Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JD, Dec 11, 2020.
I've seen it. Good Film, but it certainly isn't the film Andy saw.
M&M sure wishes they had gotten in ET.
I also loved the movie.
Best toy tie-ins ever.
Speak and Spelll is awesome so is Speak and Math
There's a Speak & Math? That's a clumsy name, since "math" isn't a verb.
Yes there was a Speak and Math, and that was the name similar to the Speak and Spell only it did maths stuff. I also hat the Texas Instruments Little Professor
Bro do you even math
Hmm, I don't think I had that. For me, Little Professor was the name of one of the bookstores I frequented in my youth, back when there were still plenty of brick-and-mortar bookstores to choose among. I would've remembered if I'd had a toy/gadget of the same name.
Good branding can lead to bad grammar but it is memorable.
And I had it as well as the Speak and Spell.
Uhh, your example doesn't disprove my statement, so is that really how "ORLY?" is meant to be used? Or were you referring to the Parisian airport?
Here you go
Speak and Math
I finally watched this film recently. I have to say, it wasn't very good. I don't know who decided that Interstellar was the template to follow for a Buzz Lightyear movie, but it was a bad idea. There's nowhere near enough humor, color, or space adventure. Instead, we get some generic human characters wandering around drab environments doing nothing interesting.
Probably my number one issue, though, was Zurg. I would love to know what they were smoking when they came up with that twist because that has to be the worst surprise villain in Disney history.
So all in all, just watch the old cartoon, it's infinitely better, and beyond.
Just saw the movie on Disney+, and I quite liked it. I haven't been that interested in Pixar's output in recent years. I found Onward mediocre and boring, I didn't even watch the next two, and I gave Turning Red a try after hearing good things about it, but just couldn't get into its style of humor and gave up pretty early. But Lightyear was a solid movie with effective character work, plotting, and humor, and creative action sequences where they just kept piling on new problems for the heroes and snatching victory out of their hands over and over.
It does have some plot holes, like, how did they not know about time dilation before they launched? And it wasn't a good look at the beginning to have the Space Rangers just forget about the rookie when they retreated back to the ship. They're taught "Finish the mission," but I guess that doesn't include "Never leave a person behind." And the ending was weird, kind of breaking the movie's logic and continuity in a clumsy attempt to graft the Toy Story premise of the Galactic Alliance onto a story that had gone in a different direction. (And did we need three mid- or post-credit scenes?) But the stuff in between was good, even if it did kind of follow the usual Pixar formula of mismatched protagonists beginning at odds, gradually learning to trust each other and cooperate, and nearly giving up after a major setback before rallying for the big finish.
It doesn't entirely work as "the movie Andy loved in 1995," since no way would a 1990s movie aimed at a family audience have had a gay marriage subplot treated as no big deal; also, the visual effects wouldn't have been nearly this good. But of course the movie was made for today's audiences, despite its conceit.
Help me to make sure I've got the deal right on this. Lightyear is a would-be live-action movie that exists in the Toy Story canon, upon which an entire franchise of content exists, among which are cartoons (& cartoon video games like Toy Story 2's opening) featuring a more cartoonish version of Buzz, that has been merchandised into toys like Andy's?
More or less, yeah. Except I haven't seen anyone actually specify if the in universe version would be live action or animated.
Has anyone ever caught the toys when they come to life?
Edit: I mean what are the rules of the toy story universe?
Right. Me neither, but that's what's had me puzzled, because Andy's Buzz Lightyear toy looks considerably different than Lightyear himself, which is either explainable by it being a shoddy toy representation or based off different media, like a cartoon, which seems more plausible, given that the video game version at the opening of Toy Story 2 is exactly like Andy's toy... & the Lightyear from the movie looks more like real people from Andy's universe. This kind of changes the canon a little for me, in that I always assumed the toy was based off media that ALL looked like that video game, & not some other more realistic or less cartoonish version, or original
Hasn't someone fainted or been shocked by it, at least once in one of those movies? I think they can be seen moving
Edit: Oh yeah... Sid
Who is Sid?
The little nemesis neighbor kid in the original Toy Story? The mutilated toys come to life to shock the heck out of him
That's the conceit. It's like how there were action figures based on the cartoon The Real Ghostbusters but none based on the original Ghostbusters movie until decades later, at least in the US. (Though that's probably because the movie was a bit more adult-oriented.)
Still, that's not the important part. It's a throwaway conceit that gets only a passing mention in the opening text cards ("This is that movie"). Beyond that, the film is just a self-contained story about a Space Ranger named Buzz Lightyear. It does have the odd passing allusion to elements of Toy Story, like
Spoiler: Zurg's identity
when Buzz first sees the old man inside the Zurg armor and says "Dad?"
And giving Buzz a toy-like talking robot cat partner was probably an homage of sorts. But it's meant to be taken on its own terms as a standalone story (with the potential for sequels, of course), and it's mostly effective at that.
Separate names with a comma.