Yes, I do think that Toy Story 3 sucks.

Lately it’s been brought to my attention that Toy Story 3 is probably the most inspiring, touching, hilarious and ingenious piece of cinematic art the animated genre has to offer. “Brought to my attention” is really the wrong expression. It has been rubbed in my face, repeatedly, and wherever I look, whatever website I visit, I keep seeing reviews, and pictures, and clips, and articles about this one movie.  Cited by critics as, “heartbreaking” and “insightful” the movie currently holds a 99 percent approval on Rotten Tomatoes, and apparently, if you don’t leave the cinema smiling, you are an emotionless jerk who never had a childhood.


And in reaction to this movie’s unparallel success, and the wave of hype that follows, I decided not to see it.

But when a friend of mine, who just so conveniently happened to be the biggest Pixar fan on earth, invited me over to see it I decided to at least give the movie a chance. And what do you know? I was really surprised! In fact, this movie was not at all what I expected! 


Toy Story 3 is a terrible movie! It certainly wasn’t heartbreaking, nor inspiring or particularly funny for that matter. In fact, I found it to be a very formulaic and, dare I say, unoriginal. And to make the many flaws of Toy Story 3 even more conspicuous, I’ve made a comparison between this movie and a by far better, but preposterously underrated, animated feature. I will compare Toy Story 3 to the 2008 animated feature Bolt.

Bolt was poorly advertised, and upon its release the cynical mainstream critics couldn’t wait to sink their teeth into this cutest of films. By the time, most of them were upset with the idea of Disney Animation Studios even taking the liberty of releasing their own animated feature after their series of complete failures like Chicken Little. How dare you think you can compare to the likes of Pixar, they would roar in unified voice, gesturing and pointing their meager fingers at Bolt and the two, modest rookies behind the film: Chris Williams and Byron Howard. But after having seen the movie, most critics reluctantly agreed that well Bolt is a pretty solid animated feature and the film currently holds a 89 percent approval on Rotten Tomatoes.  Besides, the producer and famous Pixar-guru John Lasetter worked very closely with Bolt so doesn’t that make the movie at least semi-Pixarien?

Or well, no not at all. Bolt is not at all a Pixar movie. Instead, it stands on its own sturdy legs, embracing good old family values and, for the first time in like forever, cute talking animals. Bout time says I, who has been longing for a good old dog movie. In a time when Dreamworks and Pixar are both fighting over the adults wallets, Disney’s attempt to make a cute movie for the kids in the audience (and me) should be considered and endeavor!

But what surprised me about Bolt was that behind the loud, stupid advertisement and its promises of mindless action, was a very intelligent film with deep messages and complex characters. Bolt, having to compete with both Kung Fu Panda and Wall-E (none of which was anywhere near as good) was almost overlooked back in 2008.

So how does Disney’s abandoned film hold up against Toy Story 3?


Plot and characters
Basically, the story of Toy Story 3 is as following. The toys are worried about their owner, Andy, not wanting them anymore. You know, like in the other two movies. Again, after a series of events, the main characters find themselves separated from Andy and the plot focuses on their attempts to get back. And again, Woody is the only one who still believes in Andy and again he fails to convince the other toys before they leave. Pixar is probably the only studio in the world that would get away with recycling the same, old synopsis over and over again, even in the same series!

So the toys, with Buzz Lightyear in the lead, decides to escape to a daycare center, fearing that Andy is planning to through them all away. Now, this is the first think I don’t like about the movie. There are basically only two characters in this movie worth mentioning, and those are Woody and Buzz. The other dozen of toys basically functions like one, big indecisive group in the movie, with one shared voice and one opinion. I just find it illogical that they would be so impulsive when judging Andy after their many experiences. But I guess they all agree with Buzz, not because there is any logical reason for them to do so, but because their only function is to move from the backdrop of Andy’s room to the new setting of the daycare center, so that the plot can move on.

Most of these toys, Mr. Potato, his wife, that pink pig, they are just humorous side characters with about one, shallow personality each:  this is the grumpy old potato man, this is the dumb, blond stereotype, this is the loud, dim-witted comic relief T-rex, and so forth. I can’t escape the feeling that the directors behind the movie don’t treat their characters with respect.  The many characters’ only function in the movie is to be stupid and end up in stupid situations and most of them spend more time being chewed on by drooling babies than showing any personality, whatsoever. 

I wish that the main characters, Buzz Lightyear and Woody, would at least be any different. But even though they get both more screen time and dialogs, none of them feature any deep character development. Woody is the same whiny, generic protagonist he was in the other movies. But it’s okay. He doesn’t change because the plot requires him to stay the same. But Woody was never the star of this series, No, it was the space ranger Buzz who stole the show back in 1995. In Toy Story 3, the ugly doll is reduced to pure, stupid and brain-dead entertainment. Basically, the only character development Buzz embodies doesn’t go beyond the switching of the button on his back. Literally.

No, I’m not kidding. Halfway into the movie, the toys press a button on his back and Buzz spends the next 30 minutes of the movie as his stereotypical, space ranger mode, delivering catchphrases and references to his delusional space-persona. And it’s funny about the first time he does it and not quite as funny about the tenth time. As if that wasn’t enough, Buzz spends most of the end scenes as some tired, surprisingly distasteful Spanish stereotype that is extremely offensive. And really doesn’t the fact that the directors would take Buzz Lightyear and change him so carelessly in the film speak volumes of their indifference to their own characters’ personalities? 

Mr. Potato head doing what he does best: being chewed on. 

Plot and characters in Bolt

No let’s compare this to “Bolt”, a movie in which the characters are being treated with respect. (Sure, the audience might get some laughs out of the furry, delusional main characters failed attempts to use his superpowers – but the climax of this story is the love we feel for the characters and to see them develop)

 Rather than having like 12 characters with no personalities, Chris Williams and Byron Howard decided to focus on three characters, and their character development. Most important is Bolt, who has a deep contrasty personality, and in difference to most Toy Story 3 characters, develops much in the movie.

 The story of Bolt is quite tragic when you think about. An innocent pup was put on a TV-set, where he has been kept isolated from the outside world for 5 years. Bolt plays the role of a superhero in a popular TV-show, who has to use his amazing superpowers to constantly save his beloved owner Penny, the little girl to whom Bolt directs all of his love and devotion, from the evil clutches of the malevolent villain doctor calico! In order to make Bolt’s performance more realistic, the directors of the TV-show has made sure that Bolt actually thinks that everything that happens in the TV-show is real, and that his owner Penny is in danger, through the use of amazing (unrealistic) stunts and live effects, hence tricking the poor dog, year after year, into thinking that he actually has superpowers.

So when the pooch get’s accidentally stranded in reality, Bolt learns that his sense of reality, and therefore his sense of reality, has been severely skewed. At first he tries to use his superpowers, but he only fails and hurts himself repeatedly. Surprised by his feelings of both pain and hunger (things he had never had any contact with before) Bolt most give up on his pride and trust other characters to help him.

Stripped of everything he thought he knew about the world, alone lost and armed with nothing but the hope that his owner Penny always loved him, he embarks on a journey through America to get back to his owner. Bolt is a touching, exciting and emotional drama about a dog, and with a premise that is smart and original. (The only simplistic character in this movie is the hamster Rhino.) 

The difference in how children are being portrayed in these two movies should be quite conspicuous. See the picture above. 

Story and themes

Let’s return to Toy Story 3. The story is unnecessarily complex and filled with plot-twists, gay-jokes and slapstick humor. Basically, the plot is only one big excuse to show some funny, prison-break parodies, directly aimed the adults in the audience who are expected to understand the many references to classical, prison break movies (all the characters and elements are there, we even have the inside snitch in the form of a talking plastic phone). Meanwhile, children are portrayed as loud, careless drooling monsters.

If there are still people who stubbornly claim that the Pixar studio consists of creative directors that never gave up on their childhood imagination and love children, it should be more than apparent how very untrue that is when you look at how children are actually being portrayed in this movie.

But the worst thing about this movie is the pink teddybear who is serving as the antagonist in the movie. Lotso is the personification of evil, and the dispot who together with his evil henchmen, err, henchtoys, keep the toys trapped at the daycare center. This brings me to another point. Pixar relies on evil antagonists much like James Cameron relies on extra effects. There is only some outrageous mean character to push the plot forward, and this is not only a very cheap trick to create drama, but it is an extremely irresponsible way to portray the world for young, responsive minds.

The last thing we want to teach kids is that all the evil attributes in world can just be subscribed to one person who can consequently be blamed for all problems. That the kind of simplistic, unrealistic view of the world modern media is trying to move away from!

Really, Pixar? Really?

Let’s focus on some by far more sophisticated movies. In How To Train Your Dragon, the enemy is ignorance and prejudgment against animals. There is a very important message here about understanding and trying to coexist peacefully with nature. See this is what we wanna teach children.

In Bolt the only actual antagonist is Hollywood and the shallow entertainment industry it represents. As such, Bolt is about the importance of being yourself rather than a character to be consumed through media. In a time when reality shows are raising ethical questions and the media industry is constantly influencing children, telling them to be in a certain way and value shallow, superficial abilities– a movie that centers on the importance of knowing who you are and accepting your limitations couldn’t be more timely and relevant.

In Both of these movies are about battling ideas rather than individuals. That doesn’t only make for more suitable stories for children, but it also makes the movie’s overall themes deeper and more complex.  Anyway, obviously Lotso is the personification of evil. And this isn’t even very well explained! We just get a brief, cheesy flashback showing us how Lotso was abandoned. Directors use flashbacks like putty when it comes to filling plotholes.

See, I had the same problem with Up. The movie starts out great with a story about an old man mourning the death of his wife, dealing with issues such as mortality and lost dreams. But about half way into the movie, the directors must have ran out of ideas, so they introduced this gratuitously evil antagonist, the old man Muntz. He wanted to capture that bird which I saw very little of in the movie and cared even less about. And during the dramatic end-scenes, the main characters are literally being chased by this villain, who is wielding a shotgun, and stereotypical, ugly dogs are flying around in little airplanes – and I find myself confused, wondering where the actual plot disappeared.

Toy Story 3 was even worse. Lotso and his evil minions capture the good gang of toys as they try to escape via a garbage dumpster. But after a heartfelt speech by Woody, Lotso’s own companions turn against him – you know like in every other family movie ever created.

And as the toys are about to be thrown into the burn pit, Lontso is actually being saved by the noble good guys. And naturally, he doesn’t return the favor, leaving them all to die without pressing the emergency stop button. (Moral message; do not help people, for they will only betray you in the end.)

But just about the poor plastic toys are about to be burnt, a giant claw reaching down and saves them. At this point, I was convinced that it was Lontso having a sudden change of heart, developing as a character and deciding to save the others would be the one operating the crane. It would have been predictable, but at least it would have some sort of deeper meaning to it.

I was wrong again of course. Instead they toys were being saved by those ugly, green, toy aliens. The toy aliens who couldn’t feel less relevant and I don’t even remember seeing them in the movie before. It was as if the directors flipped a coin to see which character would save the toys from the burning fire. The bad guy gets what he deserves in the end, being tied to the front grill of a garbage truck. They always get what they deserve, don’t they?

In Bolt, the only character who actually acts at least a bit like an antagonist is the furry main character himself, Bolt. He does treat poor Mittens quite brutality in the beginning, dragging her over the streets of New York, keeping her dangling over busy highways. But the pampered pooch learns lessons of pain and humility on the way, and eventually Bolt overcomes his anti-cat prejudice and Mittens can still emphasize with Bolt as she found out that he was delusional, that he has been tricked and that really, he is the victim. And when Bolt gives up on his pride and decides to expose himself and his vulnerability to Mittens, a new friendship can develop. There are deep, important messages about trust and self-awareness to be found here. Really, the relationship between these two characters offers more depth than all characters from Toy Story 3, put together.

Bolt and Mittens have some kind of love-hate relationship in the movie. Despite their initial conflicts, they quickly come to depend on each-other. 

Conclusion?

So how on earth is it possible to prefer Toy Story 3 over Bolt? Well, obviously my understanding of what makes a movie good must be completely wrong. It’s hard to disagree when the movie critics are in consensus. Or wait, now it isn’t!

If social psychology has taught me anything, it’s that the moment you should start questioning something is the time when it becomes unquestionable. Therefore, I question whether Toy Story 3 is as good as the movie critics claim it is.

Besides! Who cares what some overplayed journalist has to say? Most of them probably wouldn’t even remember the characters’ names when writing their reviews, if it wasn’t for the IMBD articles. I can’t of course generalize all critics, but I think one could be forgiven for saying that many of them are more interested in writing what readers want to read than writing what they actually think.  

But how about the moviegoers? Nah, I wouldn’t trust the mainstream mass to know what makes a movie good. Heck, we will like whatever they tell us to like. The fact that the common moviegoer doesn’t know what indicates a good movie becomes more than apparent when you check out Madagascar 2’s box office results.

No, the best thing you can is to form your own perspective. But that is not enough for me. I must know how people could possibly justify the glorification of Toy Story 3. Please do tell me!