mom also calls Woody "an old family toy" when Al (from Al's Toy Barn) tries to buy him during the yard sale at the beginning of that movie. (Later on, Stinky Pete mockingly calls Woody a "hand-me-down cowboy doll", and it's possible he's saying this based on something that Woody told him, but I don't believe the film ever spells that out.)

Of course, if Woody IS a 40-year-old hand-me-down in the first two films (and thus a 50-year-old hand-me-down in the new film), then Andy would be his second owner, at least. And that, in turn, makes it interesting that Woody would feel such an intense bond with Andy. He's switched owners and watched one of his former owners grow apart from him before, so why couldn't it happen again?

Or do the toys somehow get their memories erased when they switch owners? (If they do, then we'd have to explain why Jessie presumably still remembers her previous owner after she permanently switches her allegiance to Andy and/or Molly.)

#40 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,825 posts

Posted 12 February 2010 - 08:15 PM

Collider and /Film both have fairly extensive lists -- amply illustrated, of course -- of the Pixar-themed "Easter eggs" in the most recent Toy Story 3 trailer.