Search Results

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/7838-north
This pretty much sums it up.

When I had an out of body experience, I visited the Trinity Table in heaven. Seated as the Holy Ghost was Woody Woodpecker. As the Son, Daffy Duck. As the Father, Donald. Trippy stuff huh?

Casually going through my oldest posts on this forum felt so embarrasing....
Sorry DPWolf, and all my old friends who had to tolerate me in the past. I'll be good from now on, I promise! -halo appears above head-

No sir, I don't like it.

Goofy says you should smoke. It's his hobby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9KrAyXdmoA

I am an agnostic bordering on atheism where Pixar is concerned, so it took me awhile to get around to watching this thing.
The characters are lacking in any complexity, and ultimately in any interest. The toys have always been defined as individuals by schtick, clever plays on or against type—the airhead Barbie doll, the milquetoast dinosaur—but Pixar worked those schticks very hard in the first two movies, and in the third we're left with the reality that these characters are essentially indistinguishable. They're toys, and they yearn for some child to play with them, preferably without tearing them apart. That's it.
There are hints in all three of the Toy Story movies that their premise could have been explored in intriguing and potentially disturbing ways, as when the toys bump into the reality that there is no difference between them and vast numbers of other toys that look just like them. Surely the fear that we're not really individuals of unique value but just disposable parts in a vast, impersonal socioeconomic machine comes closer to being "the most primary fear," but the movies quickly dispose of any such traces of existential anxiety.
So, the toys are cute, as always, but any interest must be looked for not in them but in their situation. In TS3, Andy, the toys' owner, has reached college age, thus the question, what is to become of his playthings? Will their destination be the attic, a daycare center, the city dump, or, in Woody's case, Andy's dorm room? That complexity is managed well, for the most part. The toys' "prison break" is clever and funny enough to justify the overdrawn grimness of the daycare-center-as-prison metaphor that precedes it. Past that point, a story demands richer characters than Toy Story 3 can provide.
CGI animation, which encourages complexity of many other kinds, has proved to be a stubborn obstacle to animated acting of real subtlety, but then, animated features of all kinds rarely combine narrative complexity and character complexity in satisfying fashion. That's one reason most animated features are regarded, correctly, as children's films. I haven't seen anything in most of the Pixar features to suggest that the Pixar directors feel any strong interest in achieving a rich blend of story and character, or are capable of it.
What Pixar has tended to provide instead is a sort of emotional blackmail, epitomized by the opening minutes of Up (can you claim to be a truly good person if you are not moved, on cue, by the story of Ellie and Carl?). I don't feel it's a bad film especially, but I didn't find it very compelling.
The Pixar stuff in general is neither good nor bad to me, I just shrug my shoulders...

I want to marry WamprickNyx. <3

The big yellow one is the sun!

I don't know about youse fellows, but I ain't no stinkin human. I AM A MAN!!!

No, my yellow rat-loving friend, you are not.

I thought it was moosen. Y'know, like boxen! =D