Renegade Cut - Death and Toy Story

(140 votes, average 3.76 out of 5)
Facebook Share

Follow Leon Thomas on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/renegadecut and his blog at http://leonthomasblog.tumblr.com

Comments (106)
  • Fredwin  - No way, dude.
    Children can handle death in small does. How long did the movie spend on having them escape the nursery? Culminating with probably, what? 10 minutes in the dump alone? Then you're just going to have all the main characters dumped into a furnace. After all that?

    Maybe if one or two of them didn't make it your points could still be made and it could still be watchable for kids. There's no way you can just shove them all down a furnace like that, though. It would have been ridiculous

    *Edit* The one angle you forgot is that while the toys may only exist to serve some person/god like figure, they still have relationships with each other. The main characters all cared for each other, there was even a poor attempt at a love subplot. So just because they're continuing this loop of serving another person/god, they still care for one another, and by destroying them all you're also destroying that.
  • CodySensei  - Dude...
    avatar
    If there's ever a time where you can say "You're looking too deep into this"...this is one of them. And not to be rude, but some of your statements are on the...I wouldn't say wrong, but misunderstood or unacknowledged.

    Andy was never spoken of like a "god," and was never proclaimed "god" of the toys. The toys that belong to Andy speak highly to them because he's their owner, not their god. They always keep wanting to return to him because he's a good owner, he plays with all his toys, he treats them ok, and so forth.

    The toys are not "religous" either. They're just toys. Sentient toys, but still just toys. If you were a toy, what would you want most? To be played with, right? To be enjoyed by your owner, be close to them, to be their toy. It's just what the writers believe a toy would want. It's the same thing to think that a pencil would want to be used to write with, or clothes to want to be worn. It's just a reasonable idea to what a toy would want.

    The toys never really "run away" only to crawl back either. In the second film, Woody was tempted by the idea of lasting forever as a collectible, to adored by thousands of kids, only to realize that he still wanted to played with like other toys, and only by Andy, his owner. In the third film, Andy is leaving for college and the toys felt abandoned because they haven't been played with for the longest, so they when they saw the chance to be played with again, they took it. It didn't work out, and the toy's return, only for Andy to give them all to a little girl for her to play with them, and for Andy to play with one last time.

    There's nothing really religous in the movies, and even with you explaining, it doesn't add up, mostly because some of your statements don't match what happened in the movie. The movie is simply a Toy's story, what the life of a toy is. To yearn to be played with by a kid, to grow attached to your owner, and what could happen to when said kid grows up.
  • Ratin8tor
    avatar
    http:// manicexpression.webs.com/ apps/blog/show/12928491- in-too-deep-why-don-t- the-toys-just-talk-a- theological-analysis-of- the-toy-story-trilogy-

    I'd argue there's a Hell of a lot of religious themes and subtext in the movie if you know where too look :P
  • Leon Thomas
    avatar
    I'm actually surprised there is so much shock about the religious themes mentioned in the video. As you pointed out with this link, it has been discussed elsewhere. I'm certainly not the first to notice this, nor will I be the last.

    Thanks for watching, by the way.
  • Ratin8tor
    avatar
    Oh it's just refreshing to have someone wanting to come up with new and original ideas about how to anaylze something rather than go 'this things sucks, and I'm gonna bitch about it for half an hour'.

    It's that sort of willingness to over-analyse things and draw conclusions (even if I feel they aren't the strongest conclusions) that make your videos a damn site more entertaining then most things found online.
  • Plotspider  - Why
    avatar
    You mention in your article that it is vile and awful that the toys realize that they are, in fact, toys. But why is that so vile? Is this not parallel to children growing up and realizing that no, life isn't what they thought it was, that not everyone can be president after all, not everyone will win the lottery, not everyone will have every desire or fantasy fulfilled. Those who don't realize this painful truth of life are often institutionalized. Many of our movies support the opposite of the truth: that if you really believe in yourself, you really CAN accomplish anything, when people really can't. This sounds pessimistic, but no matter how much I believe I can fly, if I jump off a building, I'm going to splat on the pavement. It is healthy and good to realize where one truthfully stands in the universe, and to find that someone will love you and take care of you is not a bad thing either. Again, I ask you, what more does a toy really NEED but to be loved by a child.
  • Falconfly
    avatar
    While one can fail to be what they want, resignation is putrid to the core. Lack of willpower is a major reason as to why suffering exists.
  • Blacksky  - .
    avatar
    I really think that what this video is saying is very, very, overthought - almost nobody who sees this film is going to come away thinking it has a religious theme. The stuff about throwing the toys away and them being 'devoted servants' or 'fanatical slaves' has nothing to with religion.

    The reason the toys love Andy is very, very, simple - because the films are made to appeal to a child's point of view. The child loves their toys, therefore the toys love the child. How else would it be if toys were alive?

    The only real way to claim what you claim is to take a dislike of religion and try to find parallels with that belief in the films. People who dislike religion generally have a very twisted perspective on it that is often based on some form of trauma, and thus see believers as 'playthings' of God, who they see as cruel and indifferent.

    The problem is that ANY film or book can be said to have a religious theme if you take it metaphorically and squeeze everything to make it fit. You had to ignore a huge amount of the films, and what was actually going on, to make your arguments. You could make all the same arguments about a film of a child trying to return home to their parents. Believe me, I'm an art student, I know how to make crap like this stick.
  • fangirl21  - I Never Saw This Context
    While you bring up very interesting points, I for one never saw the whole 'god' and 'servant' correlation between the toys and Andy. But even with that kind of context in mind, I actually think that the ending that was given to us was rather appropriate.

    Whenever people go through either a hard time, or go through a major transition, or even a near-death experience (such as when the toys are about to be put on the curb) they often begin with feeling very lost and very confused. But when they find a new purpose, whether that purpose comes with or without a religious awakening, they still happily go on in to that new purpose and find within themselves a 'new beginning'. That is what I see Andy giving his toys to the little girl as. His toys have ended their former calling to be his toys and his friends in growing up. They almost died after this long journey. Now they've all seen that there is still life within themselves and that they can still be friends and companions to another child, and are happy to accept this because they know she has the same care and love for toys as Andy did for them. It is a way of beginning again, and starting anew and afresh.

    That's just how I see it of course.
  • Neverpleased
    Well you can certainly see how the mindset of a person can influence how they interpret things.

    I never saw Andy as a god figure, but like the toys themselves actually in the movies, as their friend. They are happy to make him happy, it's sort of like saying the reviewers on this site are cowing to their internet spectator gods. Because in the end they live and die by our whims.

    The analogy simply doesn't hold up especially when the toys choose to do what they do. Simply because you wish happiness onto someone and take on a roll in which you can function towards bringing them that happiness doesn't mean you are a servant or are set in place to do so.

    The toys are deviant at times and it unlike what you said it doesn't lead them to a worse place. In Toy Story 2 Woody doesn't get into trouble until he WANTS to return to Andy. At first he thinks he wants to be immortalized forever, but soon he changes his mind feeling that immortality doesn't weigh up to the few more years he might have spending his time with the toys and person he cares for.

    In the end it is a choice, a choice they make multiple times when they see not only does Andy benefit from their relationship but they as well, being given a home and a caring owner. I don't think I have to remind people of what a bad owner is like and how his toys treated him right, it's very normal for god fearing toys to scare their god into submission right? If I do have to remind you go back and watch the first movie.

    Furthermore let's examine the third movie. If we apply your musings to the movie it in fact makes perfect sense.

    A toy nears the end of it's life. Unsatisfied with the treatment from their owner it seeks out a better place unknowingly landing itself in hell, eventually escaping it goes through trials to reunite itself with it's former owner. However they fail and now confronted with their doom they accept their faith and recognize that they had led a good life, only then does a higher power descend from the skies and whisks them off to live a happy life in heaven. They are essentially reborn to lead new lives.

    In a way this could be seen as Toy Reincarnation. A life ends when the owner no longer has a need for the toy and the toy takes on a new life when it is passed down.

    If you are going to pull the god theory, which I have heard multiple times before, do consider the theory works multiple ways and also has several holes.
  • AnvilPro  - I'll Buy It
    Nice, I could actually believe this, despite how insane it is. You are great at over-analyzing this kind of stuff, love it.
  • YellowJello
    avatar
    I feel like you're viewing the Toy Story series from a very pessimistic point of view. I never saw Andy as the toys' "god," and I never knew anyone that saw it that way either.
  • Nuthouse
    Who ever thought this about Toy Story but you? So your Intentional fallacy argument would only apply to you.
    And no one give me a smart ass reply saying
    "I did:)"

    One star for this Video. He looks to much into this and finds something that are not there, this is like Alex Jones the Dark Knight Rises conspiracy, Look up (Alex Jones Leaked! The Dark Knight Rises) on youtube, its funny as hell.
  • thisithis
    I'm just going to say this about Obedient zealots. Exist as a real Species that follows there Master no matter what you tell them what they do. And most of them never and I mean never brakes from there masters, only a few do. Oh and the Species that hold almost the same act as the ones you Described in Toy Story... Well there called DOGS.
  • Blacksky
    avatar
    Except that even dogs don't view their master that way - they view them as the 'pack leader'.
  • Orichalcon
    avatar
    "The actual themes of these movies don't fit into my world view, so I'm going to make an angry video about how they betrayed themes they don't actually have."
  • Leon Thomas
    avatar
    I was perfectly calm during the video. I'm not an "angry" host. It's not my style of writing.
  • Specter Von Baren
    avatar
    Just as the Distressed Watcher was an ass so he could get attention Leon here seems to post controversial videos just so he can get attention.
  • Leon Thomas
    avatar
    If you have an actual argument, feel free to make it. The purpose is to be a jumping-off point for debate. I've already made my opinion known and don't have much else to add, but I love reading responses. However, dismissing something because you mistakenly believe the creator doesn't actually believe it is a poor argument. The same goes for personal insults. No call for that at all.
  • Jendrexyl
    It was an interesting view and I don't understand the outrage.like you said;Critique does not equal hate.If you don't like it don't watch it.There have been plenty of deaths in childrens films and they've usually touched a nerve for the right reasons or messages behind them Eg:Bambi,E.T.Whether it offends you depends on the context.
  • Zydrate
    avatar
    Just as the Distressed Watcher was an ass so he could get attention Leon here seems to post controversial videos just so he can get attention.

    Translation: It's something different, therefor, I don't like it. C'mon, don't be like that.

    Great video, by the way.
  • Specter Von Baren
    avatar
    I watched his video on The Asylum where he hand waves them very clearly being creatively bankrupt on all fronts just so he could try to take the big companies down. He tried to make the argument that the Asylum is actually more creative simply because of one year's worth of movies and only basing it on movies not based on existing properties. I saw him post video after video for Heart of Gaming where he put up stock black and white footage that very loosely had anything to do with what he was talking about. I saw the video for Minecraft where he took digs at the gamers that play it so he could get more hits.

    Yes. Go ahead and say I don't like it because it's different, it couldn't possibly be that someone could have a legitimate reason for not liking something now could it?

    I will admit, I like the fact that he actually is commenting here but I also worry about it. Getting into debates with the commenters could go badly if the discussion turns sour.
  • oneydjohn  - A toy that can not play = a human without art.
    having not seen the third movie I can not go as in-depth as you, but maybe the toy's interaction with there human is the same with the artists and humanity interaction with there muses and the arts. they alow themselfs to "used" the muses and "controled" the emotions expresed in the creation-experience of art. yes, they have lives outside of the child but there lives are based around play. Humans do the same with there art, music, and Gods.
  • Faust-the-Negative
    avatar
    You know, I haven't actually watched any of your previous videos so I can't comment on how you do things. What I will say is that I did get slightly religious tones in the third film -only-. I saw it as almost a Dante's Inferno set up.

    The toys feeling lost and wandering without an owner = Limbo

    The daycare = Upper Circles of Hell

    The Dump = Lower Circles of Hell

    The Furnace = Purgatory

    The new owner = Paradise

    This is about as close to religious as I think the film gets and to see any of the toys that most people who watched the third film grew up with destroyed would have been far too dark. Yes, death can be handled by kids but I'll be darned if anyone tells me that you could watch Mr. or Mrs. Potato head die without feeling sick. That seeing Rex melt into molten plastic would have made this film better.

    No. Plain and simple, it would not have.
  • rockybalboa211
    avatar
    I was thinking the same thing. I mean, I'm Catholic and we believe in the concept of a Purgatory. If you go to Purgatory you are automatically considered saved since it is apart of Heaven, yet purgatory is often considered by us to be a place of suffering/purification with intense fire like a furnace that one must go to if they die saved yet have not made up for the unjust nature of their sins. They have the relationship/friendship with God, yet the damaging effect of the sins wrought by the person are still present.
    I guess the claw could be considered as God's hand coming forth and placing them in the best possible Heaven which is with another Master. It maybe could also be stated that since their time in purgatory was so short that they, as a group, had few personal sins in number so they didn't have to experience the full purification which is Purgatory.
  • elrick43
    i see your point but i think the resolution your looking for lies more in symbolism. when they're in the furnace, it's a bright light/force from above that saves them. and when andy gives them away to the little girl the movie goes into an almost dream-like or heavenly montage. and while you look down on their exsistance for just being passed onto a new owner maybe that's an alegory for reincarnation, or crossing over to the other side.
  • rudy023
    avatar
    Dude, you've got to be kidding me! Yes, disney movies have portrayed death, but in most cases it was the parent of a character, a minor character, or a villan. Suggesting that Disney kill of an entire cast of characters from a beloved kids movie sounds rather insane to me. How would parents explain that to their kids?

    & aren't you overlooking the fact that in the second movie Jessie, after being cast aside by her original "master", accepted Andy as her new one. So wouldn't it make sense that the ending of the series be that the entire cast of characters learn that same lesson and move on?
  • Ratin8tor
    avatar
    I don't know, I'm not 100% sold on your anaylsis.

    I make the argument that Andy is an angel, not God. He doesn't create the toys, he has no real power over the toys existence. The toys always have the ability to leave, but choose not too.

    And if Andy is God, then Sid too must be God, as must Al and Bonnie.

    I think it's more plausabile to say that Andy is instead an Angel. A being that looks over the toys. He has limited power, rather than an all-knowing, all-powerful God that you make the argument to be.

    Sid, by this logic, is Lucifier, the fallen angel, tortuing toys.

    The toys have purpose and meaning. The point of a toy is to be played with. That is when they are most happy. You too have purpose in your life, whatever it may be, or one could argue that you too have no value in your own life. If the toys had no value in themselves, then they would all be suicidal. It's pretty clear they're not.

    The toys do die at the end of Toy Story 3. Upon realizing that death is inevitable they choose to stick together. It is this that allows them to be reborn/reincarnated.

    If they had struggled away from the fire they'd have been seperated and thus the claw wouldn't save them. Because they choose to accept their fate, they are all saved.

    Thus if we make the argument that Andy's Room is Heaven, Sid's Room/Day care is Hell and the Land Fill is the oblitivation of the soul, it makes just as much sense that Bonnie's room represents the reincarnation of the characters for sticking together.

    If the toys were suicidal they wouldn't try to survive. This is clearly not the case. And can we blame something for having a purpose that we deem as 'too simple'. Are we any better than the toys?

    Other than that it's nice to see an in-depth review of Toy Story, even though I think I did a better job. I just think it's more sensible to think of Andy as an angel than to think of him as a God/
  • LikaLaruku
    avatar
    We didn't question it in The Secret Life of Toys & we didn't Question it in Raggedy Anne & Andy, but I remember being told that by making kids think their toys were alive when they were gone, it would appeal to a child's capacity to empathize so they would take better care of their toys. The toys are to be pitied either way.

    Disney can deny it all they want, but the evidence that they ripped off Jungle Emperor Leo is pretty damning. I haven't seen much of the Kimba series, but I saw the movie.
  • TragicGuineaPig
    avatar
    I have to disagree with you on this one, Leon.

    Pixar movies almost always have as their chief theme personal identity. This is not purely a religious theme, but merely an existential one. The majority of the Pixar movies have the main character or characters seeking to discover their true selves, and it is in discovering their true selves that they find real meaning to their existence and real happiness.

    Let's take a few examples:

    Cars. McQueen has to discover that there's more to life - and more to himself - than the racing circuit. Some time spent in a hick town in the middle of nowhere shows him this, and shows him that he really is a decent person.

    The Incredibles. In this story, the "supers" have to suppress who they really are in order to function in society. But this suppression makes them miserable and destroys their lives. It is only when all of them come to grips with who they really are - and that includes Mr. Incredible embracing his identity as a husband and a father - that they overcome their obstacles and begin to make a good life for themselves.

    These are just two examples. There might be a rare exception, but the pattern is there.
  • LessAshamed
    avatar
    Not really commenting on the religious allegory theory proposed here. It's a point with a valid argument behind it.

    What I found specifically effective about Toy Story 3's story was it's emotional resolution, not a sombre or 'mature' narrative for it's finale, but an effective one nonetheless. Despite the Toy's raison d'ĂȘtre, they were ready to embrace a horrible demise and found, against all odds, a hopeful rebirth. This is the strongest point of the film for me and, as a resolution, possibly even the strongest point in the trilogy. A lion's share of the audience cried for that final scene, or at least teared up. I cried. And for a scene that is as thematically juvenile as the gifting of toys to a child, this is a tremendous cinematic success. If that scene moved you then it worked. It wasn't a tragedy, it wasn't anyone's breakdown, it wasn't even a death; it was a simple fond farewell paired with a hopeful second chance.

    Most discouraging about your proposed theory, though, is that the toys have no sense of purpose without a child owner. That if only they would talk, like they did that one time with Sid, that things would be different for them. This is just a nightmare of a proposition for the writers to try and cope with. It's just not the universe they've created with Toy Story.

    Specifically, though this is a copout answer, the Sid scare really was a one time deal while Toy Story was still standing on its own as a singular story. It's like when Neo jumps in Agent Smith... that was very much a 'movie 1' action before they had to struggle to 'sequelify' the story and explain why he only did that once. If Woody and Buzz started conversing with Andy just because they suggested that it was possible in the first movie, it would still be impossible to write for...
  • Leon Thomas
    avatar
    You make some good points. I'm reading all the comments, but I particularly liked this one. Thanks for your response.
  • amicawinters
    wow i finally registered and you were the push i needed so here we go. you confuse me, first of all i love people who make videos like yours but you were fishing A LOT IN THIS ONE.toy story's is a movie i grow up with that i love a lot and the last one was some what a perfect ending to my child hood. what you must understand is that they are toys. they knew from the start that that day was coming and so did we. they would have been thrown away or given to Andy's future children or some other child that could love them as much as Andy did. Andy was the perfect owner, he loved and played with his toys as much as the toys wish they could be loved or played with.if anything this movie showed me just how mean some kids(and maybe me)have been to a lot of their toys and how kinder we should treat them. i look foreword to your next videos and hope that i understand them better then i did this video.
  • Maugos
    I see the claw as sort of the hand of God. The toys are ready to be destroyed but instead are saved from on high and given a second chance. In essence they have been reincarnated. In fact, if you look at the trilogy as a whole it's like one big journey of birth, life, death, and rebirth. In fact, I loved the scene where the toys are almost incinerated, it's my favorite scene in the movie, and started thinking of the Odyssey because of it. Now yes, Toy Story and the Odyssey are certainly not the same story but oddly enough they follow the same flow. Both are basically a story of a man/group of toys being put through many trials. Unlike the Odyssey the toys have more of a Jesus effect. They go through a terrifying end and then rise from the dead so to speak. Through this rebirth they are allowed to go forth and spread joy once again. It has sort of that cyclical effect that this could have happened before and could continue to happen forever. The idea that the toys learned from their past, they always have someone watching their backs, and that no matter how bad it gets things will eventually turn around.

    I also feel a lot of the ideas you posit aren't followed up because they take a backseat to the message the creators were trying to actually make. Basically, the idea of childhood memories and how they effect us as we grow older. Notice how at the end Andy makes that speech. I think that's what Pixar was going for more than a God and servant effect.
  • Ratin8tor
    avatar
    You say that it's bad that toys subjugate themselves to the idea that a toys only purpose in life is to serve their master (in the scene where Woody convinces Buzz). You say that as if it's a good thing.

    However I think the moral in this case isn't 'serve a higher power' (otherwise you could easily constrew that as an argument against religion) but rather 'even if your dreams are dashed as long as you still have a purpose in life, you can be happy'. And while to humans we find the idea of being played with as wrong, it's not the same logic we can put onto toys. Toys are created to be played with. That is the purpose that brings them joy. Thus by finding that purpose in life, they can have joy in it.

    That's why Woody CHOOSES to go with Bonnie. He isn't forced to do it, but chooses on his own free will to leave Andy. He knows that his purpose on life is to make kids happy. That is all he wants. A human's purpose in life could be as simple as living a good and happy life. The Kinglongs would find that odd, but we find it as a perfectly acceptable purpose.

    So the scene isn't about 'obey the master', but rather 'find a reason to live'. It's actually quite a nice scene because you could easily make the argument that Buzz is 'discovering God' and becoming one with his faith. And to say that that idea is bad is to run the risk that saying that worshipping God is likewise bad.
  • Ratin8tor
    avatar
    Plus killing the toys at the end just leaves the moral "Life sucks, then you die" or "everything you strive to do is meaningless because you're just going to die anyway". Even if that is true (and you have to be unbelivably cynical to think so) is that what you want to be telling kids? Or would rather tell them that if you stick together and have hope then you may be saved.

    All killing them off would do would have a bleak downer ending that nullifies the life-affirming messages the movies are about, the idea of conquering unforseeable obstacles to achieve your goals. Instead it just says "it's all pointless in the end". So is that really the best way to end it?
  • JessiRay
    avatar
    You know, I never saw the religious subtext in Toy Story before, but now that you've explained it, it makes sense to see it. I don't know if it was Pixar's intent, but you can definitely make the arguement for some subtile "existientualism for kids" undertones.

    The ending was kind of a cop out, but it's one I understand. Had Pixar chosen death, the backlash would have been too strong and it would have made the movie extremely controversial, which isn't really something disney/pixar does.

    That being said, under your explaination, the ending could actually be pretty dark. The toys, even after their adventures, never break free of their dogma. They're content to live the same life over and over again relient on a "god" who doesn't even awknowledge them. It reminds me of how blind religion is passed on from generation to generation and how much of the each generation never breaks free of their blind worship. Their world is stuck and destined to never change. But they're happy that way because that's all that exist to them, and even thinking about existing in the outside world brings the toys/people bad things.

    But again, I don't know if I can accept that this was pixar's intent, but it's a hell of a facinating way to look at the movies. Glad to hear something unique. Well done.
  • rockybalboa211
    avatar
    To religious, though, they consider their God to have acknowledged them by some means in the past or the present. Andy, on the other hand, never acknowledged the toys as living individuals.
  • Jack_Vision
    avatar
    Mind blowing sir.
    Cant wait for the next one.
  • Versa_Tyle  - Interesting Perspective
    avatar
    While I do agree with the existential themes throughout the trilogy, I just can't see eye to eye about the religion comparisons you bring up, specifically the "Andy is God" idea, although thanks to your video I can understand your viewpoint.

    My idea on why the toys seek to stay with Andy is in the same light as CodySensei; toys are meant to be played with, and they have a link in Andy; he did write his name upon them, a practical tatoo. So as my thoughts about the purposes of the characters are akin to CodySensei's, I'd like to raise another inquiry.

    When does an individual toy realize that it is just that? It seems to me that it would really depend on the toy, its producers' intended reasons (aside from profit) and how long it takes to be purchased from the toy store.

    -In the first movie, the characters have already established themselves as Andy's toys. Only when Buzz is introduced do we see that a new toy, fresh from the pack believes itself to be the "real deal". Despite the constant statements from everyone else, Buzz continued acting as if he was a REAL Space Ranger.

    -In the second movie, Woody finds out that he was from a popular "Woody's Round-up" puppet show that was backed by an astounding amount of merchandise. Stinky Pete, despite being pristine in his packaging, is aware of himself as a toy. Further in this we find that Barbies are aware that they are toys, but still act according to their specific style of Barbie, and that the new "Utility Belt Buzz" toys are just as unaware as the original line, as is Zerg! Even through both Buzz toys are near identical, the unaware Buzz continues his delusion, going so far as to battle Zerg in a showdown parallel to the game Rex had been playing.

    -In the third movie, Lotso was aware that he was a toy meant to be hugged. He's left and forgotten, and he has abandonment issues because of it. I really need to sit down and watch this one again to refresh myself with it, haven't seen it nearly as much as the first two.

    My theory is that a toy's individual awareness depends upon what the intended purpose behind its creation was as well as how long it sat upon the store shelves. For instance:

    Woody: Part of a merchandise toy line based on "Woody's Round-up!" and Andy's favorite toy. We don't see anything about his past, only that he is aware he is a toy from the beginning. My idea for him is that he originally thought he was real as "Woody's Round-up!" show that was canceled around the early 1960's, as 1962 was the year the first U.S. manned space flight took place. Despite the gap between Woody's canceled show and Andy being born, sufficient time passed for Woody to realize he was nothing more than a toy, and as he embraced his new identity, he forgot about his show and his show identity.

    Stinky Pete: Same with Pete as wi...
  • Viredae  - Expanding on the theme
    avatar
    Great video Leon, and I have some other points I'd like to point out, I haven't read all the other comments, so forgive me if I'm repeating already established points.

    First off, this isn't my first run-in with the religious subtext theory of Toy Story, but in that context the ending seems to me not as an escape from death as escape from the destruction of their souls and a sort of re-incarnation, as you yourself have mentioned that leaving Andy would be considered "suicide", thus them being handed off to a different "God" is very much signifying a new life, now whether you chose to take this as a more spiritual re-incarnation, or a much more realistic "Circle of Life" process, is entirely up to you.

    Also, one point that I disagree with is that the toys' lack of self-worth, one good indication of that is Sid and his own toys; Sid's toys are being brutalized, dismembered and terrorized all while they still fear and essentially "worship" Sid as a vengeful god rather Andy, who might be considered more of a benevolent deity or at least a more neutral one (on account of his obliviousness), and it actually takes someone who has self-worth such as Woody to show them that they CAN "rage against the heavens", whereas Woody and his friends choose not to because they find their relationship with their own god a beneficial one, thus fulfilling their "duty", as such, is a more of a symbiotic relationship that one of complete lack of self worth or identity.

    Finally, I like to mention that, even if Andy doesn't realize that the toys are sentient, he does realize their "worth", which is actually one of the main driving points of Andy's character in the 3rd movie; that is, he realizes the emotional support and effect the toys had on his growth, and thus when the time comes for the next cycle of incarnation (i.e. the new owner), he doesn't as much throw them away as he grants them the chance to eternal life in the form of the new cycle.

    So by taking those three points I've mentioned, it might be more accurate to say that, in theological terms, the mythos of the Toy Story movies are closer to the Buddhist religion than that of the Christian one.
  • leviadragon99
    avatar
    Huh, mind blown there... though you could say that the ending we got represents reincarnation of a sort, though that doesn't excuse chickening out on the themes...

    A more valid excuse could be that them being rescued represents hope, that "death" in whatever form need not be the end.
  • Kaiju-Z
    avatar
    Whoa...

    That was so deep O ___ O
  • JethroQ
    avatar
    I'm gonna go with the naysayers here, and say that your view of the story and what direction it should have taken is far too dark. Now, i don't kno where the story would go from the toys dying, but I don't really see a way to continue the film from there. It would be just a really dark ending. You mention lion king, but that movie doesn't end at Mufasa dying. There's a way back from the darkness. if the toys had just been burned in the incinerator and that's that, that would have been a majorly depressing movie.7

    I'm not saying kids entertainment can't or shouldn't deal with heavier themes and hard consepts, but I don't like it when people shoehorn those themes in. This is just personal preference (since when I was a kid, I didn't need kids shows to tell me that life is dark. I won't go to details, but I had a pretty dysfunctional family, I lived in a rough neighbourhood, and there were deaths in the family when I was young. I can see a lot of myself in Syd from TS1). Dark re-imagenings feel like a bit of a cliche to me.

    But you know, there's nothing wrong with voicing your interpretation, and sparking discussion. Of course most of the discussion here has been disagreeing with you, but you seem to be a good sport about that. All that said, I'm not saying your video was bad, and people making DW comparisons can shut the hell up.
  • Winterstar
    To those saying he's looking too deep into this, no he's not looking too deep. He's just looking in the wrong pool. or at least a different pool that I always looked into.


    Wood and by extention All toys in the Toy story universe aren't servants to some god. They're parents.


    The toys don't Serve Andy they GUIDE Andy

    Toy story one was about a father seeing that someone has replaced him as his son's hero and trying to decide how that affected him and what place he held in his life

    Woody isn't telling Buzz that he can serve the god Andy. He's telling him that instead of saving some fake universe as a space ranger tv show. he can teach a real person the meaning of life and be their real hero with them They never underestimate the importance of toys and how they help make people who they are.

    It ended with Woody knowing that he still effected the boy's life and that he was still importaint to him. This is even something the creators commented on

    Toy Story two was about someone confronting their own mortality and deciding how it was going to affect them and t hose close to them

    Toy story three i'll talk about when I wake up fully. Other than the ending isn't them going to a new god its them guiding a new life teaching the child how to play and how to treat the world around them. The toys constantly refer to their roles and how importaint it is to be there for children.


    One great scene in Toy story 3 which reinforces just how important the toys see themselves as is the one with the little girl towards the middle. after she rescues Woody. All the other toys refer tothemselves as actors and how glad they are to be able to work together and be there for this child.

    There is sort of an unspoken but suggested idea in the series that when people play with the toys, at least when imaginative kids play with them that the ideas and actions of the toys are not just the kid moving them but the toys taking part in the actions as well.
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

Sage: ND Tank Police

Watch Video

iRawss: Let it Shine

Watch Video

Dan O: FI - Asian Girlz

Watch Video

CJ: Invasion of the Bee Girls

Watch Video

MikeJ: NerdQuest to CA

Watch Video

SJwaC: Hallown in Disneyland

Watch Video

Ask Lovecraft: Apology

Watch Video

BGP: Man vs Robot

Watch Video

RC: Goin off w Muse #8

Watch Video

Snob Riffs: Jerky Turkey

Watch Video

Il Neige: PokeRap

Watch Video

BGP: Zelda Thanksgiving

Watch Video

Calluna: Fragile Dreams P2

Watch Video

TNChick: Pumpkt Finale

Watch Video

SC: Magic Boy & The Room

Watch Video

WMR: Naruto Thanksgiving

Watch Video

Lucky 6: Bottom of the Bottle

Watch Video

Happy Viking: Noble Beast

Watch Video

Brad: Turkish First Blood

Watch Video

MikeJ: Wild Things Foursome

Watch Video

Shark Movies: Bitemare Before

Watch Video

Phelous: BZ - Super Hereoes

Watch Video

Horror Guru: Pumpkinhead

Watch Video

BSG: Kung Kwon Todd

Watch Video

Ask Lovecraft: Homage

Watch Video

AWD: DreamGear Part 3

Watch Video

NC: WYNKA - Planes, Trains &

Watch Video

Bum: HG - Mockingjay P1

Watch Video

Yomarz: Farcry 3 - Blood Dragon

Watch Video

SF Debris: Dr Who - Blink

Watch Video

FB: Mr Turner & Nativity 3

Watch Video

ChaosD1: MMO - FFXIV

Watch Video

Shaun K: UG - To Be Continued

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 23 - Another

Watch Video

Linkara: Avengers #1

Watch Video

Dom Reviews: Homeworld 2

Watch Video

RR: Cloudkicker

Watch Video

Animerica: Tokyo Majin, Part 2

Watch Video

GW: Leeroy Jenkins

Watch Video

Best for a Buck: Gunpoint

Watch Video

Ask Lovecraft: Tatoos

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 22 There's No

Watch Video

BB: UnAmazing Spiderman2

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (145)
Sports (264)
News (285)
Book Reviews (569)
Funny (594)
Top # Lists (792)
Animation (1004)
Wrestling (1018)
Movies (1151)
Anime (1190)
Thoughts (1225)
Comics (1317)
Misc Reviews (1348)
Music (1553)
Video Reviews (2041)
Film Review (2865)
Uncategorized (4088)
Video Games (5441)
Old Blogs (15309)