Toy Story 4

[JeanGreyForever]

I actually liked the teaser. Maybe because all the posts were complaining about it so I went with very low expectations. Yes, it was a bit slow, but I was fond of it anyway and I don't mind the new character much. If he had been just a regular fork I would have been bothered by that, but I like the idea that he's a crafts project which is how he's been brought to life. It's an interesting concept, at least to me, although I'm not pleased that this will be another road trip film. Then again, Toy Story excels in those types of stories so maybe it's for the best.

[Kyle]

Yeah, honestly I'd like see them have most of the movie take place in one room/building. Minimizes exposition, maximizes character interaction.

[blackcauldron85]

I was all smiles watching that- I'm always happy to see these characters. And the looks on their faces made me smile. Can't wait for the full trailer!!

[Mickeyfan1990]

Love the trailer, love the plot (has all the pieces of a good, classic story), so now I'm intrigued.

[D82]

Don Rickles? Unless they have enough unused recordings to piece together before this death that sounds like an outdated cast list.

I hadn't noticed Don Rickles was also included there. Yes, maybe that cast list is outdated.

People saying its the most boring teaser might want to remind themselves of toy stor 3's teaser.

https://youtu.be/-6aLdp6KUQY

While that might seem like it has more going on in it, it really told us nothing about the movie. This one however implies a lot with little of the actual plot, with the spork character. Toy story 3's was about building a logo, that's it.

I personally really like that Toy Story 3 teaser trailer. For me, it's no so important for a teaser to tell us something about the plot of the movie. This teaser was a good introduction to that new character, but I didn't like it much. I don't know, it's a bit weird and very different from what I had expected. And the teaser poster has a completely different approach; it doesn't seem it's promoting the same movie. The new character is not bad; a craft-project toy is an interesting idea and new to the Toy Story world, but he seems OK for a secondary character, I'm not sure it's good enough to have an important role in the movie. We'll see, to be fair, we haven't seen enough of him to judge.

And the whole "everything inanimate is alive" thing? that is not a new concept to toy story. They talk about the Christmas ornaments being alive in the last one. They also bent some rules with Mr potatohead I think. I think it will mostly come down to if a child's imagination and attachment is strong enough most things can be given life.

That's a good theory.

The new plot sounds too similar to Ralph Breaks the Internet with Vanellope experiencing the wide open world and wanting to stay there.

I wouldn't like that, I hope it isn't the case. However, the new synopsis and the poster seem to go in that direction. The moment that made Tom Hanks cry could be when Woody parts ways with the rest of the toys.

[blackcauldron85]

I just thought- if they're road-tripping, they must be headed somewhere, right? Maybe to find Bo Peep...it's a teaser; they probably don't want to give everything away to the general public right now...?

[Dr Frankenollie]

I’m very curious to see what this supposed emotional ending is. After all, we do know for certain that the characters will not die, they won’t be split up, they’ll get a happy ending - so now we’ve already had them being passed on by Andy, where do we go from there? Imo, I think it’s kind of concerning that the story team clearly feel obliged to try to keep topping what the previous sequels have become known for; I can only imagine this latest tear-jerking ending as contrived and sentimental. But we shall see.

Another road trip film is annoying, but Pixar is literally incapable of making films which aren’t buddy comedy road trips unless Brad Bird is writing them. What is more bemusing is the - apparent - centrality of a character like Forky. Whereas Woody, Buzz and Jessie have designs which allow them to be reasonably expressive even as pieces of plastic, Forky’s googly eyes and makeshift face does not exactly seem to lend itself to much potential for expression.

And the whole concept of Forky just raises bizarre and irritating questions. Like - if something is imbued with life as a toy, like this spork, does that mean a toy’s sentience is dependent on a child’s faith? If that’s the case, why did the likes of Jessie, Prospector, Lotso, et al remain sentient after abandonment and the like? Is it because they’re still “toys” of sorts, due to the manufacturer declaring them so? In which case, why does a child’s imagination amount to anything in bringing Forky to life? When Bonnie gets rid of him one day, will he remain sentient? Etc etc

[disneyprincess11]

They have already released another trailer. I like this one much more.

https://twitter.com/Disney/status/1062329483179540480

[DisneyFan09]

What a horrible teaser. I don't know what was worse; The new version of Both Sides Now (interesting to use a Joni Mitchell-tune in a Pixar teaser) or the utilizing semi-slow motion.

[estefan]

The Toy Story 2 teaser was just the aliens looking in awe at the claw and then a quick comedic exchange between Woody and Buzz.
Toy Story 3's teaser was just the toys building the title.
The Bug's Life teaser was literally the bugs sitting on a leaf. Exciting!

This is par for the course for Pixar's teasers as more of a way to introduce the characters, rather than showcase the plot. Some are even vague. The Incredibles didn't turn out to be about a fat superhero trying to put on his belt. Ratatouille isn't exactly about a rat stealing food from a kitchen. The "Finding Nemo" teaser is the most I can recall one delving into the story, although it helps that just looking at the title gives you an indication of the plot.

I have always had a fondness for teasers that don't show you any footage from the movie. To me, a teaser is just a way to say to the audience "hey, this is a movie coming soon. Thought you'd like to know." I remember as a child being blown away by the Rugrats Movie teaser. The South Park movie teaser was especially clever.

[D82]

They have already released another trailer. I like this one much more.

https://twitter.com/Disney/status/1062329483179540480

Me too. Disney has also released more character posters and some details about these two new characters:

Today, Disney announced that Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele voice a pair of Toy Story 4 characters called Ducky and Bunny, two carnival prizes who are eager to be won, who encounter Woody and his friends at a carnival. When their plans are interrupted, they find themselves on an unexpected adventure with our beloved Toy Story toys, who have no idea what it feels like to be tacked to a prize wall.

Speaking about the addition, director Josh Cooley had this to say:

“Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, who voice Ducky and Bunny, are two of the most brilliant minds I’ve ever seen. Of course, they are effortlessly funny, which would be enough. But they are incredible actors that understand story. Their improvs weren’t just for comedy sake, they were story motivated which elevated Ducky and Bunny and the film to a level I never could have expected.”

Source: http://collider.com/toy-story-4-key-peele/


According to that same article, Annie Potts has not yet been confirmed as part of the voice cast:

The development history of Toy Story 4 is long and a bit fraught (original director John Lasseter and original writers Rashida Jones and Will McCormack are no longer involved with the film), and it’s becoming clear that the story we were originally teased is probably no longer intact. Pixar veteran Andrew Stanton (WALL-E) came up with the story for Toy Story 4, and back in 2015 Lasseter teased that the film was a love story/romantic comedy that would find Woody and Buzz on the search for Bo Peep. It’s possible that part of that story is still intact and we just haven’t heard yet, but so far with all this “Toy Story 4 reveal” information there’s been no mention of Bo Peep or her voice actor Annie Potts.

[Kyle]

Ok, as luke warm as I was on the first one, the second one left a "how do you do fellow kids" taste in my mouth. I hope they smarten up their dialogue in the movie proper if they have to be in it. Though I kinda hope they get cut altogether. They rub me the wrong way.

[blackcauldron85]

3 more posters besides the Woody one (scroll down):

https://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/20 ... and-bunny/

[Mooky]

An annoying new character, a "your mom" joke (only in the teaser trailer, but still), and possible abandonment of the Bo Peep storyline... I'm not sure I'm liking any of this.

[Candy-Bonita95]

After seeing the two teasers, I realized that there's a running theme about non-toys or toys outside of the mainstream market (not vintage toys like Jesse and Woody) which can be interesting, but The LEGO Movie sequel is already doing something similar with the Duplons. In order for both movies can make their unique take on the alien other them, each movie would have to focus on arcs for their human child protagonists.

LEGO Movie = brother learns how to deal with younger sister
Toy Story 4 = Bonnie has to be careful with WHAT she plays with. Since she's mostly going to young, that's still a plausible character arc

If the theme of "other" or non-toys is still present, I imagine Bo Peep will still have an appearance. Just because they scrap the "search" plot, it doesn't mean she won't appear. A good reason to scrap the search plot is that it was already done in Toy Story 2.

[Sotiris]

There are also carnival toys as well.

I like the character design of the carnival toys. They are cute.

People saying it's the most boring teaser might want to remind themselves of Toy Story 3's teaser.

That was much better, actually. Sure, they were just creating the logo but that's what a teaser is supposed to be. I don't expect any plot points in a teaser. There were some nice character moments and it was fun. That's good enough. This one had nothing, except a couple of lines from an annoying new character. He reminds me of Fear from Inside Out. Too jittery.

And the whole "everything inanimate is alive" thing? That is not a new concept to Toy story. They talk about the Christmas ornaments being alive in the last one. They also bent some rules with Mr. Potato Head I think. I think it will mostly come down to if a child's imagination and attachment is strong enough most things can be given life.

Don't forget Bo Peep who's a lamp, not a toy. Still, loosening the rules up so all inanimate objects are sentient or have the potential to become sentient if someone slaps a pair of googly eyes on them is too much of a stretch and outside of the franchise's original conceit. It challenges the audience's suspension of disbelief because it's something that hadn't been established from the start. You can't rewrite or bend the franchise's rules so late in the game.

I’m very curious to see what this supposed emotional ending is. After all, we do know for certain that the characters will not die, they won’t be split up, they’ll get a happy ending - so now we’ve already had them being passed on by Andy, where do we go from there?

Maybe they are willing to kill off a secondary character. Perhaps Bo Peep? But it's more likely they'll have Woody leave the gang. The synopsis about him experiencing the world and the teaser poster singling him out seem to indicate that.

And the whole concept of Forky just raises bizarre and irritating questions. Like - if something is imbued with life as a toy, like this spork, does that mean a toy’s sentience is dependent on a child’s faith? If that’s the case, why did the likes of Jessie, Prospector, Lotso, et al remain sentient after abandonment and the like? Is it because they’re still “toys” of sorts, due to the manufacturer declaring them so? In which case, why does a child’s imagination amount to anything in bringing Forky to life? When Bonnie gets rid of him one day, will he remain sentient?

This is how I believe they'll try to explain it: Whereas all manufactured toys are sentient due to their pre-determined purpose, regardless of whether a child ever plays with them or not, inanimate objects can only become sentient after a degree of modification, a child's attachment, and some experience of being used as a toy. After they become sentient, they can't return to their previous state even if their owner abandons them or stops playing with them. It's not the most convincing or sophisticated explanation but the most likely one.

OK, as lukewarm as I was on the first one, the second one left a "how do you do fellow kids" taste in my mouth. I hope they smarten up their dialogue in the movie proper if they have to be in it. Though I kinda hope they get cut altogether. They rub me the wrong way.

I think it has to do with the voice acting and characterization. This second teaser trailer (I don't understand why Pixar's calling it a "reaction") feels more like a Key & Peele skit than anything Toy Story-related. Instead of the actors adapting to inhabit these new characters, it feels like their Key & Peele personas have just been transformed into toys.

An annoying new character, a "your mom" joke (only in the teaser trailer, but still), and possible abandonment of the Bo Peep storyline...I'm not sure I'm liking any of this.

I don't like it either. I'm starting to think that the previous iteration was better.

[Warm Regards]

To be honest, the second teaser annoyed me a bit. "I thought those movies were done, they made 3 movies!" "Yeah, they made 3, this is the 4th". Because making a meta joke totally justifies another sequel that no one asked for nor really needed.

Will admit though that Ducky is cute with the eyelashes.

And the whole concept of Forky just raises bizarre and irritating questions. Like - if something is imbued with life as a toy, like this spork, does that mean a toy’s sentience is dependent on a child’s faith? If that’s the case, why did the likes of Jessie, Prospector, Lotso, et al remain sentient after abandonment and the like? Is it because they’re still “toys” of sorts, due to the manufacturer declaring them so? In which case, why does a child’s imagination amount to anything in bringing Forky to life? When Bonnie gets rid of him one day, will he remain sentient?

This is how I believe they'll try to explain it: Whereas all manufactured toys are sentient due to their pre-determined purpose, regardless whether a child ever plays with them or not, inanimate objects can only become sentient after a degree of modification, a child's attachment, and some experience of being used as a toy. After they become sentient, they can't return to their previous state even if their owner abandons them or stops playing with them. It's not the most convincing or sophisticated explanation but it's the most likely one.

Ah, so something like what they did in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, where it's established that once you think of something an imaginary friend can be, they're "born", and even as you grow the imaginary friend is still alive? I remember one episode with a hyperactive girl who could think up of many imaginary friends in seconds that all needed to be adopted.

[Big Disney Fan]

So I've read on the movie's page on the Disney Wiki that this is to be the first Pixar movie to stream on the new Disney Plus. Does this mean that this movie will be released on Disney Plus instead of in theaters, or will it be seen on both at the same time?

[Kyle]

Absolutely not on the instead. There might be a slight chance of a similtatnous release, but realistically it'll just hit the streaming service about when it hits blu ray. Maybe a bit before.

[Big Disney Fan]

Absolutely not on the instead. There might be a slight chance of a similtatnous release, but realistically it'll just hit the streaming service about when it hits blu ray. Maybe a bit before.

"Not on the instead"? What does that mean?