MovieChat Forums > sarahb2 > Replies
sarahb2's Replies
I enjoyed the period-style comedy too...for about 10 minutes.
Then I wanted them to just get the heck on with the story. Anyone who's watching knows what they're seeing isn't real; that it's a fake, because Vision is dead. Once that's established, I really didn't want to watch 20 more minutes of the same 50s-sitcom setup. I got it; I wanted to find out why I was watching Wanda and Vision maneuver through this universe.
The story didn't move any in the second episode either. It's the EXACT same setup, just a different era of sitcom. There were a few clues as to what was really going on, but during the 25+ minutes where that didn't happen the story didn't move AT ALL. We just got more of what we already knew: Wanda and Vision were both moving through a 1960s sitcom universe.
At this point I'm frustrated, because it looks like the rest of the series is going to be the same: Wanda and Vision walking around in different eras of sitcoms for 25+ minutes, combined with about 1 or 2 minutes where we get more clues to what's really going on.
That's WAY too much fat. By the end of the first episode my guess is most viewers got the premise. Get on with the story already.
I just watched this episode last night, and when I reached that scene I had two thoughts:
It's daylight. June is a red blotch on a brown landscape, not far from the airport. How is it that NOBODY in the airport guard towers saw her lying out there? Somebody must have heard the gunshot when she shot the Gaurdian. Nobody went and looked?
Wait a minute - nobody went looking for the guard she shot? Didn't anybody notice that Guardian Bob never came back from the woods? For like, hours and hours AFTER he said it was all clear?
Also, did those other handmaids just hang out in the woods all night? Don't they have households who are wondering where the heck they went?
I don't think this storyline was really thought out...
My guess is they settled out of court. There are enough similarities that she could say they used the van as inspiration, but as has been pointed out, you can't copyright a general idea. And, good luck to anyone suing Disney. They have VERY deep pockets!
Hmm...probably not. It's not new like 'Frozen' was, and it lacks the "wow factor" song that the first movie had. Sorry, "Into the Unknown" ain't it.
Also, not to spoil anything, but many early viewers expressed disappointment with the ending, and that's not going to encourage repeat viewings.
It will do OK, I mean anything Disney with Elsa in it will do OK, but it's not going to be the blockbuster the first movie was.
That's an urban legend, though. It didn't happen. One of many associated with the movie.
It was released during the summer because Disney had another Halloween-themed movie that year, "The Nightmare Before Christmas". They didn't want the two movies competing against each other, so they released Hocus Pocus during the summer and Nightmare in October.
That part where the fake cop asked Max if he was really a virgin would not be part of the movie if it was made today. It comes across as kind of pervy. Would any adult ask a child they didn't know that question?
I don't think Billy was actually cursed. He died, became re-animated as a result of Winnie's spell, and at the end of the movie presumably went back into the grave and died again.
Having just seen the film recently, my guess as to why it's popular are
- The strength of the performances of the three leads, Bette Midler especially. They're all very good. It's very hard to pull off being comic AND scary (but not too scary.) They nailed it.
- It's got a cute talking cat. That's probably about half of it right there.
- The story goes down like soft vanilla ice cream. There's no real peril, no blood, and a happy ending. Nothing cringeworthy, in other words. Although if it was made today, I don't think they'd put bright red lipstick on Dani at the beginning of the movie and I'm pretty sure they would have that scene with the fake cop asking Max if he's really a virgin. That comes across as somewhat pervy these days. (in fact, the emphasis on Max being a virgin came across to me as a bit odd. It's even the last line of the movie!)
- Fortunately, the adults are depicted as responsible adults and not morons. I think that helps, because a lot of kids movies lose their appeal when the kids who watched them grow up and realize that the adults in the movie are idiots. Makes the film a lot less nostalgic!
- It's only an hour and a half long and moves quick. There's not a lot of wasted scenes or slow-moving dialogue.
- There aren't that many Halloween movies for kids, so what there is tends to stand out.
Not having a 1950s voice box/pull string would have meant ZERO to any modern-day child, not in this day of computer-chip driven vocals. To a collector, of course, yes, but the fact that Woody was cut open to remove his voice box destroyed his value to a collector anyway. Even if he got his voice box back, or got another one, he's got a huge vertical cut in his costume.
"And I daresay you are expending entirely too much energy on all this. "
You ain't the boss of me.
OK, but Andy abandoned Woody in a toy chest for what, nine years? Woody didn't have a crisis then. Toy Story 3 was all about Woody trying to get all the toys BACK to Andy despite the fact all the toys claimed Andy had forgotten them.
ALL of the movies have followed the same pattern: Toy fears abandonment, Woody bolsters/helps them, and toy either finds a new owner or goes back to their old owner.
Toy Story: Woody fights Buzz for a place as Andy's favorite toy
Toy Story 2: Woody consoles Wheezy, who fears abandonment. Woody becomes a 'lost toy' and spends the movie helping Jessie, who was abandoned and is traumatized by it.
Toy Story 3: Woody has to get the rest of the toys back to Andy's when they are accidentally given to a day care center.
That's Woody's entire raison d'etre, helping toys connect with owners. It's his mission. He's the sentinel, making sure that everything is right in his "town".
He's never developed wanderlust. He's never said "You know what? Maybe it's time to move on. I don't need to be a kid's toy. I'll be fine on my own."
Even in TS4, when Bo talks about how great it is to be on her own, he argues with her. He very clearly does NOT believe the way she does. There's nothing in the movie that even hints that he doesn't want to be Bonnie's toy anymore.
Until the end, when he bails on her. It's not Bonnie's decision; Woody doesn't give her the choice to let him go, he just leaves. This after spending the entire movie ARGUING with Bo about how important it is to belong to a kid. This after giving up his voice box so Gabby can get a kid.
If Woody had at any point in the movie said "You know, this is great. I feel great doing this! Better than I have in a long time. Maybe this can be my new purpose in life" I could have bought the ending.
But he never says that, and he never acts like abandoning Bonnie has entered his mind. Until two minutes before the end of the movie, when he does it. It's sloppy storytelling.
My guess? They wanted to do all the Canada jokes. I did appreciate that they made his kid French-Canadian, that was a nice touch.
Is that adjusted for inflation?
Yes, Woody is sad about Bo leaving, for about five seconds. Then he perks up and never mentions her again.
I have no problem with Bo and Woody getting back together, for the movie, but I have a big problem with Woody abandoning his owner to be with Bo. Bo is hard, unsentimental and self-centered - if this was a real-life couple I don't think anybody would be saying that their relationship would succeed. She had some softness in the original Toy Story but I didn't see any trace of that in TS4. There were a few moments in TS4 where I thought she was going to loudly ridicule Woody for his sentimentality and good heart. She clearly thinks he's foolish for wanting to save Forky, and even for wanting to belong to a kid. She doesn't get him.
And what about her Alpha personality? Who's going to run that relationship? They're both A types who always have to lead. She's very snappish at Woody the few times he goes against her orders. She yells at him and makes fun of him. Why is anybody happy they're together at the end of the movie? I think ultimately she's going to make him miserable.
I would have accepted that premise IF Woody had at some point stated that he was looking for new purpose and wasn't interested in being a kid's toy anymore.
But he never said that; in fact, his whole character over 4 movies was all about how important it was to be loved by a kid and to be a kid's toy. He was specifically entrusted to Bonnie by Andy; he should have held that sacred. It would have been MUCH more in Woody's character for him to say "Bonnie isn't playing with me right now, but it doesn't matter. She was chosen by Andy to be my new owner and I'll be there for her until Bonnie gives me away herself."
Wanderlust has never EVER been a part of Woody's character, but at the end of TS4 he chucks everything to stay with Bo - who, we are shown,doesn't share his values at all. It's a weird choice for him to make. And he completely disregards Bonnie's wishes, something that's completely out of character for him. So what if Bonnie put him in the closet? Andy put him in the toy box for a decade, it didn't make any difference. Bonnie didn't love Woody the way Andy did, but that doesn't mean she won't be sad when she realizes he's missing.
Woody reneged on his unspoken oath to always be there for his owner. That's an astonishing heel turn for him. Astonishing, and really bad storytelling.
Again, how does Buzz know how Bonnie will react? What's he basing that on? She lost her mind over a SPORK. They didn't bond like Andy and Woody did, but the whole theme of ALL the Toy Story movies has been "You've got a friend in me." That's been the ONE thread running through every plotline: friendship, loyalty, never giving up, never letting go.
Until the last five minutes of Toy Story 4, when suddenly the theme lurches into "The heck with it, I'm going to do what I want."
Why is he basing any of his decisions on what worked for Bo Peep, anyway? She wasn't a toy. She was a lamp. Nobody would reasonably expect a child to love a lamp. I'm surprised nobody in TS4 ever brought that up.
I think this storyline would have gone over a lot better if Bo - or anyone - had ever remarked that saving other toys and making sure THEY found THEIR kids was their "new purpose in life", but that never comes up (or if it did, I missed it.) If Woody had ever expressed a realization that Bonnie would never be Andy and maybe he should move on from being in a kid's bedroom (again, aside from I think Buzz saying 'Bonnie isn't Andy' I don't think this is ever brought up.)
His decision just seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't seem to be based on anything, that's what bugged me. If you'd asked me which character was the most likely to want to seek another purpose in life, unfettered and free, I would have picked Buzz, not Woody. Buzz's mission has always been to go on missions in uncharted space; he's the bold, outward-looking adventurer, not Woody. Woody is the protector of the town, the sheriff, the sentinel. For him to be OK with abandoning his job, when he's spent 3 movies talking OTHER toys out of giving up, seems very wrong.
I saw it Friday and honestly - the story isn't very good. And if you love the Toy Story franchise, the ending will make you VERY angry. Once word of that gets around, interest will cool significantly.
"Well the reason why he left is because Bonnie didn’t care about him and that was my biggest problem with the movie. Andy specifically told Bonnie that Woody was special and to take extra care of him. Which she didn’t at all. I honestly hope we get a 5th one where the gang gets back together and all become “lost” toys because Bonnie is going to grow up and forgot about them."
Honestly, I'm not sure how Bonnie would react to Woody not being there.
On the one hand, we see her crying her guts out for I think two straight days when she realizes Forky is missing - but never seems to notice that Woody went missing too.
On the other, you're right in that Andy specifically entrusted Woody to Bonnie's care. She knows he's a special toy.
Now, to be fair to Bonnie, SHE didn't throw Woody aside - he bailed on HER. Yes, she put him in the closet, but Andy put ALL his toys in the toy chest and forgot about them - it didn't mean he abandoned them, just that he didn't want to play with them anymore. Bonnie didn't throw Woody in the trash, she just set him aside. There's a difference.
So it's very possible that when Bonnie realizes Woody IS gone (which she hasn't even done at the end of the movie), she'll be mortified and cry as hard as she did over Forky. What struck me as VERY odd, and totally outside of Woody's character, is that he never once considers Bonnie's reaction to him going missing, or seems to consider her at all - his decision to stay behind is 100% selfish.
Yeah, Buzz says "Bonnie will be fine" with Woody, but how the heck does HE know? And what does that mean, anyway? Is Buzz saying "Yeah, Bonnie doesn't care about you, she's got so many toys she'll never even notice you missing!"? Or to go even deeper, "Bonnie is turning out to be one feckless, fickle little jerk. She isn't Andy, who deeply loved his toys - she's superficial, a little Paris Hilton. You deserve better, she's so shallow she can't appreciate you!"
Yeah, that had me scratching my head too. I get that losing 50% of your population would be a shock, but I don't think society would just collapse. There would still be baseball teams, trash collection, etc. Especially after 5 years.