The 'Toy Story' Appreciation Thread

[Jules]

Since there doesn't seem to be any other thread dedicated solely to this 1995 animated movie, I decided to create one. So there.

Anyways, I'd like to start by commenting on the animation.

I find this to be the least visually pleasing CG film, which, after all makes perfect sense, seeing as it's the first ever CG feature length production. Incredibly, I feel Pixar improved by leaps and bounds by the time their second production was out (i.e. 'a bug's life'). This 'drastic' difference seems to set 'Toy Story' apart from the rest of the films in the Pixar canon. I think the major difference is the movement. The characters in 'Toy Story' have a very mechanical, robotic movement to them. At times it feels almost clumsy. I find it jarring and quite unpleasant in a time when we're bombarded with eye-popping CG. The humans fare worse that the toys, at times having very unnaturalistic movements (note the children when they're jumping). Finally, the animation sometimes bears a somewhat jittery, unfluid-like movement. A simple viewing of 'Toy Story 2' shows how all of these problems were corrected in subsequent features.

Next, I don't like some of the modelling in 'Toy Story'. Some things I don't understand. Why do the humans have such squashed-looking heads? When you see Andy's or Sid's profile, you feel like you're observing the skull of an alien: long and flat. Both boys are ugly ... very ugly. And what about Sid's dog? It seems his fur is not made up of individual hairs, but a pattern on his frame which carves 'ridges' into the skin, giving the false effect of hairs. Some people may cite technical limitations to be the reason. But then, if Sid's sister could have long swishy hair, why couldn't the dog? Actually, even Andy's mother's hair lacks 'hair'. It's just a polygon looking like a pony tail textured in brown and gold. I can forgive that, however, since we only see Andy's mother for a few seconds a time.

Finally, what's with Sid's dog's eyes!? On first seeing him, I realized he looked weird. For one thing, his eyes seemed too close to each other. On further inspection, I realized that Pixar gave the dog human eyes! They're even shaped like an oval, just like ours, and complete with coloured iris and pupil! What this intentional? If so, I don't think it was a good idea.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In no way do I wish to take away any of the film's merits. The above observations of mine are simply things I noticed and wanted to share with you UDers (while hoping to receive replies), OK?

[PixarFan2006]

I think that it is still a good movie and the animation is as good as it was back in 1995. Its not just the animation that counts, its the story, too.

[Jules]

I think that it is still a good movie and the animation is as good as it was back in 1995. Its not just the animation that counts, its the story, too.

Of course it is. And I do appreciate what they did back in 1995, but please don't get me wrong! I was afraid this would happen. Remember, I am not dissing the film, simply ... well, simply observing.

[Kyle]

I still love it, and it remains to to be near the top of my fav movies list.
I do think toy story 2 out did it in nearly every way though. I find the sequel to be more re watchable than the first one. for one, the visuals still hold up to today's standards. toy story, not do much. as you already touched out, there's a lot of things that they just didn't have the technology to do some of the things they attempted at the time. I mean, trees didn't sway in the wind, the houses on Andy's road look too similar, the plants in general, lack of fur on the dog, the awkward looking humans, and lighting all pale in comparison to what they did in toy story 2.

the difference is night and day to me. I wouldn't mind if one day they offered a new version of toy story with additional visual flare. individual blades of grass, fur on the dog, better looking textures. use the version of Andy's mom and Andy used in toy story 2. actually, they could go even further and use the muscle system they've started using since the incredibles. and skin light refraction. there's just so much they could do to make the movie not look as dated. I'm sure some would appose this, but we already have the original on several dvds. so unless they were to release this in high def without including the original as an option, I don't see a problem.

early 3d doesn't age as well as handrawn stuff. and while you could argue that the primitive visuals are part of its charm of being the first full length 3d animated film, I still find it somewhat distracting in today's age. I should be focusing on the characters, but all I can see at times are the technical flaws.

its just hard not to imagine what the movie would look like if subtle touches from today's tech would do for the film.



all that aside, you have no idea how obsessed I was with this movie as a kid. I wanted every toy story related merchandise there was. they eventually released way too many to keep up with, but it was fun trying.
I had the full size woody and buzz, multiple woody and buzz action figures, a buzz light-year space ship thing, burgerking toys, school supplies, a toy story pc game and I dint even have a computer! (FYI it was free)
an animated flip book, lithograph, coloring/tracing book, picture/story book. I could probably go on.

when I first saw the teaser for toy story 2, I could barely contain myself. I wanted to scream right there in the theatre. I don't even remember what movie was attached to... I was so glad I wasnt very aware of the movie though. I mean I heard rumors they were making a sequel, but nothing official. so I pretty much knew nothing when I saw it.

if that were to happen in today's age, I would have already heard about the rumors, official confirmation, saw the teaser online, etc.

its impossible to be surprised like that in today's age. I wish I could just go into the next movie I see, completely oblivious, and see a teaser for toy story 3. I don't think I was ever more excited about anything in my life than I was with the toy story 2 one.


the fact that I just rambled on like this shows how invested I am in this franchise. heh

[Atlantica]

Toy Story is a wonderful movie. I can't belive there has never been a thread dedcated to it before! So well done to you Julian Carter for making one!

With the animation, I never really looked at what it lacked before. I always thought that the humans in the story were deeply ugly, but it never really bothered me that much I guess. Do you think it was a deliberate decsion to have the first CG movie based on toys? Therefor they could get away with slighty 'robotic' movements, as you mentioned? Or was it simply that the story was developed, then CG was chosen?

Toy Story 2 is my favourite of the two though. Right from story, to animation, to characters. Its not ususally possible to improve on a fantastic movie with a sequal, but somehow Toy Story 2 did. That is probably one of Disney ~ Pixar's greatest achievements.

[Ariel'sprince]

I always thought that the humans in the story were deeply ugly,

Me too,in the past Pixar's human character were ugly in my opinion (i also didn't really liked Finding Nemo's human (altouhgt the dentice reminds me of Mr. Incredible)), but Boo from Monsters Inc. (altought she looks like a doll),all the character from The Incredibles and Ratatouille's humans looks good.
By the way-where did you get your siggy? (i think i"ll make new Siggy and Avater).

[Atlantica]

Send me your email and I'll tell you about it. I don't want to take up this thread going off topic!

[Ariel'sprince]

Send me your email and I'll tell you about it. I don't want to take up this thread going off topic!

Okay,here:
Ntalmon@gmail.com

[Kyle]

Do you think it was a deliberate decision to have the first CG movie based on toys? Therefor they could get away with slighty 'robotic' movements, as you mentioned? Or was it simply that the story was developed, then CG was chosen?

I know for a fact that they choose to use toys because it was what they could do best at the time. GCI tends to look plasticy. so what better material to make your characters out of then plastic?

I don't think the movements were "robotic" looking though. Woody's movement flows like cloth, as it should. buzz moves like a guy in a suit.

[BelleGirl]

Both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are very enjoyable, rewatchable movies. There's so much wit and funny dialogue in both. I have them both on VHS. Would it be worthwile to replace them with DVD's?

[Atlantica]

Do you think it was a deliberate decision to have the first CG movie based on toys? Therefor they could get away with slighty 'robotic' movements, as you mentioned? Or was it simply that the story was developed, then CG was chosen?

I know for a fact that they choose to use toys because it was what they could do best at the time. GCI tends to look plasticy. so what better material to make your characters out of then plastic?

I don't think the movements were "robotic" looking though. Woody's movement flows like cloth, as it should. buzz moves like a guy in a suit.

I didnt mean the toys were robotic, I meant the humans. I'm not sure 'robotic' is the right word to have used; but they do not have the fluid motion that Pixar movies do today.

Hair was another thing that I think improved vastly from Toy Story I to II.

[BrandonH]

Both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are very enjoyable, rewatchable movies. There's so much wit and funny dialogue in both. I have them both on VHS. Would it be worthwile to replace them with DVD's?

Yes. The DVD versions are improvements over the VHS version in every way possible. Either the out-of-print Ultimate Toy Box or the recent 2-disc special editions are fabulous DVDs.