posted
A friend of mine posted a question on his blog. I could think of only one place where the collective mental power would be sufficient to answer his question. Thus, I pose his question to my fellow hatrackers:
"I am feeling a bit burned out with politics today. So sit back and enjoy today’s “Off Topic Post”.
We have three children. Their ages range from 5 to 1. Needless to say, we have a bunch of videos and DVD’s for the kids to watch. Two of the favorites in our house, and thankfully least annoying, are Toy Story and Toy Story 2. It does not matter that I have seen them at least 100 times, they are still a million times better than Barney, The Wiggles, Dora or Bob the Builder. For some reason we have never bought Toy Story 2. So every time we head to our local Blockbuster to rent movies, WunderKid 2 makes a bee line over to Toy Story 2. That happened Friday night when we went out to find some family entertainment. WunderKid 1 got Shrek 2 and WunderWife and I got The Life Aquatic. Don’t ask about our movie. I am a huge fan of Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, but this one just did not add up. Anyway, back to Toy Story 2.
I watched it for the 101st time that night and I began asking the same questions and pointing out the same problems with the story. That brings me to why I am writing this post: Toy Story 2’s storyline does not make any sense.
In Toy Story you figure out that when toys are in their boxes they are in some sort of sleep mode. Once the package is opened they become self aware. The other toys know they are toys but Buzz thinks he is the real thing. The movie revolves around the other toys, Woody in particular, trying to convince Buzz that he is just a toy.
Toy Story 2 picks up the story but adds a twist: Woody is taken by a toy collector and the rest of the gang set out to rescue him. The deal is that Woody is a rare doll from a 1950’s TV show called “Woody’s Roundup” and he meets the other members of his “Round Up Gang”. This is where things fall apart for me.
All we know about Woody is that he is “an old family toy” and that he has been Andy’s “favorite since Kindergarten.” From all the information that we have been given, Woody has no memory of a life before Andy in the 1990’s. Andy is the only owner Woody has ever had. Ok, that can be explained away by assuming Woody stayed in his box from the 1950’s to the 1990’s. While in the box, he was not aware of what was going on around him.
But here is the next plot hole. Stinky Pete is still in his box and has never been opened, but he is aware of what is happening around him. He says that he sat on a dime store shelf for years watching while all the other toys were bought and taken home. That is why he is so bitter towards children. He was never chosen. That is all fine and dandy, but if Stinky Pete was aware of his surroundings for the past 40 years, why wasn’t Woody? This is the first time that Woody has even heard of “Woody’s Roundup”. He has no memory before Andy. How is it possible for Stinky Pete to have a memory and for Woody to have none?
I know it is just a kids movie, but there needs to be some rhyme and reason to the story. Either toys are aware once they are made or they are aware after being opened by their owner. You can not have some toys being aware from creation and other toys only being aware after being taken out of the box.
I will not rest until this mystery is solved."
The above is a quote from Wunderkraut at Wunderkraut.com
posted
I don't know that this kids movie sequel has any real consistancy. I know that might sound like a pat answer. Kid's don't always have great long term memories or an eye for consistancy across even the SAME film or cartoon. Thus, things that might seem jarring or contradictory to us will pass right over them. As they get older, however, these questions begin to surface.
But I think with things like cartoons or kid's movies, questions like these will make you crazy.
And it's still a great franchise. I really hope they do a 3rd, if the story is fresh and good.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, heck, for that matter, why is it that the second Buzz doll that's on display doesn't come to life until he's touched by the original Buzz?
All movies have inconsistencies of some sort; it's only really, really bad when it detracts from the story, which I think it doesn't here.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great literature, the Bible, great films can all withstand this type of close reading and analysis. In fact, close attention to detail in these reveals more and more layers of meaning.
Toy Story 2 is not great literature, great film, or the Bible. You will just have to get used to that fact.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Great literature, the Bible, great films can all withstand this type of close reading and analysis. In fact, close attention to detail in these reveals more and more layers of meaning.
I'm afraid this isn't always true, unless your primary criteria for "greatness" is internal consistency. And including the Bible is really, really funny. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um. I wasn't joking. My faith has a very serious tradition of intense biblical analysis. There is Midrash. There is Mishna. There is Gemorra. There are the entire lives of undisputed geniuses devoted to its study.
It may not be your cup of tea, and that's OK, but it is not pulp fiction, either.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd definitely call "Toy Story 2" a "great film", even though few will devote their lives to the study of its internal consistency (or lack thereof). I don't know of any films that are held up to that standard, great or otherwise.
But then, all we have to do to find out the truth regarding the Toy Story question is call up John Lasseter and ask him. Not so easy with scripture.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey TS2 is too great literature! It is a work of staggering genius. And I am not trying to be humorous; it is right up there with Pee Wee's big adventure. Great stuff. Also, just because these are kids' movies doesn't mean they shouldn't be consistent. Kids are not dumb! This bugs me almost as much as the old "it's only science fiction" remark that I hear when I point out the science flaws or weak story lines in science fiction movies.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll take a stab at being a Pixar Apologist (my daughter loves watching the movies repeatedly as well, and I think that Toy Stoy 2 is, in many ways, a superior film).
A few points:
1. This "Rule of Comatose Packaging" is never spelled out with any sort of certainty in either of the films. It is never recognized by the characters within the films (nor are any of the magical rules - even the "Don't let people see you're alive" rule is broken at the finale of Toy Story), and simply cannot be applied to the plot as though it were a hard-and-fast mathematical equation. Indeed, if Stinky Pete was awake during all those years, then that would disprove it, as well as Buzz's struggles to free himself once placed inside a box by his doppleganger. It would appear that sentience is not given to toys through ownership or even package liberation. There is some lawless magic afoot here.
2. Woody's ignorance to the Woody's Roundup Franchise is entirely plausible if he was bought relatively swiftly from off of the shelf (to avoid inter-franchise fraternization), and purchased by a child who didn't own any other Roundup toys and spent his time playing made-up cowboy games with Woody rather than watching the TV show with him. Woody never claims that Andy was his first and only owner - in fact, I suspect that his reticence to discuss a previous owner may have something to do with the mysterious absence of Andy's father.
So watch these movies (I'm sure you have a couple thousand more viewings in your future if your kids are anything like mine) with peace, fellow viewer!
Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that his reticence to discuss a previous owner may have something to do with the mysterious absence of Andy's father.
Something like that might actually make a good TS3. The core, the heart, of these stories is what makes them so good. And something like that would be perfect.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like Toy Story 2 better than one. Perhaps because the toys in one made me so angry when they were mean to Woody.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is my take. It is ownership by a loving owner that awakens the toys. Big-Al, or what ever his name was, does love the toys, as does the cruel kid in the 1st movie, only what they love is a bit out of character.
Since the other toys in the roundup have had previous owners, they are like the kids that owned them, nice and fun. Stinky Pete has had only Big Al to love him, so has taken on some of his less savory characteristics.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
