TOY STORY 4: Is It Deep or Dumb?


What’s up, Wisecrack? Helen again. This summer, audiences got an arguably unnecessary
addition to one of cinema’s most perfect trilogies with Toy Story 4. The original three films about a band of spunky,
sentient children’s playthings grappled with surprisingly deep questions about love,
loss, identity, being forgotten, moving on and more. This was a pinnacle achievement in children’s
cinema – in which sequels often feel like clumsy, narratively gratuitous cash grabs. So we went into this fourth film wondering
– is there really anything left for the series to say, or are we just pandering to Randy
Newman fans at this point? Let’s investigate in this Wisecrack Edition
on Toy Story 4: Deep or Dumb? And, of course, spoilers ahead. Alright guys, let’s dive into a recap. Toy Story 4 starts with a flashback to the
young Andy days, as Woody watches Bo Peep being given away. She asks him to come with her, but he decides
“bros before Bo’s” and stays with Andy. Flash forward to teenage Andy giving Woody
and co. to a hyperactive kid named Bonnie. Even as Bonnie becomes increasingly less interested
in Woody, his loyalty leads him to follow her to kindergarten, where he helps her create
Forky, which is exactly what it sounds like: A spork with mismatched googly-eyes and pipe
cleaner arms. Bonnie effing loves Forky, but Forky thinks
he’s trash and keeps trying end it all in the nearest rubbish bin. Woody has to prevent Forky from trashing himself
when Bonnie’s family heads out on an RV trip. Mishaps ensue, and Forky is promptly kidnapped
in an antique store by a sinister doll, Gabby Gabby and her horrifying marionette minions. Lost on a playground, a hapless Woody runs
into his old boo, Bo Peep, who is stanning the “lost toy” lifestyle. Together, the gang sets out on an elaborate
quest to rescue Bonnie’s beloved plastic spork from Gabby Gabby. Only it turns out Gabby Gabby just wants Woody’s
voice box to replace her defective one so she can convince a little girl to love her. Woody agrees to give up his voice box, the
marionette performs some quick black market surgery, and, in exchange, Woody gets Forky
back. Everything culminates at the carnival grounds
where Woody finds his calling as a Lost Toy and decides that, this time, he’ll stay
with Bo. They then devote themselves to helping toys
find their own way. The end. Now, Pixar is known for making some of the
best written and most thoughtful films out there, and the Toy Story movies are no exception. So we think it’s worth asking if Woody’s
emotional journey is about more than regretting a breakup with a hot shepard. We’ve come up with three possible interpretations
of the film to run by you guys. Our first argument: Toy Story 4 is a tale
of existential awakening. Briefly, Existentialism is a philosophy that
emphasizes individual free will and our power to make choices that determine the course
of our lives. The first three films have brushed against
existential themes, asking what it means to be a toy who loves and is loved, or no longer
loved. But in this fourth film it really goes there. See, nearly every character in the film has
some kind of conflict with their “inner voice” that governs their decision making
process. Buzz struggles to make sense of his factory-issued
dialogue, while Woody grapples with his own conscience to parse what he should do from
what he wants to do. Meanwhile, Forky’s poor, plastic spork brain
insists that he is trash, and Gabby Gabby longs to fix her voice box so she can speak
the words her toymakers intended her to. To grasp how the inner voice speaks to a key
element of existentialism, we’re looking to one bespectacled French philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre. Sartre believed that we are all radically
free and, because of that, it’s up to us to determine who we become based on our choices. YOU choose the path you walk, the ice cream
flavor you eat, and the YouTube videos you watch, algorithm be damned! In his essay “Existentialism is a Humanism”,
Sartre famously wrote that “existence precedes essence,” explaining that “first of all
man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and only afterwards, defines himself.” Basically, there is no “essence” that
defines you from birth. You first exist, then your essence is defined
by your choices. You aren’t born the kind of person who wears
pleated khakis for fun, you become that when you choose to wear your school uniform to
parties. These choices define your character. In this way, we can see Bo Peep as the consummate
existentialist. She’s broken free from her obligations as
a toy belonging to children, and no longer feels compelled to live by any outside creed. This separation from the rules and expectations
of her past is symbolized in her freeing herself from the lamp that she came with. She runs amuck, exploring the world and playing
with whatever kids she wants. Most importantly, she doesn’t blame anyone
for her choices – She is accountable to no one and holds no one accountable for herself. She is free. The other characters are all struggling with
non-existential thinking – they define themselves not by the individual choices they make, but
by their essence as toys as defined by their quote unquote inner voice. This is apparent in Woody’s single-minded
devotion to Bonnie. He sees it as his duty to serve her, even
though she’s clearly no longer interested in playing with him. Regardless, he feels like he can’t make
the choice to be a toy without a kid. Similarly, Forky sees himself as essentially
made from trash, and thus identifies entirely as said trash, rather than a toy. This line of thought is especially apparent
in the toys that were born “defective.” For Gabby-Gabby, whose voice box doesn’t
work, her failure to fully embody her designed functionality makes her sub par, and justifies
her sometimes-cruel actions. Or take Duke Kaboom, who, in not being able
to jump through his hoop, failed to live up to the impossible expectations set by his
commercials. That failure, we see, has become an excuse
to do nothing with his life but weep and bemoan what could have been. For these two characters, their inability
to embody an aspect of their supposed essence, haunts them. They define themselves not by the choices
they make, but by a perceived lack with which they were born, and thus are miserable. Now, because Sartre believed that the choices
we make determine our essence, he also was big on the idea of personal responsibility
– or as he puts it: This might sound fun at first – don’t we
all want to be in control of our own lives and eat ice cream for breakfast? It’s not that simple though – because a
dude’s choices determine his destiny, he “is responsible for everything he does.” So when you get cavities, you have nobody
to blame but yourself. As a result, Sartre doesn’t see freedom
as a fun walk in the park – in fact, he writes that “man is condemned to be free.” A lot of people find that freedom hard to
take, which is why, you know… cults. This conflict around accepting personal responsibility
for your choices is probably best embodied by Buzz Lightyear. Whenever he’s faced with a tough decision,
Buzz presses one of his buttons and waits for his “programming” to issue a command
– calling this his “inner voice.” Rather than take responsibility for his choices,
he simply outsources them. This can occasionally help him get out of
a jam: “What would Woody do?” “Eh, jump out of a moving vehicle.” “What would Woody do?” “There’s a secret mission, in uncharted
space, let’s go!” but doesn’t always yield the most helpful
advice: “Scanning perimeter.” “Lasers at full power-”
“Buzz, what are you doing?” “I’m thinking.” This is also reflected in Woody’s preoccupation
with his inner voice. While Buzz’s inner voice was literally manufactured
by a factory, Woody’s was developed after years of believing that a toy only exists
for the joy of a kid. As a result, he sees his duties as clearly
defined: He has to help Bonnie however he can. As he puts it: “I need to do this that little voice inside
me would never leave me alone if I gave up.” This is despite the fact that Bonnie’s really
over him. Here, we could say that Woody is acting in
“bad faith” or what Sartre would refer to as the state of pretending that you’re
not free. In a burn-happy quote, Sartre says: In the first scene of the film, Woody pretends
that he doesn’t have the freedom to leave Andy behind and run away with Bo Peep. Sartre would say that he does, and the only
thing that stopped him was his choice not to. Throughout the course of the film, we watch
as each character basically becomes…, through a Sartrean lens, kind of, really human?… coming to terms with their own autonomy and
freedom to make choices. That’s right, toys are resolving their existential
crises onscreen, what have you done today? Most importantly, Woody chooses to stay with
Bo Peep, thus embracing his radical freedom and rejecting his supposed essential “purpose”
of being a child’s plaything. Even though leaving his child behind once
seemed unfathomable, he realizes that he can, and so, he does. Existential crisis averted! Importantly, Buzz too has his own free will
affirmed during a critical moment – He needs Bonnie to bring the family back to the antique
store to rescue Woody and Forky, but she just won’t notice that she left her backpack
behind. After his buttons fail to guide him, he uses
his own voice: “Your backpack is in the antique store,
let’s go!” “Oh no! My backpack!” Here, Buzz recognizes that he can’t rely
on his factory-issued “inner voice,” and is forced to take action to save the day-
to make a choice. When we first meet GabbyGabby, she has an
almost religious attachment to her own mythos, reading her illustrated companion book as
if its a biblical text and treating tea-time with her inattentive “God”, Harmony, as
if it is a spiritual rite. Her life is defined by her desire to please
Harmony, and she goes to extraordinary lengths to do so. But then, even when her voice box is fixed,
she’s still rejected by her, and the narrative in the book is proven false. With the help of Woody and Bo, she learns
that she’s not at the mercy of the Gabby Gabby mythos- that it’s up to her to define
herself and her worth through the choices she makes. Similarly, Sartre’s whole schtick is predicated
on the belief that God does not exist. Because there is no bearded dude in the sky
controlling our lives, it must be up to us to choose our own path. When Gabby Gabby encounters the lost little
girl at the fair, she chooses to offer herself up for adoption. Sure, she’s submitting to the ownership
model that Woody’s about to leave behind, but she’s openly choosing it over the alternative. Similarly, Ducky and Bunny, the lovable Key
and Peele carnival toys go from wanting to passively be chosen by a child who will love
them to becoming super-active freedom fighters, busting other stuffed animals out of the carnival-booth
purgatory they loathed. Meanwhile, Duke Kaboom, at the urging of Woody
and Bo, chooses to leap on his motorcycle, first four feet then forty, in spite of the
fact that he won’t land perfectly like he’s supposed to in the commercial. He’s learned to no longer live by the standards
dictated by his design. That, friends, is called freedom. And we can’t forget Forky – easily the weirdest
character in the Toy Story canon. Early on, Forky identifies as trash – he was
made to be a spork, and should have wound up in the warm, warm embrace of the garbage:
“I am not a toy, I’m a spork!” “Be quiet!” “ I was made for soup, salad, maybe chili,
and then the trash! I’m litter, freedom!” However, with the help of Woody, he realizes
that he isn’t a slave to his inner voice – He can establish a new identity as a toy
who is loved by Bonnie. He’s so thoroughly inculcated to his own
freedoms that, by the end of the film, he’s even prepared to pass on some of that existential
wisdom to his new love interest. “We are all toys. Unique, beautiful, toys.” Each character’s narrative arc shows them
grow from a character who accepts the destiny thrust upon them, to an almost eerily human-like
being who makes choices that have consequences, and thus exhibits autonomy over their own
existence. That’s pretty beautiful. We’d grade this interpretation a cool A,
and say that, viewed through this lens, the film is deep with a capital D. So now that we’ve gotten the existential
mind-fuck out of the way, its time for our second interpretation: that Bo Peep is the
Miltonian Satan. I know. Hear us out. In the world of these toys, children are basically
God-like creatures who they spend their lives serving. They live their lives for their children,
just as a religious person might live their life for God. In fact, the god-liness of children in this
world is made pretty literal with the introduction of Forky, an inanimate object who Bonnie,
through the sheer power of childish wonder, whimsy and a couple of googly-eyes, brings
to life. It’s also worth noting the almost religious
reverence that the toys have for their children: “No, I can’t, sir. Bo, I need to get back to my kid.” “What! You got a kid?” “Yeah…” “Way to beat the odds, soldier.” Recall the way Gabby Gabby reads her book
like a bible. Similarly, Duke spends all his time bemoaning
the way he let down his former child owner, and when he performs a life-threatening stunt,
it is his child’s face that appears to him, like a divine mirage. In this context, Bo Peep has committed the
ultimate sin: she’s rejected children, and in doing so, rejected God. In John Milton’s famous epic Paradise Lost,
a prideful Satan is depicted as being cast out from heaven and condemned to Hell after
a failed rebellion against God. He didn’t accept God’s dominion over him,
and thought all angels should rule as Gods themselves. Similarly, Bo Peep didn’t want to belong
to a child anymore, she wanted to be her own master. When she and Woody reunite after years, he
assumes that she must be devastated not to have a child. Instead, she seems free, almost ecstatic. Perhaps fittingly, moments earlier, the pair
fall down a hill – Is it a stretch to see this then, as Woody’ satanic-like “fall”
from his role as the eternally devout toy? Hmm… maybe. There’s more though: Satan is practically
defined by his predilections as a tempter. In Goethe’s Faust, a devil tries to convince
Faust to sell his soul in exchange for all worldly pleasures, telling him to: Similarly, Bo Peep lures Woody away from the
quiet, safe world he has known all his life. She embodies temptation, compelling Woody
with promises of exciting carnivals and far-flung lands. If we do take this interpretation seriously,
it’s also worth noting the fun reversal of traditional Christian imagery – Bo Peep
is a shepherd, just like Jesus… except she’s leading toys away from the flock. She’s really the anti-shepherd encouraging
everyone to go their own way in life, free of the responsibility they all feel to their
sometimes-unappreciative children. Now before you raise your eyebrows too high,
know that we’d only grade this interpretation a square C+. If you can’t quite picture Bo Peep wearing
devil horns, that’s ok. We’ve got one more interpretation for you. We see some definite psychological complexes
exhibited by Forky and it helps explain why he desperately wants to bathe in trash. To understand this, let’s look at Sigmund
Freud and Otto Rank. Now, Freud describes birth, or leaving the
womb, as the “first experience of anxiety and thus the source and prototype of … anxiety.” His one-time colleague Otto Rank took it further,
suggesting that birth isn’t just anxiety-inducing… it’s actually traumatic, the greatest trauma
of life, in fact. Think about it – you go from the reasonably
chill, quiet world of your mom’s womb (sorry) to a weird outside world where your mom’s
screaming, fluorescent lights are shining and then some doctor spanks your butt. Not the kind of activity you want to repeat. So now consider that Forky’s “birth”
of sorts took place in the kindergarten classroom when he was clumsily pieced together by Bonnie
from disparate pieces of trash. As indicated by the first noise he makes when
he becomes vocal, “Ahhhhhhh!” Forky’s birth seems to have been at least
a little traumatic. Rank notes that the resulting trauma from
birth leads us to long for a return to our primal state, noting that “every pleasure
has as its final aim the re-establishment of the intrauterine primal pleasure.” Basically, we have a desire to return to the
womb, even though we definitely would not fit anymore. As a result, we experience infantile regression,
which means that we’ll seek out replacements for our mom’s womb in various objects or
other people, which a Freudian might say is the reason a Freudian might say is the reason
you enjoy jacuzzis, sorry. Anyway, we see some hardcore infantile regression
coming from Forky, who desperately seeks to return to his own “womb,” which is to
say, the trash. In what becomes one of the film’s funniest
bits, Forky gleefully throws himself into every trash can he can find. He reverently calls out for trash the way
a child might call out for their own mother, and exhibits the same kind of clingy longing
that a newborn might. When Woody asks him why he’s so obsessed
with trash cans, he gives an answer that would certainly raise Otto Rank’s eyebrow: “It’s warm…” “Ew.” “And cozy…” “I guess.” “And safe! Like somebody’s whispering in your ear ‘Everything’s
gonna be okay.’” If that’s not infantile regression, I don’t
know what is! Okay but real talk, we’ll give Forky’s
garbage womb interpretation a solid C. Now, whether or not you buy any of these ways
of reading the film, I think we can all agree that Pixar created another extremely thoughtful,
emotionally powerful film with Toy Story 4. And at least for our favorite reading, it
seems like the geniuses at Pixar have created a toy-sized mirror for some of the anxieties
we may be facing in an increasingly secular world. But what do you guys think? Do you buy that Toy Story is an existentialist
saga, or do you think it’s more in line with our not-so-secret desire to crawl back
into a nice big womb? Let us know in the comments. As ever, a big ole thanks to our wonderful
patrons who sponsor our show and podcasts. Be sure to click that subscribe button and,
as always, peace!

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

100 thoughts on “TOY STORY 4: Is It Deep or Dumb?

  1. The more I think about the movie the more I dislike it. When I saw it, all the characters felt OFF! If this was a stand alone film, I would had enjoyed it much more, but as a part of a beloved franchise and as a sequel to an almost perfect trilogy, the movie is a mess.

  2. I don't know that Bo Peep is satan necessarily, but I'd say there's an argument that she's a polytheist.
    She rejects the idea of serving a single god after she is forcibly taken away from her goddess' service. From that point, she rejects the idea of owing allegiance to a single god and opts to move from god to god as they are convenient to her. She still indulges in the sacred rite of play-time, but now she has her choice of gods and even pantheons. Se could've stayed at the campground, but decided to follow the carnival to a new area with yet more gods.

  3. What about the theory that it's about finding yourself after your children leave home. Woody's main kid, Andy, has grown up, making him sort of a grandparent at this point. Even though there's a new kid, he doesn't need to take care of her and after making his kid the meaning of his existence, he has to find out what to do with this part of his life now that he has no kids to take care of.

  4. As a phd candidate in neuropsychology I beg you stop using Freud he is so wrong about so much and has no evidence for most of his claims. But hey don't believe me, do the research yourself. No more Freud ima comment this every time he is mentioned

  5. So Forky is not trash he is a toy.

    The lost toys are not toys, what are they then? litter? Or are they now literally a new species that has gained sentience and went beyond their program as toys, man this became quite horrifying. If the toys are no longer toys Toy Story 5 will have some hardcore stuff in store.

    Will it go like Small Soldiers or like Child's Play?

  6. I don’t get how people could say that this was made for money? Pixar isn’t one to make movies just for money. They wanted to make a fourth Toy Story because they felt like they did had more to tell.

  7. the second interpretation doesn't really work. satan wanted to force everybody to be righteous and god wanted people to learn to be righteous by their own free will. the toys who choose to be their own people are following in gods plan as their own beings and rejecting a plan where those toys are forced to be perfect. boe isn't enforcing satan, she's falling towards god.

  8. Hey Helen! again HOW YOU DOIN? I can't stop. I don't know why 😅😅

    Anyway TOY STORY 4 made me cry again so CRUEL but I can't stop watching.

    And BONNIE'S not a nice kid in the last movie she wanted him so bad. If it weren't for that ANDY would've kept him.

    But again she's a KID

  9. I hated it,
    I mean it looked beautiful, but I can pay a professional artiest to paint me a dumpster fire with extreme amount of skill and it would be about the same.

  10. Evetytime I think about this movie I just can't get over the fact that if someone found woody and they knew he was worth a ton of cash it be like winning the lottery..

  11. I'm sorry but I found the "Inner Voices" thing fall flat when you consider how out of Character Buzz acted when compared to his role in the previous films. This just felt like the writers trying to compensate for inconsistent characterization.

  12. You know why Forky wanted to go to the trash bin?

    Cause Forky is Traaaashhhhhhh…triiiiiinnn

    Ps. Forky is a religious freak, he looks for that not existing being in every trash can he sees. Just like the person that goes from congregation to congregation. Its all Trash. You wont find nothing.

  13. Great analysis guys but do we always have to go back to Sartre? maybe some more nuanced intersectional approaches to ontological questions using Butler on performativity or Hannah Arendt could come in handy? I love Sartre but let's spice it up yall!

  14. I'm glad this movie exist, Woody needed a better ending.

    The end of the 3 did not completely close it for me, I mean I cried but because all of them were separated from someone they loved, as for Andy, I could not care less, he is more like and entity than a character, so a nice end for Woody coping with his feelings was something I wanted.

  15. Although I don’t think it’s the main purpose of the film, I %100 believe the the infantile regression concept was deliberate. So many of the people that saw this film were adults who were nostalgic about the original ones. Nostalgia itself is a way of clinging to the past and longing for simpler, more comfortable times (just like the child longing for the womb). The adults who were seeing this movie wanted to go back to their own childhood and Pixar recognized this. This whole idea is represented through forky in a somewhat meta way

  16. 3 was the perfect ending, it felt like an emotional goodbye to my childhood when I watched it (when I was 14). Maybe I have just grown up, but I didn't enjoy TS4 as much as everyone else, though I realise it's for a new audience. I didn't find any relation to it and it felt like a longer version of the TV shows. The animation is amazing though and still enjoyable in a way, just not the perfect conclusion everyone was hyping it out to be. There will be a 5th and maybe a 6th.

  17. Buzz in this movie was dumbed down a lot, he was capable of making decisions on his own in high situations before

    So why does he all the sudden need “a inner voice”?

  18. Very, interesting each proposal. I find the 1st one to be the best interpretation as it sits the best with me. The 2nd one seems weird to think of Bo as the Devil but then the 3rd one is more believabl but I don't know with the whole Freud theory it's crazy to think you like this because of a secret desire to say idk go back into the womb. I see where he's coming from and that proposal has some merit. I just like the 1st one the best as Forky has an existential crisis. "I'm thrash!" I thought that was so funny he wanted to go back to the thrash and that he's thrash (sucks). Lol, I really like the 1st one Toy Story 4 is Deep!!!

  19. She doesn't lead toys away from children, she chooses that and wants Woody to choose it and by extension her but we see by the Carl's enthusiasm for finding a kid as being positive evidence that she's not convincing them having a child is bad not to mention the ending where she spends her time helping toys find kids. I think it's a much worse theory then the third.

  20. I'm planning to blog about this movie because it was so good. Very few people caught the themes on the level which you have covered here, and I think you are spot-on. I agree with the "children-as-gods" interpretation of this movie, rather than the "parenthood" angle–which is only truly present in the relationship between Woody and Forky, but is not a common theme among all the characters. Also, a lot of people were confused that Woody and Bo would help other toys find children when it is a life they left behind. As you point out, the different is *choice*, and in terms of a toy's life arch, Bo and Woody are in a much different "season of life" than most of the toys they are helping (including Gabby Gabby, who is "older", but never had the experience of having a child, so she is arrested in a sense). In my opinion, this is the best Toy Story in terms of theme.

  21. Hey wisecrack, for you next deep or dumb could you consider doing the Netflix series final space on Netflix. There are currently two seasons out. And although the tone is extremely dumb and silly it be cool to see if you guys could unearth any deeper meaning. Love what you do. Peace

  22. IDK who but helen looks like someone and I can't seem to remember and it's really bugging me.:|:|
    The theme of freedom and choice was most definitely the main theme of the movie. The analysis was really good and looked at the movie from different perspectives. the comparison between the relationships between woody & bo peep to faust & the devil(he had another name in the book I think) was really clever and amusing.

  23. Toy Story 4 was okay by it's own merits but as a sequel it's terrible, because Andy's model was off, bo-peep's model was off, her voice acting wasn't the same, her personality was wrong, Bonnie's disinterest of woody was forced, and none of the Toys did anything. But I like the Bo-Peep as Satan interpretation, unfortunately that's clearly isn't what the film maker were going for.

  24. Great host, congrats Helen! I love this take on toy story, it definitely make me se the movie and it connection so different

  25. If you change the second interpretation as Bonnie being an agnostic shepherd it would fit better. She’s really a mentally liberated post modern idealist rather than a temptresses from the cult of toydom. She’s the reason the first interpretation works, being the character that radically redefines what the existence of a toy is. What Bonnie is and what that makes Woody by the end of the film is the core message of the movie

  26. Nobody, wisecrack niggas lets show this famous philosopher cross eyeing
    Me niggas, dude why this bruv look like a niggas homie

  27. Non! It's not "secularism" that's the problem people are facing it's the alienation of the world of neoliberalism, just as it is to people in Japan, China etc.

  28. “Forky thinks he’s trash and keeps trying to end it all by throwing himself away” wasn’t expecting to be personally attacked when I clicked on this video but oh well.

  29. i'm disappointed in the existential reality that is your misunderstanding of your business position in reading scripts fed to you by men who think FOR you.

  30. What went wrong is the ending was disappointing to me that not how conclusion end
    Here's what the conclusion what supposed to be end
    Act 1:buzz and the others trying to figuring out how to rescue woody.po peep and others
    Act 2:woody po peep and others was head to the end of carousel
    Act 3:but they stop and saw a lost little girl trying find her parents then doll girl (can't remember her name) she tell others to go ahead and leave she have to be with the little girl
    Act 4:Meanwhile buzz and the others was able to made it to the Amusement park and waiting for Woody Po peep and the others
    Final Act : woody Po peep Duck and bunny was successful made it to the R.V car expect for motorcycle guy(don't know his name) he stays behind because he went to find purpose in life
    And story ends with Woody reunited with Po peep and new toys join in the groups.
    THE END😤😧

  31. Just another unnecessary sequel to make money which hurts the ending in 3. Reminds me of that awful Star Wars sequel trilogy but not as bad.

  32. Here is an idea for deep or dumb. The underworld franchise on their daddy issues in reference to Generation Y parental issues, such as the deterioration of the family unite that both GX and the boomers had and it’s effects on GY.

  33. I think toy story 4 was fine, but it made toy story 3 a joke. It ruins all the choices made in 3 and makes all the heartfelt moments feel empty and weak

  34. I think this video is a dysfunctional failed reflection of personification as suspension of disbelief becomes basis of dogma.

    Sorry Jared, respects!

  35. But choosing your own path is what mythology states as a fundamental part of morale choice. This is dumb.

  36. It was unnecessary! Pixar only made it to screw DreamWorks at the Oscars and forbid HTTYD3: The Hidden World from winning the Best Animated Feature award! Disney's a Fascist!

  37. The first 3 films were an obvious allegory for parenthood, so Toy Story 4 feels like a punch in the stomach. Not only does Woody abandon his child who picked favorites (by the way Andy did the same thing in the first movie), he runs off with another toy who plays with all the kids. It feels like Woody and Bo Peep are being selfish parents who only want to play with kids moment to moment and take no responsibility on their own. So either the parent analogy doesn't work anymore at all, or this was intentional: telling us that we should think for ourselves before our children.

    But also, it's possible there was no deep meaning behind the film as was just meant to be a fun and emotional ride. I like the movie as is, but the more I think about analogies, the more I feel this film ruins the franchise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *