I could have sworn there was a Toy Story 3 thread but now I can't find it. This thread is for people who have already seen it. If you have not, go see it, then get back here. Preferably in a theater, because I think there's at least one scene (most of you should already know what I'm talking about) that really benefits from a huge screen with no distractions.
I just watched it for a second time, this time with my Mom. I was expecting the movie in general to be less emotionally intense the second time through, since I already knew what was coming. For the most part I found the opposite: scenes that I knew were coming later in the movie lent a lot of gravity to earlier scenes.
Also, though I hadn't thought about it until afterwards, this is a particularly poignant movie for young college age guys to watch with their mothers. A thought also occurred to me: it's been mentioned that Toy Story is a series that has grown up with its audience. The 7 year old kids from 15 years ago are now young adults who can appreciate more action and intense scenes. I had already read and thought about that. What I had totally forgotten about is the other half of the audience: the parents of those 7 year old kids, who now are watching them go off to (or return from) college. So the whole "Andy's going to college" storyline felt a lot more important to me this time around.
Also, right afterwards we went to donate some stuff to the Salvation Army. The stuff in question wasn't toys, but it added a bit of weight to the whole experience.
I still cried through the incinerator scene, but I think a lot of it was out of reflex from the first time. Last time I thought it went on for like 5 minutes, and I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. This time the lights turned on and the claw came down right when I was barely starting to feel the moment, and I felt annoyed that the scene wasn't even MORE intense. I wanted another 30 seconds of them staring into the inferno, with shots of the objects in front of them beginning to melt, just in case there was anyone in the audience who wasn't feeling at least a part of themselves that honestly believed they were all going to die.
It was sort of interesting, though that it went by so fast the second time. The first time through, I was experiencing the moment as if I was right there with Woody et al, and the fact that I literally felt time dilation as I stared death in the face is testament to how great the scene was in the first place.
There's actually a lot of stuff that I'm unsure what to think about, (related to, among other things, the section of OSC's review where he mentions the "happy slavery" thing), but I think I've gone on long enough for now.
Anyone else have more thoughts having either seen it twice or had more time to think about it?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I love that movie. But as on the edge of my seat the incinerator scene had me the scene where Andy gives away his toys made me get all weepy.
Which was embarrassing, but it was like he was passing down his childhood.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The incinerator scene was the most important 75 seconds to me, but single most important 2 seconds is when the girl waves Woody's hand at Andy, and Andy breathes sharply.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The incinerator scene was the most important 75 seconds to me, but single most important 2 seconds is when the girl waves Woody's hand at Andy, and Andy breathes sharply.
The incinerator scene was indeed something else.
As for the second scene, I include the part where Andy says, "Goodbye guys." right before he starts to drive off and sees Woody waving to him.
There were one or two scenes especially towards the end of the movie where I almost knew the toys were going to reveal in some small way they were alive. Something like a wink. But now that I think about it that relationship is special specifically because though the toys are alive, they allow us to live through them with our imaginations. It's what makes them different from our human friends. We can't know they are alive, and obviously we know they can't be alive, but always behind that knowledge is a tiny hope that we are wrong.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Saw it with my mom and sister. Both cried.
--j_k
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I saw it with my sister, and then with my mom, independently. (Still trying to get my dad to go. In other news, hey Dad. 'sup. I assume by the time you're reading this thread that you've actually seen it. If not, for shame).
My sister and I were literally holding hands (at first) and then outright hugging each other in terror during the incinerator scene.
My mom sobbed pretty much the whole way through the movie, and I was holding her hand like the entire time.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
I've grown up with Andy, and for that reason, it makes me feel even more emotional when watching the most recent film.
I can really sympathise with him and stuff.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The "happy slavery" thing is interesting, because in a lot of ways the movie can almost function as religious metaphor. It's a slightly muddled metaphor in places, since it's also reaching out to parent/child relationships and the like, but the combination winds up being very interesting; the film, by mixing those metaphors, winds up in an intriguing place.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:But as on the edge of my seat the incinerator scene had me the scene where Andy gives away his toys made me get all weepy.
I saw it twice and this is the scene that got me both times.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The "happy slavery" thing is interesting, because in a lot of ways the movie can almost function as religious metaphor. It's a slightly muddled metaphor in places, since it's also reaching out to parent/child relationships and the like, but the combination winds up being very interesting; the film, by mixing those metaphors, winds up in an intriguing place.
Heh, sure, if you come at it with that intent, the film can certainly function as a religious metaphor. You've gotta want it, though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think the film was absolutely intended to be viewed as a religious (in particular, afterlife) metaphor. The whole thing, from beginning to end, is about contemplating your mortality. I actually see it as a companion to "Up," where inside of learning to deal the loss of loved ones you are learning to accept your own fate. In the beginning they talk about the others they have lost, and how they've come to the end of their journey as Andy's toys. Woody is promising everyone a reasonable but not particularly exciting afterlife in the attic. Then you have Sunnyside, which starts out as a literally perfect eternal afterlife where no one ever has to be sad. Then becomes a living hell. The climax of the movie is when Woody et al stare into the face of absolute annihilation and grimly accept their fate. In the end, they get reincarnated of sorts.
None of this is a particularly consistent afterlife metaphor, but it's all exploring the same subject matter. "I've finished with one life, what now?" is the question being asked, very purposefully.
By contrast, The Happy Slavery thing I think was not remotely intended (insofar as nobody said "Hey, let's make a movie about toys in which the toys represent Happy Slaves!"). But I do think by the time they got to the third movie, the undertones had become very strong (merely as an unintended consequence of the premise). If they wanted to make a movie as deep as they were trying to do, it was harder to avoid the issues they had mostly ignored in the first two movies.
You have millions of sentient toys that are created with an inherent drive to be loved by their owner, AND who experience pain and loss just as a human would. If you’re lucky you get a good owner like Andy, and even then your friends and family can get sold off or thrown away, and you eventually get put in a box for 10 years while he goes off and plays videogames.
If you get a bad owner (like Sid), you’re pretty much screwed. This doesn’t require me to read into anything. This is blatantly spelled out in the movies.
The intent wasn't to make the moral of the story that the toys are brainwashed happy slaves. (Or brainwashed happy worshippers, as Lotso's "Where's your Kid now!?" line touches upon). The toy/child relationship is mostly compared to a normal relationship between family or friends. Except that one partner in the relationship has complete and utter power over the other partner(s), and treats them like property.
Sticking to the family metaphor, you can be born into an abusive family (Sid) which can feel just as inescapable as human slavery. You can have an owner that appears good but nonetheless takes advantage of you like a religious cult. Like Tom said, it's a lot of mixed metaphors and it's the collection of them together that makes the movie amazingly thought provoking. And while some of those metaphors may not have been intended from the beginning, I'm pretty sure that Pixar is at least aware of how they could be read into by the time they were finished.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I saw Toy Story 3 with my 2-year-old boy. It was the first movie he's ever seen in the theater. We have the first two movies on a constant loop at home, and he loves Buzz and Woody. I don't think he could have sat still (or as still as he did) if it was anything else.
Of course I loved this movie. Pixar has yet to totally let me down, and this was good even by their standards. Maybe the best of the series, but I'll have to wait until I've seen the DVD 100 times or so to say for sure.
I love all the parts that have been mentioned. But there was one line I almost missed that I found fairly profound in the context of the series. It was the part when the toys are about to be dropped off at the day care center, and Buzz says something to the effect of, "Careful, these toys may not take kindly to newcomers."
It was a funny line, but every time I've seen the first film since then I haven't been able to get it out of my mind. The first time I saw Toy Story, I viewed Woody as the put-upon protagonist whose life was unfairly disrupted by the cocky, overconfident interloper. Until I heard that line, I never fully realized just how nasty Woody was to Buzz when he showed up. Even after all these years, when Buzz seems to have fully come to terms with being a toy, he's still a little traumatized by how Woody treated him.
It was the only crack I've seen in his heroic demeanor, but it gives me a lot more empathy for his character. And a lot more respect for how brave he was in the first movie, and how generous he is for forgiving Woody for all the abuse. It doesn't make me like Woody any less, but I makes me like Buzz a whole lot more.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but it's those little details that make Pixar movies really special. It's nice to know that after 15 years and billions of dollars, they still haven't forgotten the difference between a good movie and a great one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've already contributed / seen contributed all of the important stuff about this movie that I could say. Great movie! Here's the a/v review for posterity.
quote:Deep into Toy Story 3, there’s a moment where some of the toy protagonists realize that in spite of all their cleverness and determination, there’s no way out of the fatal trap into which they’ve fallen. In any other children’s film, this would be a time for comedic panic, long-withheld personal confessions, or dramatic statements that would immediately turn out to be ironic. In any other children’s film, the moment would quickly peak and pass. But Toy Story 3 director Lee Unkrich (Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc.) holds for long, excruciating moments on the silent characters, as they pass from disbelief into sorrowful resolve, then take each others’ hands and wait. And wait. And wait. It’s a shockingly grim sequence, but this is what Pixar films do best: find a place of deep emotion and explore it without blunting it, overexplaining it, or passing it off with a laugh. Toy Story 3 never gets darker than this moment, but time and again, it similarly finds real, resonant emotion in the antics of a bunch of children’s toys having adventures when nobody’s looking. That emotion starts with the toys’ pathetic desperation as their owner, now 17 and headed to college, fails to play with them, no matter what ruse they try. While loyalist cowboy Woody (Tom Hanks) insists they should stand by the boy even if he wants them all in a trash bag in the attic, his blinkered devotion is more creepy than sweet. But the film never plays this for humor, either; his dedication is as real and important to him as his friends’ burning desire to move on, find new kids, and get played with again. Which sets up a lot of conflict and frantic hijinks involving a day-care center, separations and reunions, and action that playfully evokes films from The Great Escape to Cool Hand Luke. TS3 doesn’t entirely dodge some of the current kid-movie standards; Unkrich brings in an astonishing crowd of celebrities to voice even the most minor characters, and lets a pop song express the comedy of one moment. But the film never lets banter, visual gags, or the usual manic kid-flick running about interfere with its more delicately handled thoughts on loyalty, longing, broken relationships, and generational continuity. It honestly earns its emotion, moment by painstakingly executed moment.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: The first time I saw Toy Story, I viewed Woody as the put-upon protagonist whose life was unfairly disrupted by the cocky, overconfident interloper. Until I heard that line, I never fully realized just how nasty Woody was to Buzz when he showed up.
The first "Toy Story" came out when I was ten years old. I remember enjoying it for the most part but I also remember how much Woody upset me. Woody was selfish and malacious and he actually creeped me out more than Sid.
Buzz, while annoying, was like a naive little child and the way Woody went after him was very disturbing to me.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
When I was young, I thought of the first Toy Story as a metaphor for sibling-hood. Woody is used to undivided affection and attention, and has to grow used to sharing it with a new arrival. He initially begrudges the new guy, who himself is naive and clueless and could benefit from brotherly teaching. As they share experiences, however, they grow more attached as the new one starts to mature. And at the same time, the old guy matures in a different way, coming to realize that he is still loved and that it is his duty to love the new one as well.
Of course, this interpretation was tinted by the fact that I had a baby brother at the time I first started watching Toy Story. Because of this interpretation, I identified with Woody a lot, even though I knew his initial attitude towards Buzz was unfair and even harsh. But having lived a story where I shared the kind of growth with my brother that I saw between Woody and Buzz, I sympathized with Woody.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I really enjoyed the movie. And yes, I got choked up at the end, too. But I have to ask: does someone at Pixar find folksy old people inherently untrustworthy?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The incenerator scene was genuinely suspenseful, even though I'd read the spoilers ahead of time so I knew exactly what was going to happen.
For the last scene, though, that everyone is crying about? That did NOT make me cry. It means growing up and putting away childish things. That's really okay. Peter Pan is a tragedy. It is much, much sadder to NOT grow than to do so. More specifically, someone must have never experienced ACTUAL tragedy to think that growing up counts as one.
I found the scene touching, because Andy was kind and that is good, but not at all sad.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
It's sad because it's Andy saying goodbye. If my friend moves away for a great job, I'd be happy for her but I'd still cry when she left. Especially if we started talking about all the traits we admired in each other. It's happy tears!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Wow, torn in two different directions here.
First, did anyone here remotely imply that they cried because the scene was sad? There's more than one reason to cry, you know. Approximately 75% of the reason I was crying at the time was because it was a beautiful moment in which the toys were getting a final happy memory with Andy, Andy was getting a final happy memory with them, their relationship was ending on a perfect high note, and both of them were transitioning into new, good, well adjusted lives.
The other 25% of the reason I was crying was that, yes, the scene WAS sad. That doesn't mean "tragic". That doesn't mean that growing up is more sad than having your leg cut off or family members dying prematurely or whatever. But sadness isn't measured on some absolute scale, where you're not allowed to feel it unless it passes some arbitrary "grand scheme of things" threshold.
It's sad for Andy because he IS saying goodbye to things that have been with him since childhood, in a pretty permanent way. There's nothing wrong with keeping your toys, not because you still play with them on a regular basis engaging in the kinds of imaginative play that are important to a child's cognitive development, but because they represent memories. Keeping an old toy is like keeping an old photograph. It reminds you of where you've been and how you got to where you are. Originally Andy was going to put most of his toys in the attic, and bring Woody with him as a reminder of his childhood. That's a perfectly healthy thing to do. And then instead he found himself giving his favorite childhood memory away to someone he barely knows. Yes, that's a big deal.
Second, while I agree with you about Peter Pan and the sadness of not growing up, I DO think it is genuinely sad that we assume growing up means you have shed ALL of your childhood. If growing up means it would be beneath my dignity to climb a tree... well, yeah I'll grow up anyway because I have to and I get to continue to grow in new interesting ways, but there's nothing wrong with being a grownup and still appreciating your inner child from time to time. Andy just gave up one aspect of his inner child completely.
Finally, most importantly... Andy is not the main character. The toys are. And while Andy, in a literal sense, is merely giving away some plastic toys, the toys are losing a person who is very real, who they had a relationship with for 15 years, who had basically ignored them for 5+ years, gave them one final good memory, and now is disappearing forever. If you didn't see your best friend for 5 years, then they showed up to hang out for one day, then left forever... that's not sad?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To this level? To account for all the sobbing I've read about in reviews? People talking about the scene like it was comparable to Sophie's Choice? No, it's not that sad.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You're still missing the main point (which I didn't spend much time on because it wasn't that complicated), which is that it's not that sad. We aren't crying because we're sad. We're crying because not only is it a beautiful scene, but it's a beautiful scene that came after a scene that WAS very sad and traumatic (especially if you haven't read the spoilers... I know a lot of people who genuinely believed the movie was going to end right there in the incinerator). It's the entire emotional arc of the movie that makes the final scene a perfect, beautiful ending.
Your mileage will still vary, of course. I don't care whether you personally were moved (one way or another) to the point of tears. But I do think you're missing the point of the scene. Or at least the point people are making when they discuss the scene. And I always get a bit miffed when people dismiss childhood as something everyone should outgrow and discard completely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You know, it is possible to present your point of view without insulting the person you are talking to.
Since you decided to insult me and pretend that the reason we disagree is because a failing of mine rather than present your side or address my arguments, I'm through talking to you.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My first pass through the draft came across very insulting and I actually rewrote it a lot to done it down. At the time I was feeling insulted myself, though, and I looking back at it I agree that I still got more indignant and confrontational than I needed too. I apologize for that.
However, I do think you would benefit from taking a look at your posts and thinking about how what you said may have come across as insulting as well. It felt to me (whether you intended it or not) like you were calling us a bunch of crybabies who have never experienced real pain.
Edit: I really would like to open up a dialogue in which I can learn how to improve my posting habits, as well as point out things you have done that have been frustrating to me without you writing me off as a guy who isn't worth talking to. I've seen several people attempt to do this with you and you haven't seemed interested. I still feel that it is worth attempting but I really don't know how.
[ July 12, 2010, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For the last scene, though, that everyone is crying about? That did NOT make me cry. It means growing up and putting away childish things.
From Andy's POV, he's growing up and putting away childish things. From the toys' POV, they are giving away their child.
As a parent, I found that scene immensely moving -- because while you of course want your child to grow up and attain independence, it's still a horrible (if also beautiful) thought.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That sort of situation is, according to the commentaries I've listened to, one of the themes the creators were going for.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I loved Buzz's Spanish mode.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fact, that scene is about envisioning what Andy will be like as a parent, which is something that moves almost all parents I know to tears.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: My first pass through the draft came across very insulting and I actually rewrote it a lot to done it down. At the time I was feeling insulted myself, though, and I looking back at it I agree that I still got more indignant and confrontational than I needed too. I apologize for that.
However, I do think you would benefit from taking a look at your posts and thinking about how what you said may have come across as insulting as well. It felt to me (whether you intended it or not) like you were calling us a bunch of crybabies who have never experienced real pain.
Edit: I really would like to open up a dialogue in which I can learn how to improve my posting habits, as well as point out things you have done that have been frustrating to me without you writing me off as a guy who isn't worth talking to. I've seen several people attempt to do this with you and you haven't seemed interested. I still feel that it is worth attempting but I really don't know how.
You may be a better person than I. I found it incredibly thoughtless at best. I certainly don't feel that you're the one who should be apologizing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: To this level? To account for all the sobbing I've read about in reviews? People talking about the scene like it was comparable to Sophie's Choice? No, it's not that sad.
To be honest, I didn't cry at all when I saw Sophie's Choice. But admittedly, I was around 13 at the time, so perhaps I'd appreciate it more as an adult.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I cried,not because it was sad, but because it was so sweet. Pixar/Miyazaki sweet scenes get me all the time. More than the sad parts. Like that scene with Wall e and Eva, or the end of Spirited Away.And most of UP, especially the prologue. AUGH! It's sweet because he was being so kind to that little girl. The toys knew how much he cared about them and what they meant to him as well. Especially Woody, and they needed that.
i don't think I want to totally put away childish things. That movie made me wish I had my old toys. It's sad not to have them anymore and not to be able to show them to future kids even if they are raggedy and worn out.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I cried, not because it was sad, but because it was so sweet.
Exactly!
quote:UP, especially the prologue
Wait what?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Have you seen UP? Just the first few MINUTES of that movie make me cry. It's dead embarrassing. I can't help it. I see it and TEARS.
Now the movie Bridge of Terabithia, I cried over that because it was utterly, utterly sad. I was BAWLING over that movie. And also while reading Harry Potter Six. And Elfquest, various parts of Elfquest. I am such A GIRL.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I was joking about the fact that you started by saying "these are scenes that make me cry because they are sweet" (instead of sad). But I think the intro to UP falls squarely under the category of "actually sad."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Agreed. The prologue of Up is definitely "actually sad". In fact, it is a bit BECAUSE of the prologue of Up that the snifflings about Toy Story 3 feel off and weird. They are not remotely on the same level, so the many reviews I've read of "Toy Story continues Pixar's sobbing fest!" feel over the top.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It was sad AND sweet at the same time. The love the characters had for each other from the beginning. *Sigh* A bit of both.
It doesn't seem off to me to cry over TS3. Especially since I didn't cry over the first and second ones, but again, it was just so... sweet.I reckon it's just folks feelings. Plus it is the last movie of the series too, so that can produce some tears.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They are not remotely on the same level...
I disagree. I strongly suspect that parents and college-age children will find Toy Story 3 much more moving, and people who have recently experienced a loss in their family will be more affected by UP. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't even have kids yet, and it's been years since I've had loss in my family and both movies make the tears leak out.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I found UP moving at the time. I found it a lot more moving a year later after my grandmother died and we went through a several month process of cleaning her house, knowing that when we were done we'd be selling it.
I found Toy Story equally moving, but yes, I'm in the college-age bracket where I identify strongly with Andy, and when I watched it with my mother it was even more intense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, Syne, all it takes is a strong breeze and the smell of peppermint to make you briefly ponder the tragedy of the human condition, so.... Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I was crying at the time was because it was a beautiful moment in which the toys were getting a final happy memory with Andy, Andy was getting a final happy memory with them, their relationship was ending on a perfect high note, and both of them were transitioning into new, good, well adjusted lives.
Perfectly said Raymond Arnold. My tears were of the happy, moved variety.
In Up, the opening prologue didn't bring tears to my eyes, but the scene where the old man looks through the photo book sure did. Crying doesn't have to be about sadness.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Agreed. The prologue of Up is definitely "actually sad". In fact, it is a bit BECAUSE of the prologue of Up that the snifflings about Toy Story 3 feel off and weird. They are not remotely on the same level, so the many reviews I've read of "Toy Story continues Pixar's sobbing fest!" feel over the top.
I wasn't aware that all tears were alike.
Put another way, 'continues the sobbing fest' hardly equals 'continues the sobbing fest in to the same degree and with the same emotions as other Pixar films'. Or, y'know, what several folks just said:)
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: To this level? To account for all the sobbing I've read about in reviews? People talking about the scene like it was comparable to Sophie's Choice? No, it's not that sad.
Comparing Toy Story 3 to Sophie's Choice only makes me feel better about crying in Toy Story 3. The finale to Toy Story 3 was an honest moment exploring relationships between characters that audiences felt invested in. It was a well-executed payoff to a beautiful story, and it managed to connect to the emotional center of experiences that many people can relate to. Sophie's Choice, on the other hand, was contrived, gimmicky and manipulative--the definitive example of callously-crafted Oscar-bait.
Was Sophie's Choice sadder? Perhaps. But, as many people here seem to understand, sad isn't the only reason to cry.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's really the strongest reason. Does everyone here actually cry with happiness on a regular basis? That sounds awkward.
I also don't buy that the many reviewers who said that they sobbed at Toy Story 3 were all "crying with happiness".
Buzz's Spanish mode was definitely my favorite part.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm curious about your motivation behind this argument. Are you trying to convince people that they didn't cry at the end of the movie? Or just that they were wrong for having cried?
On a tangent, it's not as though Toy Story 3 was devoid of genuinely sad moments. The part where Woody heard Andy's voice coming through the earpiece and held the phone closer still chokes me up to think about. Pixar really does have a gift for embellishing their films with the most beautiful little details.
I think that's why their climaxes work so well. Payoffs like the last few scenes of Toy Story 3 wouldn't have seemed half as thrilling or moving if it weren't for the extraordinary care they took in the buildup.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
One other thing I loved about Toy Story 3 is that it's one of the only sequels I can think of that felt like it really has a reason for being. I loved Toy Story 2, but I always felt a little uncomfortable about how it ended. There were some very tricky questions raised, and the conclusion seemed a little too pat to resolve them. I always left that movie with the nagging suspicion that, as happy as the were to be back in Andy's house together, there was a good chance that Woody would eventually realize that Stinky Pete was right.
Not only was the last scene of the third film a fitting finale for the movie it was in, it finally settled the questions raised by #2. Although Andy did finally grow out of his need for toys, he still cared about them enough to justify Woody's decision to return, at least through one more generation.
I just saw Toy Story 2 again, and its ending seems a little more satisfying after seeing #3, which is a rare accomplishment for a sequel.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am observing that people seem to be doing a lot of crying for something that was sweet and well-done, but not exactly sob-inducing.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
You seem to be the only person on this thread, or that I've heard of, that didn't cry at the end of that movie. As such, you might want to revisit your definition of "sob-inducing." Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, yeah, it can't be helped, it's just people's feelings. I didn't WANT to cry. In fact I was trying NOT to to the point of getting a headache, but pesky Pixar isn't satisfied unless you're weeping your eyes out. Not so much over Incredibles, but there was that scene in Cars that made me cry because for some reason I get weepy sometimes when folks are nice to each other even if it's cars. Haibane Renmei is a sob fest for this reason. I got all cry-y because one character made another character lunch, for the love of MILK!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am observing that people seem to be doing a lot of crying for something that was sweet and well-done, but not exactly sob-inducing.
I personally got really choked up at the part where, after Andy gives away all of his other toys, Bonny sees Woody and goes, "hey, my cowboy doll!" and reaches for him. Andy, who from the beginning was planning to bring Woody to college, pulls back and won't give it to her.
That moment was really very wrenching, because you just didn't know who to root for. Neither character was "wrong", and going either way would have still led to a fulfilling end to the story (such as Andy alternately keeping Woody and always having a reminder of his childhood as he grows up and raises his own family). All of the possibilities flash by in that split second of indecision. There is an incredible build-up of tension that is only ultimately resolved when Andy finally decides to give up Woody.
It is the very definition of a catharsis.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't actually consider the population of this thread to be a representative sample of anything.
I'm not criticizing people for crying. I'm mostly mystified and...I don't know, a bit skeptical. Really? It was sweet and poignant and I saw all the earlier movies, too, but...that much?
Maybe it's because Andy, while a perfectly nice kid, is always separate from the toys, so you don't form any particular attachment to him. It's like someone telling me about their cat. I completely believe them when they love their cat, but that doesn't mean I love their cat. And nobody even died - the cat was placed with another family and could be visited at any time. Andy's college is within driving distance and the little girl is a family friend. It is, like I said, sweet and poignant, but not devestating.
I get that it is a moment about growing up, but that circles back to my original thought: growing up isn't sad.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: I personally got really choked up at the part where, after Andy gives away all of his other toys, Bonny sees Woody and goes, "hey, my cowboy doll!" and reaches for him. Andy, who from the beginning was planning to bring Woody to college, pulls back and won't give it to her.
That moment was really very wrenching, because you just didn't know who to root for. Neither character was "wrong", and going either way would have still led to a fulfilling end to the story (such as Andy alternately keeping Woody and always having a reminder of his childhood as he grows up and raises his own family). All of the possibilities flash by in that split second of indecision. There is an incredible build-up of tension that is only ultimately resolved when Andy finally decides to give up Woody.
It is the very definition of a catharsis.
Ding ding ding!
It's not just catharsis for that moment, though. That scene is the carthartic moment for all the tension of the film. I had no idea how they were going to come up with a satisfying ending that didn't compromise either Andy's growth into adulthood or the toys' loyalty (to Andy and each other). During the incinerator scene I honestly thought Pixar had decided to go for a noble death together moment because there was no happy and narratively satisfying ending possible. But they pulled it off in a way that honored all of the characters. And I cried.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't actually consider the population of this thread to be a representative sample of anything.
I'm not criticizing people for crying. I'm mostly mystified and...I don't know, a bit skeptical. Really? It was sweet and poignant and I saw all the earlier movies, too, but...that much?
Maybe it's because Andy, while a perfectly nice kid, is always separate from the toys, so you don't form any particular attachment to him. It's like someone telling me about their cat. I completely believe them when they love their cat, but that doesn't mean I love their cat. And nobody even died - the cat was placed with another family and could be visited at any time. Andy's college is within driving distance and the little girl is a family friend. It is, like I said, sweet and poignant, but not devestating.
I get that it is a moment about growing up, but that circles back to my original thought: growing up isn't sad.
I think what you're missing in people's reactions is that Andy is not the protagonist of the movie. It isn't a moment about growing up, it's a moment about letting go -- not Andy letting go of toys, but their letting go of him. They're the point of view character for parents and foster parents and teachers and child-care workers and everyone who's ever been the center of a child's life and loved it and known that if they do their job right they will cease to be the center of that child's life. And it's wonderful and sad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I am observing that people seem to be doing a lot of crying for something that was sweet and well-done, but not exactly sob-inducing.
Y'know, 'sob-inducing' is pretty subjective, katharina. There doesn't have to be anything better or worse about a person if they do or don't cry at certain things, though you appear to have suggested otherwise more than once in this thread, with remarks such as:
quote:I get that it is a moment about growing up, but that circles back to my original thought: growing up isn't sad.
Is there no aspect of growing up that cannot ever be sad to anyone without there being something wrong? People crying =/ thinking growing up is an overall sad experience.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I know other people who didn't cry, and I can totally see those people surrounded by sobbing people (or at least a pretty large chunk of sobbing people) and going "seriously? wtf?"
I can watch a bland documentary about World War II and not cry. I can also watch Horton Hears a Who are tear up every single time I see Horton staring into the abyss of infinite clovers, the look of hopelessness on his face, and the decision to keep trying, no matter what, to find the speck upon people live, most of whom don't even believe he exists.
I can also, for the record, watch a good movie about World War II and cry my eyes out. I also know that most people don't tear up when they watch Horton Hears a Who. (It's something that for some reason resonates with me in particular).
People don't cry based on how sad the information you give them is. If they did, I could make you cry right now just by saying "Lots of children died in World War II." Or if those numbers are too big (and overused), then perhaps "Somewhere out there is a little girl whose parents are dead and can't find food." Making people cry (via art) is a craft, involving music, cinematography, pacing, character development and other techniques, depending on the artform.
And Pixar is really damn good at it.
First of all, they are approaching a fairly large target audience (in terms of the crying thing, anyway): college age kids who haven't played with their toys in a while, and the parents of those kids who are bout to (or have already) given up their children to the world. I'm not sure whether you fall into either of those groups. There probably are people who DO fall into those groups and still didn't think it was sad and/or beautiful enough to cry, because not everyone has identical experiences and brain chemistry. If you truly believe toys should be given up completely when you reach adulthood and there's nothing sad at all about that, well, even if you are in the target demographic you're probably not going to be affected as much. But a major part of the craft of making large numbers of people cry is to tap into experiences that large numbers of people have.
The very beginning of Toy Story 3 introduces you to What Was, the happy playtime reminiscent of Toy Story 1 and 2. Most of the crying-target-audience has already seen those movies, so you are not merely introducing a happy "status quo," you are reminding them of characters they have already been invested in. You have the music from the original movie, talking about the power of friendship.
Then that song cuts out ominously on the words "our friendship will never die." And then the actual film begins.
The next scene has Woody holding a cell phone, desperately wishing he could say three words into the phone, desperately wishing Andy would pick him up and play with him so that those words wouldn't be necessary. Instead, Andy closes the phone and a few minutes later refers to the toys as junk.
The themes of loss and abandonment, the feelings of uselessness, the identification with trash, are repeated throughout the movie. Each repetition is pitch perfect, building up empathy with the characters. We see Lotso's origin story and think "Man, I wouldn't have done what he did, but at least a part of me would want to after getting abandoned like that." When we get to the incinerator scene, it's not just one intense scene, it's the climax of and entire movie expertly playing off of our sense of mortality and abandonment. The feelings build up, usually without actually inducing tears at any given point, but building up those tears inside us.
The scene at the end is not just a happy, beautiful moment, it is a happy, beautiful moment that closes of an entire movie of love and loss and fear. And the tears that the whole rest of the movie spent building up inside us come rushing out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not going to apologize for not validating someone else's tears. I don't need random board to validate my feelings, and I'm not inclined to restrain my skepticism because someone else needs a "yes, yes, that is sad."
dkw, that's what some people have said, but then, the big "the moment I started crying" seems to be when the little girl also wants Woody, and Andy takes a breath. Which means it is the moment Andy lets go, and not the toys. It is a passing the torch moment, and passing the torch is a GOOD thing, as opposed to dropping or losing or snuffing out the torch. It means someone is there to accept the torch and it means life is still moving, that nobody is stuck.
There are a few comments that seem to say "You don't get it because you're not a parent" but the real WTH? for me are coming from the other non-parents. It isn't like parents are the only people who seem to be moved to tears by the movie. And I'm not a parent, but I have had people in my care grow to not need that kind of care anymore in the same way. I'm not unfamiliar with the process or concept.
quote:The scene at the end is not just a happy, beautiful moment, it is a happy, beautiful moment that closes of an entire movie of love and loss and fear.
Yep, I agree with that. It was a happy, beautiful moment.
Which is why...
quote:And the tears that the whole rest of the movie spent building up inside us come rushing out.
...is a little weird to me.
There's no way I'm the only person who feels happy and proud at happy, beautiful moments involving people I love instead of crying.
quote:college age kids who haven't played with their toys in a while, and the parents of those kids who are bout to (or have already) given up their children to the world. I'm not sure whether you fall into either of those groups.
I have read sniffling, teary reviews by people who fall into neither of those categories.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, at this point I think everyone here has done their best to explain their own reaction to the movie, and the only thing left to note is that, well, we're all human beings who are all uniquely complex and react to things differently. Surprise?
quote:I have read sniffling, teary reviews by people who fall into neither of those categories.
I haven't gotten to talk to anyone who didn't fall in those groups, so I can't really comment on that. I assume that the quality of the movie is such that people who are predisposed to grow into (or have grown out of) the precise demographic would be more affected by the emotional strings that Toy Story 3 is trying to pull.
quote:I'm not going to apologize for not validating someone else's tears. I don't need random board to validate my feelings, and I'm not inclined to restrain my skepticism because someone else needs a "yes, yes, that is sad."
I'm currently unsure what I think about this (less this line, more earlier lines throughout the thread). A lot of the earlier lines came with what felt like a clear connotation of "this isn't sad, period, if you think this is sad you are a silly person, possibly with blatantly wrong views about the sadness-value of growing up."
And I'm sure there have been lines coming from the my side of the argument (if not in this thread, then definitely others) that came across as "you didn't cry? You're an inhuman monster!"
This is related to a similar issue that's cropped up a lot on hatrack, in terms of the subtext of "you're dumb" that often comes from saying "you're wrong." Sometimes its intentional, sometimes not. I don't want this discussion to dominate this particular thread (I created another thread to address a variety of related issues). But I think your initial statements may have come across as more confrontational than you intended them to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's no way I'm the only person who feels happy and proud at happy, beautiful moments involving people I love instead of crying.
Do you understand why people cry at weddings?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Also worth noting that many people don't cry at weddings. Crazy humans, responding to identical stimuli differently.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There's no way I'm the only person who feels happy and proud at happy, beautiful moments involving people I love instead of crying.
Do you understand why people cry at weddings?
A lot of my suspicions about her have now been confirmed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I understand why they say they do, and I think it's weird. Unless they are marrying someone crappy who is going to cut them off from the family, in which case...yeah, tears are good. And probably a little rage.
But weddings are happy occasions, usually. Hopefully. Unless the new in-law is someone like Orincoro, then weddings are a time for so much joy that spontaneous dancing and hugging break out.
*laugh* Y'all ever see French Kiss?
quote: Kate: OK. I know what you're saying. I'm not sexy enough. Jean-Luc: No, I did not say anything. Kate: I'm supposed to be this pouty girl who says "yes" when she means "no" and "no" for "yes" and I cannot do it, OK? Happy - smile. Sad - frown. Use the corresponding face for the corresponding emotion.
[ July 13, 2010, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I know I got a little teary-eyed at the end of the movie. Personally, I think it was because I knew the characters well enough from the first two films and was happy to see them find a good new home and owner.
But I also found it a little sad. I get teary-eyed thinking about parents having to give their kids up for adoption, or kids losing their parents. I can’t imagine that without getting emotional. Also, I still get a little verklempt about my own toys growing up, most of which I don’t have anymore. I wish I had been able to give them all away to a deserving youngster the way Andy did.
The Toy Story movies manage very well to assign all the love and emotions we all thought our favorite toys had, and bring out the sense of loss and abandonment we know they must have felt when we finally grew out of them and neglected them. I know not everyone has tender feelings for those toys, but many do. The ending of Toy Story 3 brought those feelings to the surface.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I'm just kind of jumping in on this discussion, but it seems like tears = extreme emotions. Not exclusively negative emotions but any emotion that is extreme enough. That's the way it works for me anyways. I was singing that "Letters from Home" song to myself yesterday and the part where the dad says he's proud of his son made me shed a few tears in the middle of the grocery store. That sort of stuff gets me every time, and it's not because I'm sad.
The way I see it, or at least the way it works for me, is that powerful moments evoke strong emotions which in turn usually evoke tears. My little sister graduating makes me tear up a little. Same with my big sister getting married and now being pregnant. I was fortunate enough to maintain a straight face at my actual wedding, but playing Simple Man on Rockband with my family right before my wedding brought a few tears to my eyes. The Holocaust Museum, specifically standing in an actual rail car that had people stuffed in to it, or seeing the actual shoes of children... yeah, I cried then too. Maybe I'm an overly emotional person, but crying to me is not in any way exclusively associated with negative emotions.
And yes, I did tear up at the end of Toy Story 3.
ETA: I understand not having the same responses I do. I don't think it's weird not to cry at weddings. But I do think its a little weird to not accept that people cry when they are overwhelmed (whether positive or negative) and that other people's overwhelmed-threshold might be different than yours.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Kate: OK. I know what you're saying. I'm not sexy enough. Jean-Luc: No, I did not say anything. Kate: I'm supposed to be this pouty girl who says "yes" when she means "no" and "no" for "yes" and I cannot do it, OK? Happy - smile. Sad - frown. Use the corresponding face for the corresponding emotion.
On one hand,
On the other, I feel compelled to point out that the movement of facial muscles associated with crying (of both the happy and sad kind) is extremely similar to the muscle movements associated with laughter.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I just looked up "laugher and crying" and found this article:
quote:We need both laughter and tears to help us function in society. Crying relieves stress, reduces hormone and chemical levels in the body, and helps us return to a calm state. Laughter relieves stress, stimulates healing, exercises certain parts of the body, and helps in human bonding. That is why crying and laughing are beneficial to us both emotionally and physically.
Emphasis mine. While the article doesn't go into "Happy Tears," I think that Strangelove's statement about "extreme emotion" is pretty relevant. If your body is stressed, either in a good or bad way, tears help return it to a neutral state.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe it's the extreme emotions thing that doesn't produce tears in everyone. I cried at the Holocaust museum as well, which was sad. I felt full of joy and longing and happiness on many occasions, but it never makes me cry. Crying is reserved solely for sad emotions and sometimes anger if I'm not allowed to express anger as itself (I've cried at work because I was very angry about something and the alternative to crying would have been very bad for my career), but I've never cried for positive feelings. I cried at Up, but that wasn't a passing of the torch, it was the torch going out.
It reminds me a little of a talk a ward member gave on Father's Day. She said every year her goal is to make her dad cry, usually through a card or a letter or singing or something. I heard that and thought "Absolutely not." I have seen my dad cry on several occasions, and it is terrifying. He doesn't cry when he's happy and proud and loves me. He hugs me, smiles wide, tells inappropriate jokes, and tells me he loves me.
Maybe it's just culture. To me, tears mean something bad has happened. Maybe a necessary bad, but still: not good. I honestly prefer that. I don't enjoy crying, and I like it that when I am moved and happy and proud, I get huggy and smiley and bouncy instead of teary.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I used to never cry at movies. It wasn't a conscious choice that I know of (although I did feel like doing so would make me a sissy). I think ingrained culture of manliness may have had a lot to do with it.
Until one day, the second time I saw (of all things) Revenge of the Sith, I just started crying when all the Jedi are dying and Yoda is clutching his chest. And ever since then I cry at movies pretty ridiculously, for both happy and sad things.
Since then, I've actually found crying to be pretty helpful. When I am going through a time period where I'm feeling slightly depressed, but not depressed enough to cry, I watch a movie with a particularly sad scene to trigger my own tears, which provides a feeling of catharsis. I've come to associate crying WITH that feeling of cartharsis, so it's become an all around positive for me.
Sad triggers ARE more reliable than Happy triggers, I admit. (I've watched the Incinerator scene on youtube several times and still find it moving, whereas I've watched the Ending scene twice and it doesn't really affect me, at least in isolation).
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I felt full of joy and longing and happiness on many occasions, but it never makes me cry. Crying is reserved solely for sad emotions and sometimes anger if I'm not allowed to express anger as itself
I think that this explains the disconnect. I also hate crying when I'm sad. But I love tears that are a result of witnessing something beautiful and touching. I don't think there's anything wrong with *not* using tears in that way, but you seem to be not acknowledging that it a common phenomenon that many people feel.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What? If I didn't acknowledge it, then this conversation wouldn't exist.
If you are saying I am not validating it, that's true, but that's not a problem.
----
Raymond, I was genuinely moved and cried at a TV show recently, and I remember being surprised by that. But I can't remember what show it was and whether it was sad or happy or poignant or something in between. Dang it - I need to look at my journal and see what it was.
[ July 13, 2010, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think there are some subtle distinctions that aren't being clearly communicated here.
First, there are still two different conversations at work: one is whether children growing up is sad. The other is whether it's a good/understandable thing to cry at things that are happy. The former is a little more complicated, so I'm focusing on the latter in this post.
Multiple times you've described the phenomenon of crying at happy times as "weird." And I don't know what you mean by that. I use the word "weird" to describe myself, in a positive light, because I think things that are weird are great and I think the world should be more weird. But I know that for most people, "weird" implies something that is bad and should not be, as oppose to something merely different. From the context of your posts I get the sense that you are intending a negative connotation, but I'm not sure.
A paraphrased statement of yours from earlier was:
quote:Since you decided that the reason we disagree is because a failing of mine rather than present your side...
I'd like to address this, again focusing specifically on the "crying at happy times is weird." I'm trying to present my side clearly here:
• I do not think it matters whether you personally cry at happy moments. Laughing and dancing are great ways to accomplish the same thing (namely, working out a particular kind of stress).
• I think it matters somewhat that you are confused by the people who do cry at happy moments. Specifically, I think that when PeopleA are doing something that PeopleB don't understand, PeopleB should make an effort to understand it rather than writing it off as something weird and incomprehensible that PeopleA do. In the case of crying at happy moments, it really doesn't matter much (at all). But I think the principle is important in general, because maintaining the practice makes one better at resolving conflicts. If you disagree and continue thinking we're weird, though, I'm fine with letting this conversation end because it's not that important.
• If you are indeed assigning negative connotation to the people who cry at happy moments, beyond mere confusion, then I think that matters rather significantly and I would certainly care enough to continue discussing the matter until some kind of resolution could (hopefully) be resolved. Calling something "bad" just because you don't do it is a form of thinking that has caused a lot of problems in the world, and if someone is doing it with regards to people who cry at different times, it's likely that they're also doing it in regards to other issues that are far more significant.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: dkw, that's what some people have said, but then, the big "the moment I started crying" seems to be when the little girl also wants Woody, and Andy takes a breath. Which means it is the moment Andy lets go, and not the toys. It is a passing the torch moment, and passing the torch is a GOOD thing, as opposed to dropping or losing or snuffing out the torch. It means someone is there to accept the torch and it means life is still moving, that nobody is stuck.
That part is addressed in my earlier post, about catharsis. The moment where Andy lets go is still about what is going to happen to Woody. Woody is the protagonist, not Andy. And an ending where all the other toys go to a new child and Woody goes to college to sit on Andy's dresser and gather dust and eventually be forgotten, lost, or given away without his friends would not be a happy ending. Andy letting go gives Woody his happy ending, and the tears there were (for me) tears of relief.
Not that I examined them that closely at the time, but the release of tension = tears, for me and many people. Again, like sarmup said, that's what catharsis is all about.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Actually I agree that that particular moment is about Andy, and the reason I was emotional (not quite crying yet) at that point was because I identified with Andy, even moreso because at that moment I was halfway convinced that the toys I had ignored for several years were somehow sentient.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are other moments when the focus is on Woody. But when Woody is inanimate, and the cameria is focused on Andy, and Andy is taking a breath and making a decision to let go of his toy, then that moment is about Andy.
---
Raymond, I don't mean weird in a bad way. *grin* In other words, I really don't have any judgment here. Mostly, it's me lazily expressing my mystification about what seems like a storm of tears over a movie I enjoyed and found sweet and poignant but didn't even consider crying over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not going to apologize for not validating someone else's tears. I don't need random board to validate my feelings, and I'm not inclined to restrain my skepticism because someone else needs a "yes, yes, that is sad."
Well, I'm not surprised you're not going to apologize. But I am curious, who has asked you to 'validate' their tears? All that's been asked, so far as I can see, is for you not to imply scorn for them. That's very different.
quote:dkw, that's what some people have said, but then, the big "the moment I started crying" seems to be when the little girl also wants Woody, and Andy takes a breath. Which means it is the moment Andy lets go, and not the toys. It is a passing the torch moment, and passing the torch is a GOOD thing, as opposed to dropping or losing or snuffing out the torch. It means someone is there to accept the torch and it means life is still moving, that nobody is stuck.
You keep playing on this theme, with the implication that if it's a good thing, there ought not be tears. That's just plain silly.
quote:There's no way I'm the only person who feels happy and proud at happy, beautiful moments involving people I love instead of crying.
I don't know how else this can be explained to you in simpler terms, katharina: one can be happy and proud as well as crying and/or sad simultaneously. These emotions are not mutually exclusive. Whether they are for you or not is irrelevant: they're not for other people. It's pretty straightforward. I say that as someone who didn't cry at any point in the movie, though I did get choked up, because I can put myself in someone else's shoes and imagine why they might feel differently about it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Raymond, I don't mean weird in a bad way. *grin* In other words, I really don't have any judgment here. Mostly, it's me lazily expressing my mystification about what seems like a storm of tears over a movie I enjoyed and found sweet and poignant but didn't even consider crying over.
Cool. Then the only other thing I can think to point out is that, in various threads, I think you have perceived malice when the actual culprit was in fact laziness, and you may want to keep that in mind both when making your own posts and when reacting to others.
In this particular thread, the post of mine in which you perceived malice DID in fact have residual malice in it that, but that malice was in reaction to malice I perceived in a post of yours. (In that particular circumstance, your laziness took the form of writing something that unintentionally came across as confrontational, and my laziness took the form of not waiting long enough for unnecessary negative emotions to fade away and stop clouding my writing process).
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:What? If I didn't acknowledge it, then this conversation wouldn't exist.
Maybe it's just my reading, but it seemed like you kept insisting that you didn't understand why people cried because it wasn't incredibly sad. Upon hearing explanations that people weren't just sad, you said you still didn't understand. It's not about validation, it just seems like there's some talking past each other happening.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There are other moments when the focus is on Woody. But when Woody is inanimate, and the cameria is focused on Andy, and Andy is taking a breath and making a decision to let go of his toy, then that moment is about Andy.
I disagree.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
dkw, if you don't mind me asking, what is your age/gender?
I feel very strongly that that particular moment is about Andy. I'm not sure how much of that has to due with me being a college age male.
Edit: you know what, it's pretty much irrelevant, since on this point katherina and I are agreeing and we are most assuredly not the same demographic. I have to agree, when the camera is on Andy, and Andy is the one making a decision, and Woody is not doing anything, then that is assuredly an "Andy" moment, and I can't see how you can argue otherwise.
It's an Andy moment that is about his relationship with Woody, for sure, but that doesn't make it actually about Woody specifically.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Until one day, the second time I saw (of all things) Revenge of the Sith, I just started crying when all the Jedi are dying and Yoda is clutching his chest.
Funnily enough, Revenge of the Sith was the first time I had ever really cried in a movie for me too. I think John William's fantastic score for that scene had a lot to do with it.
... which only goes to show that it's not necessarily how sad something is, but how well the movie builds up emotions. I can't stop marveling at how expertly the buildup for Toy Story 3's finale was executed.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the identification with Andy giving up his toys is there too -- it's a touching moment for a supporting character (Andy) and it's the mark of a great movie that Andy's sub-plot is well crafted, and evokes something fairly universal in the human experience of growing up.
But Andy's decision matters to the main narrative of the movie (and the series) because it massively affects the outcome for the protagonist -- Woody.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Lots of movies have side characters who aren't the protagonist who nonetheless end up being important (in ways large or small) to the main plot and to the protagonist. But those characters also have their own arcs. Obviously the choice Andy makes will have a major impact on Woody and the central plot, but that doesn't mean that Andy isn't a character with his own story. The scene immediately afterwards is about Woody and how he is affected by Andy's decision, but the scene itself is the semi-conclusion to Andy's arc, and Andy is the one experiencing emotions we are intended to empathize with.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I disagree.
I think we're intended to empathize with both. We don't turn off our concern for the impact on the main character just because the supporting character also has his own story arc.
The reason I found that scene moving had to do with it's impact on Woody. My post was clarifying that, in response to kat. The fact that you identified more with Andy doesn't make that scene not relevant to Woody's story, any more than the fact that it also impacted Woody negates it's importance to Andy.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But as a film student, I can look at that shot and say with 90% certainty that while your empathy for Woody isn't expected to turn off for the shot, the intention of the shot, the way it's structured, is to put most of the focus on Andy.
I am intrigued that you had such a different reaction. I should probably follow my own advice from a few posts prior and try to understand my confusion. I'd like the clarify - the moment that Andy recoils from the girl, your first split second gut reaction is about Woody and what will happen to him, as opposed to what Andy is feeling as he recoils?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It is possible for a scene to be "about" someone who is not doing anything in that scene. Imagine a courtroom drama in which the defendant is the protagonist. There might be a dramatic scene in which the judge reads a verdict. In that scene, it is possible that the protagonist is sitting still doing nothing but listening, yet the scene would be all about him because the verdict determines his fate. The Andy-Woody scene could be similar.
I'd think the scene could be about Andy, or about Woody, or about the relationship between both of them, depending on what is going on in your head as you watch the scene. The only person who could really know why they are crying during that scene would be the person doing the crying, because they are the one who knows what they were thinking about during the scene.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Raymond,
To clarify earlier, my objection was to the "you" statements directed at me. That our disagreement was caused because "you {I}" was missing something. Whatever. That's when I bowed out, because it means the person I'm talking to wants me to either concur or admit fault. I am not interested in that kind of conversation.
dkw,
I understand that Andy's moment was important to you only in the context of how Woody would feel about it. That doesn't mean it was primarily about Woody - at least not enough to correct me when I said it was. There's a lot more evidence for my opinion about that scene than yours.
If the decision was about Woody, then the waterworks should have come earlier, when Andy tossed Woody in the college box and the other toys in the attic bag. That time, the decision was solely about the toys - Andy was barely in it. The one at the end was focused on Andy's face and his emotions during a similar decision process.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: dkw, if you don't mind me asking, what is your age/gender?
I feel very strongly that that particular moment is about Andy. I'm not sure how much of that has to due with me being a college age male
...
It's an Andy moment that is about his relationship with Woody, for sure, but that doesn't make it actually about Woody specifically.
It can't be about both Andy and Woody?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It is possible for a scene to be "about" someone who is not doing anything in that scene. Imagine a courtroom drama in which the defendant is the protagonist. There might be a dramatic scene in which the judge reads a verdict. In that scene, it is possible that the protagonist is sitting still doing nothing but listening, yet the scene would be all about him because the verdict determines his fate. The Andy-Woody scene could be similar.
I agree with this in theory. I think if the judge was also a character, who for some reason was emotionally involved in the outcome, and was clearly struggling making the decision, then the scene in question would be primarily (say, 75%) about the judge and the following scene where we see the defendant would be about the defendant.
I'd like to note again (for completeness sake) that I didn't actually cry during that scene, I cried later when the girl waves Woody's hand at Andy and he breathes in sharply. (While I was far more worried about Andy in that scene than Woody, I can see that as being a more 50/50 split between who is important, because that effectively IS Woody waving goodbye even those he's inanimate at the time.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thanks Tres, I was trying to come up with a good example, and the courtroom one is perfect.
To answer your question, Raymond, my attention was on Andy and what he was thinking, but the reason I cared was because of what his decision would mean for Woody.
kat, it wasn't "correcting" you. You said you didn't understand why people had the reaction to the scene that they did. I was offering an explanation for that reaction, from the perspecive of someone with the reaction that you said you wanted to understand. It doesn't negate your interpretation, it offers an additional one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What you said now is not what I percieved before. I think it's said in very different language this time.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm glad that my communication has improved, then.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:It can't be about both Andy and Woody?
It can, but from a filmmaking standpoint I think it is definitely slanted towards Andy (again, an arbitrary number might be 75% Andy, 25% Woody). Whereas the scene where Woody waves goodbye is a 50/50 split, if we're focusing specifically on the filmmaking techniques.
quote:That's when I bowed out, because it means the person I'm talking to wants me to either concur or admit fault. I am not interested in that kind of conversation.
I have more to say about this, but I'd like to discuss it in another thread (in an abstract way, about effective posting methods for the forum in general). But I'd also like to avoid going down a path where that thread because a place for people to bring up old grievances for the sake of arguing who was right, so if you don't want me to bring it up there I won't.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
<deleted>
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thank you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember being even close to crying at the end, but I was pretty choked up during the incinerator scene. As a whole I felt like the movie was an emotional roller coaster that had me all over the place.
On the subject of happy crying though, normally I would say that I've never even been close to happy tears, and 99% of the time, my response to happy situations is not tears. However, there were several moments while watching the second two seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender that I was seriously choked up and on the verge of tears during happy moments (as well as sad). The very end had me choked up especially.
I think there's something about having a moment that you've been waiting for finally come that makes happy situations especially emotionally, and thus opens the door to tears. When you build up enough emotional investment in something and then finally see it come to fruition, it's a dam breaking, and all that emotional energy has to go somewhere. I think it's very likely that the scenes that made many of us emotional in Toy Story 3 would not have had the same effect in Toy Story 1.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I see two posts have disappeared, one of which I never saw, the other one of which I have no idea why it would have been objected to. Bwuh?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Raymond Arnold: I want to thank you for outing katharina as a cyborg. She won't understand why we cry until we have to dip her in molten metal to destroy her and protect all humanity from her race of killer machines.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Happy - smile. Sad - frown. The corresponding face for the corresponding emotion!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Unfortunately, not all emotions can be distilled into romantic comedies, however great the particular romantic comedy in question is:)
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Kat, have you or has anyone around you ever cried at the temple? Or during a hymn? Or while bearing their testimony?
Are these things sad? I'd argue that they are not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think it's more instructive to ask why she thinks Jesus was crying when surrounded by the Book of Mormon people's children.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Happy - smile. Sad - frown. The corresponding face for the corresponding emotion!
I feel compelled to note that quoting Meg Ryan dialogue in defense of emotional range is, well, um....*ducks*
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
The wedding analogy got me thinking on this line anyway, and I apologize if it hits a nerve (you don't have to respond if you don't want to, kat). I was sobbing like a baby at my wedding ceremony, and there was absolutely nothing about it that was sad.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Kate: OK. I know what you're saying. I'm not sexy enough. Jean-Luc: No, I did not say anything. Kate: I'm supposed to be this pouty girl who says "yes" when she means "no" and "no" for "yes" and I cannot do it, OK? Happy - smile. Sad - frown. Use the corresponding face for the corresponding emotion.
OK, you caught me. When I cried at the end of Toy Story, it was all a scam. I was hoping the person next to me would feel sorry for me and buy me lunch at the food court.
And it would have worked, but everyone in the theater seemed to have come up with the exact same scam at the exact same moment. What are the odds? Oh, well. I'm going to try it again next week when I see Hot Tub Time Machine. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Kat, have you or has anyone around you ever cried at the temple? Or during a hymn? Or while bearing their testimony?
Are these things sad? I'd argue that they are not.
Around me? Yes. Have I? Never. Not even close. I well know those feelings that people say makes them cry, and it's never come close to pushing me to tears. It pushes me to display emotion in other ways.
---
Tom, I am not defending myself. Against what? I am not remotely threatened and nothing about me is in question.
-----
Clearly, lots of people do it. Lots of people do lots of things I find utterly mystifying.
But the church stuff reminded me of an anology. There are large swaths of the earth's population that express joy and feeling the Spirit through dancing in the aisles and speaking in tongues. Crying on happy occasions is exactly like that.
[ July 14, 2010, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Honestly, I really did think kat clarified her position pretty well on the last page and I don't understand why this argument still going on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe people are bored.
Or threatened.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, I am not defending myself. Against what?
I didn't say you were defending yourself. You were defending the concept. I didn't mean what I said as an attack, but rather as an expression of amused horror that you'd compare yourself to a Meg Ryan character. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ah, the premise being that all Meg Ryan characters are inherently worthless as a reference.
*shrug* I don't share the disdain for her.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the premise being that all Meg Ryan characters are inherently worthless as a reference
I submit that they are, taken as a set, perhaps not the best examples of healthy emotional behavior, yeah. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Which is not the same thing as always being inherently worthless as a reference.
It was a joke. Insisting on insulting her and me is churlish.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Tom didn't say Meg Ryan characters are inherently worthless. You said that. He was commenting on it being funny to cite a romantic comedy heroine's humorous opinion on emotions as strong evidence of it being "weird" to cry at happy moments.
Also, in that scene, Kate is clearly and openly talking about French women being sly and emotionally dishonest in their romantic relationships -- while flirting, specifically. The statement is colored by Kate's own frustration at not feeling attractive enough to keep her original fiance and/or attract Luc. It's a pretty specific reference, and really not a good example of what you were trying to prove.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Now I'm sort of worried that I've hurt Meg Ryan's feelings.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Which is approximately as sensical as me feeling bad about the toys I've left in my closet for the past 3 years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But have you seen her sad face? With those big, upturned puppy-dog eyes and the way her lower lip (pre-surgery) just sort of wobbles a bit until, fighting off tears, she catches it between her teeth? If left unchecked, I'm afraid she'll hurl herself face-first into a pillow and kick her legs up and down, and no one wants that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe if you left her in a closet for 3 years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm almost certain that would lead to a scenario in which I'd have to run through a rainstorm just to apologize, so I'm reluctant to consider that option.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Catharsis does not = sad. It can mean overwhelming sadness, but often it is the release of strong emotion, involuntary, and may even be just as mystifying to the person crying.
I felt the emotions swelling at that final scene but while it was touching and I certainly felt the impact, it wasn't the Woody tug-of-war that did it for me. It was when Andy started telling the girl about each toy, praising each one in turn.
That, to me, was an incredibly emotional time for the toys who (aside from Woody, and even he may have had his doubts) had spent most of the movie convinced that Andy no longer cared for them. Here was validation, total and loving, given just at the moment he was leaving. I was smiling broadly and crying the whole time. It was sad that he was leaving, it was wonderful that they knew at the end how much he loved them, it was both uplifting and depressing that he was moving on, it was great that they had a new home and a new child.
A similar feeling to the end of the last Harry Potter book. [SPOILERS, but I'm assuming if you like the series you've certainly read it and if you don't, you don't care] His defeat of Voldemort was kinda blah, to me. The battle was stirring, but the final faceoff was more like a Murder She Wrote ending that largely relied on who did what in what order and not in, say, strength or courage or determination. Harry won, woo hoo.
Then he walked into Dumbledore's office, and the portraits cheered, and I was overcome. It was a triumphant moment, again complete validation for someone we've seen persecuted and dismissed for his entire life, and I cried for it.
Some people don't. No worries. Some people do. No worries. But while some may find it mystifying, it's important to recognize that it happens so you'll have a better idea of how to deal with people around you if it comes up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Also, in that scene, Kate is clearly and openly talking about French women being sly and emotionally dishonest in their romantic relationships -- while flirting, specifically. The statement is colored by Kate's own frustration at not feeling attractive enough to keep her original fiance and/or attract Luc. It's a pretty specific reference, and really not a good example of what you were trying to prove.
Good criminy, it was a JOKE. And a funny one.
Now THAT makes me wonder if people are having inappropriate emotional responses. You took the reference much, much too seriously.
<small text> Don't cry.</small text>
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Good criminy, it was a JOKE. And a funny one.
I can't understand anyone laughing at a Meg Ryan line, and I refuse to validate that sort of deviant behavior.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Good criminy, it was a JOKE. And a funny one.
I can't understand anyone laughing at a Meg Ryan line, and I refuse to validate that sort of deviant behavior.
Not even one from When Harry Met Sally? That's one of the best romantic comedies of the modern era.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm assuming Speed's post is an attempt at a joke.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Approximately as successful an attempt as certain others I've seen in the past 36 hours.
(That wasn't attempting to be funny, just wry and poignant)
(That last part was attempting to be funny, but only to a certain target demographic)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think we should get Meg Ryan to read her post aloud, just to see how it makes us feel.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If only there were absolute truth in humor...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
...the French would long ago have gone to war with us over the matter of Jerry Lewis.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ...the French would long ago have gone to war with us over the matter of Jerry Lewis.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:You took the reference much, much too seriously.
I don't think I took the reference seriously at all. Your subsequent posts, (indeed, the bulk of your posts on this thread) and your response to Tom, were what I took seriously. You have a strange habit of saying things and then pretending you never meant them, or, even more bizarre, that you never said them. Considering that we've met in person, I think your snide tone and patronizing "small text" reference could have been worded differently. On second thought, that really is irrelevant -- nothing I said warranted that kind of snottiness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you're taking all of it unnecessarily seriously. There was no need for you to inject yourself and your scolds in the conversation. You shouldn't be surprised it didn't go as you might have hoped.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I am very much not surprised.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think you're taking all of it unnecessarily seriously. There was no need for you to inject yourself and your scolds in the conversation. You shouldn't be surprised it didn't go as you might have hoped.
some people have buttons other people can press.
you're like 99% button by surface volume these days.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It could be that by the shot showing Andy, the audience is meant to identify with Woody as we are seeing what he is seeing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This is a reply to happymann (and I guess kmbboots, who seems to have the same idea I did, replying here to avoid spoilers). This is about the Andy/Woody shot and what the Director intended the audience to be thinking at the time. I stated that I'm willing to bet $50 that the Director is intending the shot to be focused on Andy, and we are meant to have more than half of our empathy/concern directed at Andy at the time.
(This is the shot where the girl reaches for Woody, and Andy jerks away in response).
If we're going to break the statement into full legal-ese, so that there is no question of who won the bet, I am specifically believe and am willing to bet on the following:
• The Director believes Andy, as a character, should be important to the audience, for reasons that do not depend upon Woody being sentient. • While the Director is certainly aware that not everyone is going to react the same way to the same moment, he intentionally used camera work, animation and dialogue to shift the focus to Andy at that particular moment. • I DO think the Director would be a little baffled that we cared enough to ask him whether Woody or Andy was more important in that shot. They are both certainly important throughout the whole scene and the fact that we came to him with a $50 bet on the subject is a little silly, and it is possible he might deliberately try to give a non-answer to prove how silly the bet was... • BUT, assuming he did appear to be answering honestly, I would take answer of "I believe Woody and Andy are equally important in that shot" or "I deliberately left that shot ambiguous, open to interpretation" to mean I was wrong. I would take an answer of "Woody IS still important in that shot, but it's mostly about Andy's decision" to mean I was right.
There is a shot a little bit later in which cuts between Andy and Woody (where Woody is waving), where Woody is STILL inanimate, Andy is still the one "taking action," but the way it's framed makes Woody much more important. There's also the shot much earlier in the movie where Andy is holding Buzz and Woody, deciding whether to take them to college. THOSE are shots that are much more ambiguous, probably deliberately so.
@kmmboots: I'd agree that's possible, EXCEPT that Woody wasn't even in the scene up till that point. The scene begins with Andy driving up, talking to the neighbors. He interacts with the girl (can't remember her name). He pulls out the toys one by one. All this time, he is the one making decisions, he is the one the camera is focused on, his face is the one we're seeing expressions of happiness, embarrassment and doubt.
Woody and Co will certainly be at the back of our minds the whole time, but I firmly believe that at that particular moment, we are intended to thinking (and more importantly, feeling) about Andy.
I actually am rewatching it on youtube now and am considering putting up a more in depth commentary on various shots, just for fun.
Okay, looking back at the earlier thread, I don't think anyone officially clarified which shot we are talking about. If you're using the youtube link I provided, my bet ONLY applies to the shots between 2:44 and 3:00.
My take on the rest of the shots, many of which are far more ambiguous.
2:30 - Andy is talking about the toys meaning a lot to him, and the camera is focusing on the toys who are all staring (kinda creepily) into the camera. We're hearing Andy's voice, but looking at the toys' eyes, and it's clear we're supposed to be thinking about the fact that the toys are listening to Andy talking about them. This, by the way, is where the tears start to build up for me.
3:08 - Andy's talking about Woody specifically now, and the camera is intercutting back and forth between Andy talking, Woody staring, and the girl listening. I think Woody and Andy are equally important there but I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Director was intending to focus on one or the other.
4:00 - Andy and the girl begin playing, and they're talking... but their talking is muted. The audio is mostly the bittersweet music, the visuals are mostly on the toys. Andy is now clearly in the background and I think the animators are trying as hard as they can to have us empathize with the toys while they're being played with, to communicate how important this last moment with Andy is to them.
4:30 - Girl is holding Andy, she waves at Andy, then waves Woody's hand at Andy. Andy gasps, then says "thanks guys," and cuts back to Woody. Woody and Andy are equally important here. (Buzz is arguably also important, although I think the handwaving makes Woody more much emphasized).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)