Home News New Toy Story 4 Trailer Reveals The Plot

New Toy Story 4 Trailer Reveals The Plot

743
158

From the moment it’s been announced, there’s always been one lingering question: Is Toy Story 4 really necessary? After you see the latest trailer from Disney and Pixar…..you’ll still be asking that question.

Up to this point all we knew about Toy Story 4 was that Woody meets Bo again, and there’s a carnival at some point. This new two-plus-minute trailer has given us a lot more, enough to piece together the main drive behind what’s happening.

Bonnie builds Forky, a new toy made from a plastic spork and pipe cleaners. Forky is flipped out by his own existence and makes a run for it. Woody chases after him, trying to convince him the life of a toy is much better than that of a spork (which, for comparison’s sake, you’d think wouldn’t be hard). While Woody is giving Forky this pep talk, he spots what looks like his lost love, Bo Peep, in the window of a doll shop.

And what follows may be the creepiest ten seconds we’ve witnessed in any Toy Story film, as ugly antique dolls and sinister marionettes close in on Woody the interloper. These guys make Sid’s creations look absolutely cuddly, and could singlehandedly give Toy Story 4 a PG rating (if “PG” wasn’t the only rating possible for an animated film these days).

Bo comes to his rescue. Woody is thrilled about the idea of introducing her to Bonnie. But Bo has left the toy’s life behind. She no longer needs a child’s love to function; she’s in charge of her own survival. And she wants Woody to join her.

So the main conflict sounds like it’s Woody trying to decide if he should stay with Bonnie, as a toy, or have adventures with Bo as whatever he wants to be….which is awfully similar to the conflict from Toy Story 2. That’s not the only problem…is there really any doubt which side Woody will ultimately pick here? He’s already gone through this, and he already chose Andy.

For three movies in a row Woody has been a staunch defender of a toy’s duty; wouldn’t having him choose the opposite kind of wreck the message of every other film? They could throw us for a loop and have it end with Woody leaving Buzz and the others for good, but you saw Bonnie’s tears in the trailer and I doubt they’d fade out leaving her that upset.

Maybe we’re wrong and Toy Story 4 will be the best movie ever — and we’d LIKE to be wrong — but with the info we have it doesn’t feel like much more than a rehash. The introduction of Forky, however, almost justifies its existence.

Toy Story 4 comes out June 21.

The thread view count is 12909

158 COMMENTS

  1. Well, I am quite surprised with this news. I thought that they wouldn’t make another movie after the third one since it ended the story for Woody and his friends quite nicely and I would have been fine if they just kept giving them shorts instead of another sequel. Still, I’m fine with this since I have enjoyed the Toy Story movies a lot, so I’m eager to see what plans they have for this new sequel and there’s a good chance that I’ll give it a shot when it comes out too.
  2. To be honest, this announcement has actually made me lose a lot of respect for Pixar. I was perfectly content with the way the series ended in the third film, and equally content that the most we’d see beyond that of the fate of the toys would be in the occasional short or TV special.

    This is so blatantly going to be more about making money than making a good story that I feel somewhat ill just thinking about it. Cars started the trend, but now I can safely say that Pixar has absolutely sold out.

  3. Here’s a news article newly posted on Toonzone with what we know so far. In the wake of early reporting on Iger’s revelation, official Disney sites have also revealed other staff information and quoted this statement from John Lasseter about the project:

    “We love these characters so much; they are like family to us,” said Lasseter. “We don’t want to do anything with them unless it lives up to or surpasses what’s gone before. Toy Story 3 ended Woody and Buzz’s story with Andy so perfectly that for a long time, we never even talked about doing another Toy Story movie. But when Andrew, Pete, Lee and I came up with this new idea, I just could not stop thinking about it. It was so exciting to me, I knew we had to make this movie—and I wanted to direct it myself.”

  4. I must say I’m not happy about this. I loved Toy Story 3 and felt it was the perfect ending of the franchise. Even the shorts are excessive to me. As much as I love Toy Story and as magical as it was to see them back in Toy Story 3… but no more Pixar, please. Although to be fair, that statement does have me curious, especially if Lee Unkrich seems to have signed off on this.
  5. I love Toy Story and I loved every single movie and special…and yet I still have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, Pixar sounds pretty confident about it and it’s great to hear that Woody, Buzz and the others are returning to the big screen…while on the other I feel like they shouldn’t mess with the rather complete ending they gave three. Where do you go from there? I’m uncertain that they can pull this off correctly.
  6. “We love these characters so much; they are like family to us,” said Lasseter. “We don’t want to do anything with them unless it lives up to or surpasses what’s gone before. Toy Story 3 ended Woody and Buzz’s story with Andy so perfectly that for a long time, we never even talked about doing another Toy Story movie. But when Andrew, Pete, Lee and I came up with this new idea, I just could not stop thinking about it. It was so exciting to me, I knew we had to make this movie—and I wanted to direct it myself.”

    I wish this could ease my nerves, but John’s personal projects have been Cars movies for the last ten years.

  7. Well, I expected this. The fact that they made cartoons for TV was a big tip-off. Here’s what I speculated four years ago.

    "I hope that they don’t make a fourth movie, but as long as Disney is chasing the big bucks, it’ll probably happen. The ending makes it too convenient. Thematically, I’m not sure what else they could do. Maybe reveal to humans that toys can talk. Or make it about a new group of toys. There’s a potential risk of jumping the shark from this point if they do those things."

  8. I’m mixed on this as well. The only comfort in this development I can take in is that Lasseter himself directed Toy Story 1 & 2 (the latter movie along with two other directors), otherwise, I really think this franchise should have just stuck to TV Specials and shorts considering how perfect the third ended. On the other hand though, history has proven that I shouldn’t be so skeptical to these things.

    Toy Story 4? What’s next? DreamWorks announcing Shrek 5?

    Funny thing is that there was originally supposed to be a Shrek 5 (to be released in 2013, or as they thought at the time), but it eventually got cut down to the fourth, thankfully since the last two (especially the third movie) paled in comparison to the first two.

  9. I’d have been content to just continue getting the short visits back to the toys with the shorts and tv specials. I do wish they had just stuck with that and left the feature spot for something original. I can’t be mad since I’ve enjoyed everything Toy Story related but I would have preferred they left the trilogy completed.
  10. John Lasseter gives a bit of details on 4:

    Pulled from IGN’s report on it:

    Lasseter has revealed to The LA Times that Toy Story 4 will be a "love story" and will pick up where Toy Story 3 left off.
    He also promised that the sequel was not a cash grab.
    "A lot of people in the industry view us doing sequels as being for the business of it, but for us it’s pure passion," said Lasseter. "We only make sequels when we have a story that’s as good as or better than the original.
    "We don’t just, because of the success of a film, automatically say we’re going to do a sequel and then figure out what we’re going to do."

    A love story? Hmmmmm, my idea is that the movie’s gonna be about Woody and the gang finding Bo Peep, and then she and Woody hook back up again. That’s what I thought when I read it.

  11. Though I do believe Lasseter you have to remember that sometimes his passion and love for the material winds up NOT working in his favor and what he thinks makes for a superior product winds up ending up quite inferior to even it’s predecessor. Such as Cars 2 which I know he really wanted to and was exited to make but that doesn’t mean it was any good. Though to be honest, I was never the biggest fan of the original Toy Story and though it has ideas and concepts and characters I like, I honestly vastly prefer the sequels over the original. And in fact I’m one of those who says the series has gotten better with each installment. So though I don’t know where they could possibly go after the third movie that would be worthy of an actual film (because the shorts are just meant as comedic goofs and even the T.V special is still only a small little plot compared to a full feature) I want to be optomistic about this. I mean a lot of people were dreading Toy Story 3 for a couple of years before it came out and we wound up loving it so the same could happen here. Still seems weird to have this fast tracked with an actual date now. And honestly I really wish we had a sequel to say the Incredibles at least first before this film.
  12. A love story sounds potentially interesting. It could be about Woody and the gang finding Bo Peep or maybe a new love figure for Woody is introduced instead. While I would have been content enough with leaving the characters for shorts and TV specials, I’m still not too upset over the idea of a new movie. The third movie did give them a pretty satisfying conclusion, but I’m willing to give this a shot since I’ve enjoyed all of the other Toy Story movies.
  13. I find it ironic that Toy Story 4 will have a love story since, if I recall correctly, one of their tenets in making the original was not to have a love story. I mean, I’m all for love stories but still :sweat:.

    I think it’s easy to be cynical and look at this announcement as a cash-grab, especially considering all of Pixar’s recent and upcoming sequels as well asToy Story 3 pretty effectively concluding the story of the cast. As a movie it really impacted me and left me satisifed with the story of Woody, Buzz, and the gang, so much so that I can’t see what a new film might explore that wouldn’t seem superflous.

    At the same time, optimist that I am, John Lasseter seems quite enthusiastic about it and I’m sure that, whether or not money at all effect the decision that Pixar will put forward their best for another Toy Story movie. And I have to admit, a part of me thinks it will be nice to see the Toy Story gang again on the big screen :).

  14. I’m aware mileage varies on what part of the trilogy is best, but in the end I’d point out Pixar has never EVER made a bad Toy Story cartoon (maybe the upcoming special will be lame, but after Toy Story of Terror I seriously doubt it). So you’ll forgive me if I just throw up my hands at any and all "CASH GRAB" commentary, because that’s way past the land of skepticism and into a realm of cynicism so dark you can’t see six inches in front of your face in there. After past example, to think they’re going to phone it in NOW?

    "But it’s a sequel!" Yeah, and so is Incredibles 2, a sequel to a movie with a fully satisfying ending. Didn’t see many principled objections to that when that got announced. Sequels are not bad in and of themselves, bad ideas are bad. "But Cars!" Yes, OK, I get Pixar made one film series a lot of people don’t think much of (a lot of enthusiasts who post online, anyway), or one that lost the best part of itself in the sequel. Maybe it’s time to get over that – and by the way, Lasseter might not have directed Toy Story 3, but he was one of those involved in coming up with the story. "But originality!" Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur say hello, and no one knows for sure what Pixar’s calendar will look like beyond 2017 yet.

    Now, I think Toy Story 3’s ending was perfect and I never felt I needed more. Ditto for Incredibles, I’m stumped on what’s left to do with both of those. But in short, I think this crowd has surely earned some trust on this, particularly at a time when no one really even knows what the movie is about.

  15. Count me in with everyone else’s opinions on this. The third one brought closure and it would’ve been fitting for the franchise to continue through shorts and TV specials.
    But nope, Disney’s adamant on following the Hollywood trend of aiming to create more film franchises. One article read that Pixar will churn out three films every two years, with two of said films being a sequel/prequel (or possibly a spin-off.
    I remember how we used to put Pixar on a pedestal when it came to the films and creative integrity while other studios like Dreamworks, Blue Sky and others were churning out sequels like crazy. Now they’re no worse than them. It’s really sad when you think about it. Can you imagine if Studio Ghibli started churning out sequels?
    Ah well, at least Pixar has a better track record. Heck Toy Story 4 might end up being good.
    At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised of we get Frozen 2.
  16. At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised of we get Frozen 2.

    They’d be insane not to make Frozen 2. I’m impressed the thing remains so popular when only 90 minutes of material exists for it. Current plan is to make one short, like what they did for Tangled. The Disney I knew would have had a TV series ready before the movie even opened.

    If they drag their feet on this one it’ll be proof they actually do put story first.

  17. Colleagues,

    usually when a series goes beyond three movies that signifies a desperate company cash grab but since toy story is my favorite pixar series i’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. as long as the quality doesn’t significantly dip i don’t mind multiple films of a popular franchise.

  18. Not really; the whole movie was an origin story for the Incredibles as a team. That’s why everyone wanted a sequel for years. It made more sense than with any other Pixar movie.

    No, no no. Over and above the "origin story", what was The Incredibles about? That story was thoroughly told. Showing the family would have further adventures doesn’t mean the first film was in any way unfinished or not satisfyingly ended.

    I remember how we used to put Pixar on a pedestal when it came to the films and creative integrity while other studios like Dreamworks, Blue Sky and others were churning out sequels like crazy. Now they’re no worse than them. It’s really sad when you think about it. Can you imagine if Studio Ghibli started churning out sequels?

    Actually, when I think about it, I remember that I’d take How to Train Your Dragon 2 in a second over The Croods and Mr. Peabody and Sherman. I remember how I enjoyed Toy Story 2 and 3 as much as other favorites and how 3 made me cry. Pixar rightly got put onto that pedestal because their output was superior. I see mentions of a Frozen sequel. Does anyone believe that if Frozen 2 were to actually be a thing, it likely wouldn’t be better than Disney’s original output in the course of its slump in the 00s?

    It’s almost as if creative integrity and quality has more to do with what’s in a movie than whether there’s a number in the title or not.

  19. Everyone scoffed at Rocky Balboa when it was announced, but it ended up being the best of the series next to the first one. The same could apply here.

    That said, two things:
    1) As everyone has said, Toy Story 3 ended on a "final" note. It really felt like a perfect closure to the series, so if they’re going to open it back up again, they need to do it with the utmost care.
    2) I miss the days when each new Pixar movie offered a brand new universe and characters.

  20. If it’s going to feature the old characters, I’m not going to watch it. If it won’t… they shouldn’t call it Toy Story 4. Makes no sense. I think Disney just wants more money. TS3 pretty much ended the trilogy, along with the shorts, and now we’re getting another one? Like… Why? It’s going to cost a fortune and will be mediocre at best. Should’ve made a sequel to something that deserves or needs it more. Or they should’ve pumped that money into Star Wars.
  21. I’m aware mileage varies on what part of the trilogy is best, but in the end I’d point out Pixar has never EVER made a bad Toy Story cartoon (maybe the upcoming special will be lame, but after Toy Story of Terror I seriously doubt it). So you’ll forgive me if I just throw up my hands at any and all "CASH GRAB" commentary, because that’s way past the land of skepticism and into a realm of cynicism so dark you can’t see six inches in front of your face in there. After past example, to think they’re going to phone it in NOW?

    "But it’s a sequel!" Yeah, and so is Incredibles 2, a sequel to a movie with a fully satisfying ending. Didn’t see many principled objections to that when that got announced. Sequels are not bad in and of themselves, bad ideas are bad. "But Cars!" Yes, OK, I get Pixar made one film series a lot of people don’t think much of (a lot of enthusiasts who post online, anyway), or one that lost the best part of itself in the sequel. Maybe it’s time to get over that – and by the way, Lasseter might not have directed Toy Story 3, but he was one of those involved in coming up with the story. "But originality!" Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur say hello, and no one knows for sure what Pixar’s calendar will look like beyond 2017 yet.

    Now, I think Toy Story 3’s ending was perfect and I never felt I needed more. Ditto for Incredibles, I’m stumped on what’s left to do with both of those. But in short, I think this crowd has surely earned some trust on this, particularly at a time when no one really even knows what the movie is about.

    Mhmm….I agree Toy Story 3 was a fitting ending to the franchise. Tied everything together.

    I feel Incredibles still has room for expansion in their universe. There are family dynamics yet to be explored. Not sure if I’d call the ending "fully satisfying", but to eaches own.

    3 dynamics:

    1.Decade boost to modern-day animation technology
    2. Time skip(love that stuff)
    3. Compelling story

  22. I am reasured about this movie.

    Rashida Jones and Will McCormack, who wrote Celeste and Jesse Forever, are penning the script. They are very funny. They will be guided by 3 Pixar veterans, Finding Nemo’s Andrew Stanton, Up’s Pete Docter and Toy Story 3’s Lee Unkrich.

    Even John Lasseter said he would only do the movie if he had an amzing story.

  23. I loved the ending of Toy Story 3 as much as anybody else. I chuckle when people call it closure. A movie with a time skip in which the main characters meet a whole new bunch of characters and reestablish the basic premise of their existence can’t really be called a "conclusion."

    Pixar set up a whole new set of adventures for Woody, Buzz, and the gang in Toy Story 3 and then gave us several new adventures in the shorts and the Halloween special, yet people are surprised and even angry about Toy Story 4?

    Come on.

    Be happy about this.

  24. Ahem: Lasseter is the one who oversees and greenlights what comes out of both Pixar and Disney these days.

    He is still ultimately answerable to the board of directors though, and there are still significant numbers within the original Disney organisation who remember how things played out, and for whom Pixar is far from a ‘saviour’. Bean counters are not impartial to internal politics and rest assured, Bob Iger likes to hold the Sword of Damocles over both Lasseter’s and Catmull’s heads regarding the fortunes of their beloved Emeryville studio.

  25. He is still ultimately answerable to the board of directors though, and there are still significant numbers within the original Disney organisation who remember how things played out, and for whom Pixar is far from a ‘saviour’. Bean counters are not impartial to internal politics and rest assured, Bob Iger likes to hold the Sword of Damocles over both Lasseter’s and Catmull’s heads regarding the fortunes of their beloved Emeryville studio.

    And you know this how?

    Bob Iger himself has stated on the record on at least two occasions that he approached Steve Jobs and said that Disney needed Pixar a lot more than the other way around. If I remember right, the exact epiphany moment was when he was in a parade at Tokyo Disneyland right before he replaced Michael Eisner as CEO that none of the memorable characters in the Disney Parade created in the past decade had been created by Disney. Ed Catmull has narrated those same events from his perspective at Pixar in his Creativity Inc. book, and (more importantly) chronicled the changes that he oversaw at Disney Animation Studios to make sure that they could get the process improvements necessary to revive the fortunes of the studio without making them Pixar clones. Lately, I find that Disney has implemented the Pixar way even better than Pixar was. The idea that Bob Iger is threatening John Lasseter or Ed Catmull with anything is absolutely, totally ludicrous. For all these supposed people who think Pixar didn’t save the animation studio, I’m sure there are others who remember the Disney brand being tarnished by sub-standard features and cheapquels that everyone knew were naked cash grabs and diminishing the long-term legacy far more than they were helping the short-term bottom line.

    Every single claim I’ve seen that "this is the Disney Corporate Overlords Forcing Pixar to Do This" seems based on the idea that John Lasseter and Ed Catmull are puppets and Bob Iger is exactly the same manager as late-day Michael Eisner. Neither statement is true. Public actions and public statements by all of them, along with nearly every single thing that has happened since the merger, reinforces the point that none of those things are true, unless you’re going to insist that the lack of evidence is evidence of exactly how far they’re willing to go to hide the Truth. I find that line of argument completely counterproductive because it assumes absence of evidence is evidence of absence and because there is no reason to even attempt to provide counterarguments against it.

  26. If I’ve learned anything from talking to animation professors who used to work in the industry, what’s said to the public and the press, isn’t always the same as what happens behind closed doors.
    Then again, it doesn’t matter who or who isn’t telling who to do what. We’re getting Toy Story 4 whether we like it or not. I doubt the animators working on it are complaining. Work is work after all.
  27. If I’ve learned anything from talking to animation professors who used to work in the industry, what’s said to the public and the press, isn’t always the same as what happens behind closed doors.
    Then again, it doesn’t matter who or who isn’t telling who to do what. We’re getting Toy Story 4 whether we like it or not. I doubt the animators working on it are complaining. Work is work after all.

    It’s a bit nonsensical for the animation community to be complaining. Every Toy Story film has been good, all the shorts have been good, where’s the evidence that this will be "bad"?
    People say it’s going to ruin the emotional tone of the third film, but they will completely forget that when they’re sitting in theaters enjoying the fourth one. And I seriously doubt the existence of a fourth film is going to ruin repeat viewings of the third movie for them.

    Most of these people complaining are probably clamoring for an Incredibles sequel too, which works perfectly as a standalone film (As does most Pixar films), so it just seems like a case of forcing some principle that most people are willing to drop the instant they see how good a sequel is.

    • Ol’ Steve was far too cute to approach Disney. He knew for certain they would come begging sooner or later.
    • Did they implement the Pixar approach within Disney? Sure, but think of the legions of middle managers who suddenly saw their planned career ladder eliminated. Don’t think they haven’t got an axe to grind, and will gladly prioritise the success of Disney departments over Pixar.
    • Nobody said anything about threats; just the fact that Lasseter is beholden to Iger. Steve Jobs knowingly acted as a safety for Pixar when he was around, but with him out of the picture, Lasseter and Catmull must fend for themselves. They aren’t puppets, but they do have a sense of self-preservation.
    • In Hollywood, actions are worth far more than words. It’s all smiles for the camera, and when you get to the corporate levels of a company like Disney, a lot of power and influence can be wielded. That extends to what people can and will say in public contrary to what happens behind the scenes.
    • As to Disney forcing Pixar’s hand; they either really are turning the crews, or all the creative people who work at Pixar are suddenly running out of original ideas.
  28. It’s a bit nonsensical for the animation community to be complaining. Every Toy Story film has been good, all the shorts have been good, where’s the evidence that this will be "bad"?
    People say it’s going to ruin the emotional tone of the third film, but they will completely forget that when they’re sitting in theaters enjoying the fourth one. And I seriously doubt the existence of a fourth film is going to ruin repeat viewings of the third movie for them.

    Most of these people complaining are probably clamoring for an Incredibles sequel too, which works perfectly as a standalone film (As does most Pixar films), so it just seems like a case of forcing some principle that most people are willing to drop the instant they see how good a sequel is.

    I do agree the vitrol at Pixar over this is a bit silly, especially since there hasn’t been a bad Toy Story movie (can’t speak for the Halloween special- I haven’t seen it). Though it could be argued that one of the reasons people are apprehensive is precisely because there hasn’t been a bad Toy Story movie. Fans want the series to maintain its high quality, and not too many series stay good for four movies in a row. Hopefully this movie will be one of the exceptions.

  29. Middle managers, Irishman? Again, as a matter of hard fact, Lasseter has greenlight authority on films. Period. Iger gets the final say, but that’s it.

    Here’s reporting from all the way back in 06, decide for yourselves if this looks like Disney digging in its heel on Pixar’s neck.

    Pixar’s Lasseter to Have `Greenlight’ Power at Disney (Update3) – Bloomberg

    Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) — Pixar’s John Lasseter, creator of the “Toy Story” movies, will have authority to approve production of animated films at Walt Disney Co. after Disney completes its $7.4 billion purchase of Pixar this year.

    Lasseter, 49, who will be chief creative officer of the combined Disney and Pixar animation studios, will have so-called “greenlight” authority, Burbank, California-based Disney said in a regulatory filing. Lasseter’s decisions will be subject to approval by Disney Chief Executive Officer Robert Iger, 54.

    The purchase agreement filed today outlines the companies’ plans to preserve Pixar’s independence, which Iger this week pegged as key to continuing the studio’s run of box-office successes. The protections range from practical, such as setting up a committee to protect Pixar’s culture, to symbolic, such as retaining the “Pixar” sign on the Emeryville, California-based studio’s front gate.

    “It’s imperative for us to see to it that their culture is maintained,” Iger said in an interview Jan. 24. “Creativity is the most important, as I’ve been saying since I came to the job.”

    Pixar Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs, 50, who joins Disney’s board under the purchase announced Jan. 24, will sit on the transition committee. He will be joined by Lasseter, Pixar President Ed Catmull, Iger, Walt Disney Studios Chairman Richard Cook and Disney Chief Financial Officer Tom Staggs.

    The group will meet once every other month at Pixar’s headquarters, the companies said in the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Pixar films will be branded “Disney Pixar.”

    Shares of Disney fell 36 cents to $25.08 at 4:01 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Pixar fell 96 cents to $57.06 in Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading.

    The companies agreed that Pixar would pay Disney a $210 million termination fee if the sale isn’t completed under certain conditions, including a competing offer that breaks up the deal.

  30. Middle managers, Irishman? Again, as a matter of hard fact, Lasseter has greenlight authority on films. Period. Iger gets the final say, but that’s it. Here’s reporting from all the way back in 06, decide for yourselves if this looks like Disney digging in its heel on Pixar’s neck. Pixar’s Lasseter to Have `Greenlight’ Power at Disney (Update3) – Bloomberg

    To add to this, you can find other comments a little more recently than that. Like, say, in yesterday’s New York Times business section in a profile on Disney Studios chief Alan Horn:

    But Mr. Horn’s job requires him to strike an unusual balance between contribution and intrusion. Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm operate semi-independently. They were stand-alone companies with distinct cultures before being acquired by Disney, and each is run by a forceful personality with decades of experience.

    Kathleen Kennedy, the president of Lucasfilm, for instance, began her producing career in 1982 with “E.T. the Extra Terrestrial” and has been nominated for eight best picture Oscars. So while she reports to Mr. Horn on “Star Wars”-related matters, he most definitely does not micromanage her. “These people have earned the right to make their own creative decisions,” Mr. Horn said.

    The way Disney Animation and Marvel seemed to have a firewall between them over Big Hero 6 is more evidence that these studios are pretty independent of each other. The complete lack of any effort at all on Marvel’s part to plug the project or do anything at all to tie into it in advance seems extraordinarily counter-intuitive. If it’s the corporate taskmasters who are forcing this Toy Story sequel, wouldn’t they have also cross-leveraged a property like Big Hero 6 to the hilt, especially when the modern environment means studios have to rely on multi-media tentpoles more than ever?

    [*]Ol’ Steve was far too cute to approach Disney. He knew for certain they would come begging sooner or later. [*]Did they implement the Pixar approach within Disney? Sure, but think of the legions of middle managers who suddenly saw their planned career ladder eliminated. Don’t think they haven’t got an axe to grind, and will gladly prioritise the success of Disney departments over Pixar. [*]Nobody said anything about threats; just the fact that Lasseter is beholden to Iger. Steve Jobs knowingly acted as a safety for Pixar when he was around, but with him out of the picture, Lasseter and Catmull must fend for themselves. They aren’t puppets, but they do have a sense of self-preservation. [*]In Hollywood, actions are worth far more than words. It’s all smiles for the camera, and when you get to the corporate levels of a company like Disney, a lot of power and influence can be wielded. That extends to what people can and will say in public contrary to what happens behind the scenes. [*]As to Disney forcing Pixar’s hand; they either really are turning the crews, or all the creative people who work at Pixar are suddenly running out of original ideas.

    Let me make sure I understand the line of thinking here. It’s a matter of public record that Disney acquires Pixar in 2006. Shortly after, John Lasseter and Ed Catmull are named chief creative execs of Disney Feature Animation, where they clean house and inject some of Pixar’s sensibilities into the studio’s production process. In the process, some of the middle management (whose major accomplishment was making ever-bigger duds like Home on the Range) gets sidelined or shoved out the door and now they have an axe to grind.

    By definition, I would have thought that firing or sidelining them would have stripped them of any power or influence they might have had at the studio, but you’re saying that in reality, they have Bob Iger’s ear (or those of his lieutenants) enough that they can get the CEO of the company to boost the Disney Animation Studio to critical and commercial success while forcing substandard sequels on Pixar. Even though Iger was the one who put Ed Catmull and John Lasseter in charge of the Disney Animation Studios in the first place specifically to make changes and reinvigorate the studio (leading to 4 out of 5 major successes of the movies started and finished under their tenure), while these ousted/sidelined middle managers were the same ones who couldn’t manage to make a decent animated feature for years.

    Is there something I’m missing? Because I’m just not seeing how that makes any sense.

    I think you’re also wildly underestimating the power and demonstrated ability that John Lasseter and Ed Catmull bring to the table. There’s also the fact that Steve Jobs very consciously had little to do with Pixar’s operations, partially because he was running NeXT (and eventually Apple) but partially because he knew he didn’t know the business or the tech but John Lasseter and Ed Catmull did. It was Lasseter and Catmull (and the Pixar Brain Trust at the time of Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Joe Ranft) who went to bat against Disney management to make Toy Story the movie they wanted. Jobs wasn’t in those meetings, so I don’t know what kind of "safety" he provided other than writing the checks when Pixar wasn’t making any money. I’d cite the many passages in Ed Catmull’s Creativity, Inc. book (including the one where he talks about sequels and Pixar’s approach to them), but I suspect his firsthand account will carry no weight if you’re intent on believing he has no power.

    All that said, I actually agree that Pixar has had a paucity of great ideas of late (Inside Out notwithstanding), but I don’t blame that on Disney as much as the fact that being creative is hard and Pixar has had a tremendous run already. The biggest risk that a very successful organization faces isn’t failure. It’s failing to keep identifying and taking the kind of risks that led to the success in the first place, opting instead for the safe decisions and assuming that your past success validates all your processes, whether they aided in the organization’s success or not. On some level, I think Pixar isn’t as willing to take the kind of risks that led to their greatest films any more, and the subconscious fear of being "the one who screwed up Pixar’s streak" has a lot to do with that. Even though that line of thinking makes it MORE likely that you’ll fail.

    (I can’t take credit for those observations, though I’ll give y’all 3 guesses who DID make them.)

    As a side note, I’m probably even less enthused about this announcement than anyone else on here because I really didn’t like Toy Story 3. I felt it was very successful at tugging emotional heartstrings to cover up the fact that they totally dodged the question raised at the beginning of the movie. And even as I was welling up at that sad "goodbye" scene at the end of the film, I kept thinking to myself that we weren’t saying goodbye at all to any of these characters because Disney was going make sure we’d NEVER say goodbye to them permanently. We’d be seeing them in re-runs, in toy aisles, in re-issues, and in theme parks forever, even if they didn’t greenlight the specials and this new movie.

    Even if this sequel is good (and I’ll lay better than even odds that it will be), I think that would make Toy Story 3 look even more openly manipulative and shallow than I already felt it was.

  31. Ed Liu raises a great point. It didn’t really kill the movie for movie, but one problem with Toy Story 3 is that it really doesn’t solve the gang’s problem. Woody’s solution only really delays the inevitable for them. Eventually Bonnie is going to get old too. What will they do when Bonnie gets older and wants phones and tablets instead of some fun toys? They will be thrown away or given to charity and have to go back to the daycare or something. What happened in Toy Story 3 was only a temporary solution at best.
  32. That problem was resolved at the end of Toy Story 2 when Woody decided to stay with Andy. In fact, that’s what the whole movie is about. Jessie’s montage is specifically about the challenge of a girl outgrowing her toys.

    Then in Toy Story 3, it was resolved that it was most important for the gang to stay together than to stay with Andy specifically.

  33. That problem was resolved at the end of Toy Story 2 when Woody decided to stay with Andy. In fact, that’s what the whole movie is about. Jessie’s montage is specifically about the challenge of a girl outgrowing her toys.

    Then in Toy Story 3, it was resolved that it was most important for the gang to stay together than to stay with Andy specifically.

    I think my major problem with this look on things (which, to be fair, certainly seems to be the ones that the Pixarians went with) is that it means the problem stated at the beginning of the movie isn’t the one that’s resolved at the end. If it was more important for the gang to stay together than it was for them to be with Andy, then why were they so upset at the idea of getting left in the attic, even if Woody had gone off to college with Andy (as he was clearly considering)? They’d still be "together," but toys want to be played with. That’s why the question of "what happens when the owner outgrows them" is such an important question to address.

    Regardless, way back when Toy Story 3‘s home video came out, I went over what I thought my ideal ending would be, which would have given a more valid "goodbye" sequence that would be just as emotionally true and true to the characters and what they needed, while also leaving the door open for more follow-ups and spinoffs and other visits back to them without diminishing that emotional impact. But I don’t run the zoo.

  34. First, I don’t understand why that’s a problem. Things change over the course of a movie as characters grow. In Toy Story 3 (as in all the Toy Story movies), Woody has a different priority than the rest because he has a different status. Woody’s priority is being there for Andy. The other toys’ priority was survival. By the end of the movie, they realized the real priority was each other and Woody figured out a way to do that, insure survival, and get played with.

    From your linked post:
    "I still think the most satisfying ending that makes the characters happy for the long-term is also the one that breaks up the band."

    That ignores the whole point of the movie. First of all, TS3 is the only movie in the trilogy in which ALL of Andy’s toys are part of the adventure. They do it together. Second, it ignores Woody’s growth from being selfish about his role as Andy’s toy to looking out for Andy’s need to move on (which reflects his position as a proxy for a parent) and needs of his real family, the other toys. Third, it ignores Jessie’s similar growth. She still has her fear of being boxed as seen in Toy Story of Terror, but she’s no longer defined by her relationship to a kid. She’s defined by her relationship with the other toys. Finally, it really ignores the emotional gravitas of climactic scene at the landfill in which they realize when the worst is about to happen, the only thing they can do is to do it together. It was no longer about their individual needs. It was about the good of the group.

  35. Talk about finding a loophole in people’s complaints. When people say they don’t want a fourth movie, they don’t JUST mean a third sequel, but ANY Toy Story theatrical film at all. I only expected the Toy Story franchise to continue through shorts and tv specials, but I guess there’s no looking back now, at least there’s no risking the original storyline. However, to hear that the new Toy Story film will be a romantic comedy, I’m a little iffy about that, but I’ll take a wait and see approach.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if its title is more like "Toy Story, colon, something here".

    I’m willing to bet that’s going to happen.

  36. There’s been talk around too that this supposed love story could be more on say Barbie and Ken rather then a love story involving Woody, Buzz, Jessie or the main collection of toys. Which honestly if the direction they’re going with is romantic comedy I would want it to be less about the main toys and see them more in the background and what not. Though honestly this whole line about it not being directly connected to the main 3 and a spinoff of that kind of kills the whole "we’re doing this for the love of this story, not because of wanting more money" line they were feeing before. If they really wanted to make a follow up, like they did with 2 and 3, it would be a part of the main canon because honestly stuff that isn’t doesn’t really tend to do or is remembered nearly as well. Plus with how much Planes fizzled you’d think Pixar would be more cautious about sort of sequel spinoffs. Could still be good and really pulling it for to be good but yeah that did shoot some of my enthuasim for it down admittedly.
  37. That gives me the impression Toy Story 4 is going to create all new characters for the main protagonists. I honestly wouldn’t think Barbie/Ken would be the center of the next movie, as their relationship was already resolved in TS3. Plus, original designs for the main characters would be good for that precious, precious Disney Merch this movie’ll generate.
  38. I get that, but I agree with TheVileOne. Toy Story is all about friendship, and it would by wrong to blatantly come out and say that Bo was more important than the other toys.

    True, but I would argue that Toy Story 3 already did that (in terms of the writers playing favourites) in their selection process for which toys would stay on for the third installment. Obviously, Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Bullseye, Hamm, Rex and Mr. Potato Head were safe. They could have taken the opportunity to remove Slinky what with the loss of Jim Varney, but chose not to. But the Pizza Planet Aliens were frankly a bit of an ass-pull. To my understanding, one of the reasons why they decided to ditch Bo Peep was because they couldn’t think of anything convincing for Andy to say about her at the end when he explains what each toy meant to him to Bonnie (Bo was technically not his toy, after all), but he barely had anything to say about the Pizza Planet aliens, other than the obvious ("they’re from Pizza Planet"). Obviously, they were kept on because of the creative team’s love of their "you have saved our lives" running gag (and yeah, they do also play an important part in the film’s climax). And, hey, wasn’t Mrs. Potato Head one of Mollie’s toys too?

    As for the absent toys, including Bo Peep, it’s not as if they’d necessarily need to be "rescued" or anything – given the way things were going with Andy, I’ve sure that a lot of them would likely have been glad to go to a new home where they might actually be played with again. Of course, they’d be sorely missed by their friends, but there is an extent to which I think toys would have to accept such comings and goings as inevitable (particularly if, as is implied, a toy has the potential to be immortal and experience multiple generations of children). It’s not that Bo is necessarily more "important" than the other toys, but given that she was Woody’s girlfriend and all, I find it believable that Woody at least would be more driven to find her than he would the other toys, if only because he’d like to see her again.

    I’ll admit that I am a little biased because I love Bo. She was a pretty minor character overall, but I think she had a rather lovely, understated role in the first two films as Woody’s gentle voice of wisdom, and I really missed that element in Toy Story 3. Not to mention that Annie Potts’ voice-over was utterly charming.

    Don’t get me wrong – I accept that Bo is likely gone, and I’m not getting my hopes up that she’ll return in Toy Story 4. But if they did find a way to bring her back, even if were something as small as an Easter egg cameo in one of the shorts, I personally would be very happy.

  39. No…why are they doing this? Toy Story 3 was already a satisfying ending to the series. They should just focus on TV specials or movie shorts if anything, like the recent Christmas special (which was alright IMO). Oh, well, it’s not like we can change it now. It better be good or we might give up on Pixar. (BTW, here’s hoping their next films, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory, etc. will push the studio in the right direction.)
  40. No…why are they doing this? Toy Story 3 was already a satisfying ending to the series. They should just focus on TV specials or movie shorts if anything, like the recent Christmas special (which was alright IMO). Oh, well, it’s not like we can change it now. It better be good or we might give up on Pixar. (BTW, here’s hoping their next films, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory, etc. will push the studio in the right direction.)

    Who’s "we", I wouldn’t give up on Pixar for one maybe-bad-but-most-likely-good movie.

  41. Who’s "we", I wouldn’t give up on Pixar for one maybe-bad-but-most-likely-good movie.

    After all the wonderful films they made, Pixar needs to mess up many times for me to give it up on them (and for now, the only film they made that I dislike is ‘Brave’)

    Yeah, what was I thinking? Pixar needs to produce a slew of bad movies before anyone gives up on them. Forgot that people almost gave up on Disney in its dark period but redeemed itself in the 90s. Perhaps Pixar will do the same thing…

  42. So, at D23, we now have the basic story. And it’s all about Woody and Buzz finding Bo Peep…huh. Look, I was one of the few who defended this sequel. I knew that such an acclaimed franchise would be given the utmost respect, and the fact that the Pixar Brain Trust thought it up first that even some of the higher-ups didn’t know about it showed that this wasn’t committee-driven, and I’m sure in execution it will be great. But currently, on paper…no. Just no.
  43. I don’t get it. Bo Peep barely existed in the previous movies. She wasn’t developed beyond "Woody’s love interest before Jessie."

    Pixar is going to need a serious miracle to pull off this sequel, because she wasn’t all that interesting to begin with.

  44. Jessie is Buzz’s love interest. She was essentially Woody’s little sister in Woody’s Round Up.

    Bo Peep had plenty of development in Toy Story. There is enough set up for this story in her quick mention in Toy Story 3. She was a good character.

    There is plenty of potential here. The Toy Story movies are masterful genre films. No reason to believe Pixar can’t do a love story or rom com well.

  45. I don’t get it. Bo Peep barely existed in the previous movies. She wasn’t developed beyond "Woody’s love interest before Jessie."

    Pixar is going to need a serious miracle to pull off this sequel, because she wasn’t all that interesting to begin with.

    As previously mentioned, Jessie wasn’t Woody’s love interest. She was Buzz’s love interest. She was more like a friend to Woody more than anything else.

    While I agree that Bo Peep wasn’t a particularly interesting character, they do have an interesting setup for this movie with her mention in Toy Story 3. For something like this, I think it would come down to execution more than anything else. They could explore how much Woody cared for Bo Peep through flashbacks to tie in with his determination to find her, or something like that. She wasn’t a bad character per say, but was a bit dull, especially compared to a lot of the other characters. Considering that they wanted to make this movie so much and they haven’t really made anything Toy Story related that I could call flat out bad at this point, I have faith that they’ll be able to pull this off. It will be much easier to judge it when we have something more like a trailer or something.

  46. To be fair to Bo Peep, the reason she wasn’t interesting in the first two movies was because she was mostly just either Woody’s girlfriend or one of the "basic common sense characters" so thus didn’t have a chance to stretch out with her own personality. As shown with Jessie and even with Barbie, if given some actual focus and scenes the TS team can make good female characters, but just never had the opportunity with Bo Peep. Heck the fact she didn’t have much impact on the first two movies is the reason she wasn’t in the third: because the team revealed they couldn’t think of anything for Andy to have said about her at the end of the movie to really hit home what her character was.

    So if this new movie is about her and actually tying up finding her again and expanding on her like some of us predicted it’d be, I would be all for that. Really I still hold the believe that every single Toy Story movie has been better then the other and the idea of actually following up on Bo Peep does seem like it’d be a solid enough start of a story for me. So I’m down for it. I guess it could always flounder or they could screw it up but you know after Inside Out I think we can say Pixar has found their groove again… maybe the Good Dinosaur or Finding Dory will say otherwise but I hold on hope of this being a great film. And really the fact it’s plot is expanding on an element people pointed out missing from the last movie means there is an actual reason to make this movie.

  47. I get it and I’ll see it, but I’m still not sure about the premise. I mean, they basically lamp shaded Bo Beep’s exit in the third movie with one line of dialogue. It was like everyone had moved on. Not to mention, the way it was written was like she "died."

    So what happened to her? Was she donated to charity? Thrown away? Given to someone else?

    And as much as I like Toy Story 3, the resolution didn’t necessarily fix anything. It basically only delays the inevitable tragedy the toys have to face one more time.

  48. I get it and I’ll see it, but I’m still not sure about the premise. I mean, they basically lamp shaded Bo Beep’s exit in the third movie with one line of dialogue. It was like everyone had moved on. Not to mention, the way it was written was like she "died."

    So what happened to her? Was she donated to charity? Thrown away? Given to someone else?

    And as much as I like Toy Story 3, the resolution didn’t necessarily fix anything. It basically only delays the inevitable tragedy the toys have to face one more time.

    I didn’t really take the ending as delaying the inevitable tragedy. While Bonnie would grow up like Andy did, I always figured that either she’d keep the toys or they’d be donated to the day care, which would be happier than the first time they were sent there due to Barbie and Ken making it a better place for toys. Either way, they would still get some kind of happy ending and stay together after Bonnie grows up, or at least that’s how I took it after watching the movie.

    As for Bo Peep, I’m sure that the movie will address what happened to her, but I suspect that she was either donated or sold in a yard sale. While the reason she wasn’t there was given one dialogue of explanation, I don’t think that necessarily meant that everyone had moved on. They just didn’t focus on that since Bo Peep wasn’t the main focus of that movie, but rather the toys saying goodbye to Andy and staying with Bonnie.

  49. I’m just saying, it’s a bit of an odd thread to tie considering how little it was paid attention to in the third movie.

    I can understand that, but again, the main focus of the third movie wasn’t on Bo Peep or the other characters coming to terms with losing her. It was coming to terms with losing Andy, especially for Woody, and going to a new home. Bo Peep or dealing with losing her wouldn’t have fit with that premise. While I don’t think that they were over what happened to her, there was probably some time to distance the pain to make it easier for them to deal with. There will be most likely something to trigger all of that pain for them, or at least for Woody, in order to lead into finding Bo Peep in this movie.

  50. To be fair to Bo Peep, the reason she wasn’t interesting in the first two movies was because she was mostly just either Woody’s girlfriend or one of the "basic common sense characters" so thus didn’t have a chance to stretch out with her own personality. As shown with Jessie and even with Barbie, if given some actual focus and scenes the TS team can make good female characters, but just never had the opportunity with Bo Peep. Heck the fact she didn’t have much impact on the first two movies is the reason she wasn’t in the third: because the team revealed they couldn’t think of anything for Andy to have said about her at the end of the movie to really hit home what her character was.

    Another reason Bo wasn’t in the third film was because as a porcelain lamp she wouldn’t have lasted in the day care and the garbage scenes without breaking or burning..

  51. I get it and I’ll see it, but I’m still not sure about the premise. I mean, they basically lamp shaded Bo Beep’s exit in the third movie with one line of dialogue. It was like everyone had moved on. Not to mention, the way it was written was like she "died."

    So what happened to her? Was she donated to charity? Thrown away? Given to someone else?

    And as much as I like Toy Story 3, the resolution didn’t necessarily fix anything. It basically only delays the inevitable tragedy the toys have to face one more time.

    We all die. Anything we do to save our lives delays the inevitable. That’s not a valid criticism of a movie especially the sequel to a film that dealt with the issue of living life vs. immortality already and the climax of he movie was the main characters accepting the "inevitable."

  52. We all die. Anything we do to save our lives delays the inevitable. That’s not a valid criticism of a movie especially the sequel to a film that dealt with the issue of living life vs. immortality already and the climax of he movie was the main characters accepting the "inevitable."

    It’s not really the same for the toys. The toys, who live to be played with and have happiness with their humans, don’t really die in the traditional aging sense. Their humans get older and forget about them, while they generally stay the same and yearn to be played with.

  53. I thought Jordan Peele retired from acting after being asked to voice the piece of crap in The Emoji Movie and was so offended by that. Frankly, that would make me question my career choices too.

    For the record, Sir Patrick Stewart will say anything you tell him to say for the right paycheck.

  54. She looks a bit more serious with that expression. Considering that Bo wasn’t part of the third movie and she’ll be involved with the plot of this one, I imagine that they’ll explain why she has a different design/outfit. She could have been broken and then repaired.
  55. That is a pretty cool design for Bo Peep. She looks like if Cinderella was turned into an action figure. I still like the idea that this could be another Bo Peep, but based on the article on the homepage about this new reveal, it heavily implies, if not confirms, that this is the same Bo Peep. That still could be an interesting development for the movie.
  56. ABC’s Good Morning America debuted an exclusive clip from the movie yesterday. It appears to be a flashback, since the toys are still in Andy’s house, and Barbie (the one with the exercise outfit) is still with them instead of being in Sunnyside Daycare. I wonder if this flashback will occur at the very beginning or in the middle of the movie.
  57. ABC’s Good Morning America debuted an exclusive clip from the movie yesterday. It appears to be a flashback, since the toys are still in Andy’s house, and Barbie (the one with the exercise outfit) is still with them instead of being in Sunnyside Daycare. I wonder if this flashback will occur at the very beginning or in the middle of the movie.

    Bo Peep feels like she has a completely different personality from the first two movies.

  58. ABC’s Good Morning America debuted an exclusive clip from the movie yesterday. It appears to be a flashback, since the toys are still in Andy’s house, and Barbie (the one with the exercise outfit) is still with them instead of being in Sunnyside Daycare. I wonder if this flashback will occur at the very beginning or in the middle of the movie.

    Love triangle between Woody, Buzz, and Bo Peep? Must have missed that part

  59. I admit that sans Forky running away saying he should be in soup and pointing out Woody’s habit out of jumping out of moving vehicles this trailer wasn’t that funny but honestly the teaser and other bits were more about comedy as this was about laying out the plot and… oddly enough despite perhaps giving away a fair amount of beats (though thankfully not how it will conclude) I’m actually really digging this. Because yeah the focus is going to be on Woody and Bo Peep. They don’t tell us exactly what happened to her but that’s for the movie but I am glad they are signaling out what at the very least she’s doing now and how that is going to tie into Woody’s internal conflict: since all the toy story sequels have been about characters who have changed after being in a sense abandoned but this time around we have someone who may possibly have become better for it and seems to have a found a new purpose and happiness helping others that is making Woody question himself. Which after TS2’s ending would seem stupid and asinine… if it were anyone other then Bo Peep who we knew Woody had a relationship with, knew he was able to get over her departure at some point but one I would still imagine he probably still has some obvious feelings and connections with and likely never would of had a romantic relationship with any other toy. And I like now that connection because yeah this time around you can’t just say "oh we have to go back to Bonnie because we’re her toys" as it seems like there are more cpmplicated feelings going on which is good and what I want to see so I’m full on board. Really hoping though there is no twist villain in this movie. Like if there are villains just let it be those creepy dolls we already saw in this trailer and don’t like pretend someone’s nice but then they turn out being rotten. Toy Story already pulled that twice in different ways and though they worked there in this age you can’t do that trick again.
  60. I thought that the trailer was pretty good. I like how Woody runs into Bo Peep and focusing on how Forky was created as a toy could be both interesting and funny. It does seem like they’re going to have Woody question whether or not he should return to Bonnie, which sounds similar to Toy Story 2, but I think it could be different this time around due to Bo Peep. Woody has a more personal connection with her compared to the new toys introduced in Toy Story 2, so that might make the situation more complicated, especially when he did have to move on from both Bo Peep leaving and Andy going off to college. Maybe the idea of Bonnie getting older and going through the same pain he did with Andy could be too hard on Woody when he could just be with Bo Peep.

    It sounds pretty interesting. I don’t know if I’ll see the movie in theaters. I know I did with Toy Story 3, but I’m sure that I’ll check this movie out at some point.

  61. Is it just me, or does pretty much every idea in this trailer feel like a rehash of the last three movies?

    From what I’ve seen so far, while I’m sure it will be a decent watch, Forky is about the only thing I feel this has going for it conceptually. They could, and probably will, prove me wrong but right now I kind of feel like they should have made this into another TV special.

  62. Bo Peep is enough to get me on board with this movie. I always felt like that was the one open plot hook that warranted making another Toy Story, and that’s exactly what they’re following up on. Plus her new outfit is pretty sweet.