I'll admit that I'm insanely excited for Incredibles 2. Toy Story 4? My initial reaction is a solid nope, but only time will tell if this thing turns out to be a fantastic film or a giant cash grab.

What a waste of cinema-goer's time. But alas, people will still see it despite the obvious cash-cow rubbing its hooves together.

There is no such thing as artistic integrity anymore; everything is motivated by how much money they can squeeze out of something to support future projects and/or acquisitions. They couldn't have ended the franchise on a more perfect thematic note than they did with TS3 and I really don't care if Lasseter himself is coming back to direct 4. In my mind, the arc of that story ends with the third film, anything else is just fluff.

I've come to the conclusion the only way this film can work is if the plot is Andy being a complete asshole & stealing the toys back from Bonnie after he finds out how much Woody & Jessie sell for on Ebay.

We know from Toy story 2 that Woody & Jessie are rare collectibles worth several thousand dollars so I'd actually have a great time if Andy came back home in need of money to get some trim at college & he steals the toys from the little muppet girl.

Then it can be a movie about the toys having to decide between their two gods. Or whatever.

Nah... Since John Lasseter's directing he'll just have the story be about Cars Toys interacting with the gang so he can have that Larry the Cable Guy truck shuck'em'up for 2/3rds of the movie.

Each TS film has been better than the last so I can't wait too see this one.


Keep in mind that people also complained about Disney making a TS 2 & 3 and those eventually
turned out to be masterpieces in their own right.

The creative climate subtending TS2 and 3 were substantially different. TS 2 was originally going to be a direct-to-video Disney sequel (which seem to just be bad on principle), and TS3 was originally announced after Disney had released PIXAR from their contract and kept the rights to the characters in the film, planning to make the film without PIXAR’s involvement all together. The prospect of TS 2 being on par with Bambi II or TS3 being on par with Chicken Little are both well-deserved causes for alarm. In fact, IIRC, the initial reservations against TS3 quieted down after Disney got PIXAR back and let them take creative control of the film again.

Unfortunately PIXAR’s current less-than-stellar creative climate seems to spread throughout the rest of their own movies, with a lot of directors being replaced miid-way through production due to new studio demands from Disney and such. Having the same influence that got Brenda Chapman fired from her own Brave movie is certainly well-deserved cause for alarm going into TS4, especially when TS3 took the extra step in providing a definitive closure and ending that the other TS films didn’t provide their own films.

So you think there's never going to be another "great" Pixar movie again?

There will be great Pixar films again. But I think now that they're in the sequel-itis business the great films will be fewer & farther between.

The Good Dinosaur and Inside Out both look promising, at any rate, and the Incredibles sequel should be good if Brad Bird is allowed to direct it (if not. . .*shudder*). I'm neutral about Finding Dory, and pessimistic about Toy Story 4 and Cars 3, though. But maybe once they get this batch of sequels out of the way, they can release that Dia de los Meurtos movie they've been talking about.

the only way I see this being good is if it did the same thing for a new generation that it did for my generation. Introduce a new series of toys, get the audience introduced to them as they grow, and let them go like they did in the third film.

So you want a Toy Story reboot?

El Squibbonator wrote:So you want a Toy Story reboot?

I guess, but I personally don't want a reboot. I just think it'd be nice to make something kids of this generation can relate to, with toys more modern.

^ Quiet you.

Everyone had a Mr. Potatohead, green plastic soldiers, monkeys in a barrel, and an etch-a-sketch, or they didn't have a childhood.

Alaska Slim wrote:or they didn't have a childhood.

Luckily, I never claimed to have had one.

I never owned even one of those items, and I was born in the ripe time.

Sorrow wrote:Luckily, I never claimed to have had one.

I never owned even one of those items, and I was born in the ripe time.

I don't think most of those were popular with Bongers barring plastic soldiers.

I'm afraid I'm entirely unsure what a "Bonger" is, but I did find this.

It appears you believe in some kind of gypsy spiritual system, or something - with the implication you feel you know my "type". Or, perhaps you think I have a penchant for using bongs? Far out.

Sorrow wrote:I'm afraid I'm entirely unsure what a "Bonger" is, but I did find this.

It appears you believe in some kind of gypsy spiritual system, or something - with the implication you feel you know my "type". Or, perhaps you think I have a penchant for using bongs? Far out.

Britbong Sorrow, Britbong. Not everything tank posts is an attack on you. Sans plastic soldiers most of the toys seen in Toy Story weren't as big here in Finland as in USA either. I don't remember me or any of my friends ever even seeing stuff like Slinky before Toy Story became massive hit.

Which is interesting since of course our toy market was as U.S.-dominated as in any other corner of the earth. For whatever reason the roster of Toy Story MCs just never was big in here and I guess same was true to some extent for UK.

Xard wrote:Britbong Sorrow, Britbong. Not everything tank posts is an attack on you.

Nothing I posted was under the assumption it was an attack. Nor did I ever say he has a habit of trying to do so. That was something you fabricated, or yourself believe to be the case. Though, naturally I did think it was aimed at me - having quoted me, and all.

I said I didn't know what it (a Bonger) was, and said what it appeared to be that Tankred was saying to me; after looking it up on Google. Then questioned whether it was something else. If I had said it was, at least intended to be, offensive or hurtful, then I'd get why you replied as such.

I'm sure you can forgive my ignorance when the only definition of such is a poorly written entry on Urban Dictionary and required me to know that "Bonger" was another way of saying "Britbong" to find it, when I had never heard of either. Still, now I know[s]---[/s]a few things[s]---[/s]and I agree, plastic soldiers were very common.

Sorrow wrote:I said I didn't know what it (a Bonger) was, and said what it appeared to be that Tankred was saying to me; after looking it up on Google. Then questioned whether it was something else. If I had said it was, at least intended to be, offensive or hurtful, then I'd get why you replied as such.

Your whole Gypsy spirituality paragraph came off as deeply sarcastic and passive aggressive towards tank especially since you can't find a trace off "gypsy spirituality" in just about any post Tank has ever made. If you really wrote that paragraph sincerely then I apologize for drawing wrong conclusion.

As for britbong it's chan terminology for british people used on imageboards and reddit, sort of like americans are amerifats or americlaps or ameriburgers or burgers or whatever. I guess Tank overestimated commoness of the term considering how far and large net slang from 4chan tends to travel.

My thoroughly British children had three of the four items posted, as indeed did I:

Mr. Potatohead, green plastic soldiers, [s]monkeys in a barrel,[/s] and an etch-a-sketch,

I've never come across britbong before, though.