I'm a bit uneasy about the idea of a third Toy Story, even though the first two are among my favorite films ever created.
1 had Woody helping Buzz realize his place in the toy community.
2 had Buzz helping Woody realize his place in the toy community.
Where does the third have to go? What new ground is there?
There is a huge danger of one of the two primary characters being put on the back-burner and ending up less important than before, and nobody wants to see that. Nobody wants to see a re-hash, either, so it's going to take some god damn clever storytelling to make the third installment as great and relevant as the original two.
This movie is (me paraphrasing and likely exaggerating and possibly even making this up?) one of the reasons Pixar and Disney got back together -- Disney got custody of Toy Story 3 and Pixar was afraid they were gonna screw it up.
So given that they're back together and it's been a zillion years since then, I suspect they've fixed it and it's Pixar-quality. MOOSE ears since we don't have MOUSE ears... WallyWorld...
The new trailer gives the impression that they're covering the same exact ground as the second one, with the whole abandonment theme and the toys coming to grips with being outgrown.
In a broad sense, I'm not thrilled with Pixar getting so into the sequel game at all. Toy Story 2 was understandable since Toy Story holds a special place as their first movie, but was anybody really clamoring for Cars 2? The first is widely held as their weakest offering to date, and they want to return to that well? The great thing about Pixar is their devotion to originality. Every movie they make is something special. Pumping out a bunch of sequels dillutes that quality.
I didn't find Cars to be as bad as everyone else here. In fact, I was expecting it to be terrible, so it was actually surprising in a good way for me.
As far as Toy Story 3. This is their bread and butter. I don't think they are going to allow the face of their studio to be unworthy amongst it's ranks. As long as Disney doesn't screw things up with too much interference, Pixar will sail and create another masterpiece.
Joan: What does the "T" stand for?
Jack: Trustworthy.
The visuals are great to look at, as long as you're not looking at one of the vehicles. They simply look goofy with eyes and a mouth. Something about them is not as right as, say...toys, monsters, or bugs. They don't look like cars or trucks, they look...weird. Especially when animated. It's not natural.
The story is somewhat lacking and there's not a lot of "movement" to it. Lightning McQueen is stuck in the town for a majority of the movie, and that's not good when the movie is nearly 2 hours. Compare that to everything that happens in Toy Story and Finding Nemo. All the places we visit, all the events that take place. It's exciting and there's an element of danger. It's dangerous to traverse the ocean, or to be a toy stuck in the bedroom of a child who destroys toys. How dangerous is a town?
The ending comes as no surprise. He's a race car trying to get to the race. What else could the finale entail? And we've seen hundreds of movies that all come down to the big race at the end, so the event in and of itself is not as fresh as, say...escaping from an aquarium. That is original.
I firmly believe a Cars sequel is all about merchandising.
Comment