The insidious influence of Rupert Murdoch has at last infected the once unimpeachable editorial standards of The Wall Street Journal (wait’ll they get to covering those Baltimore homeless slayings). In the opening paragraph of a story ostensibly concerned with major media conglomerates producing in-house video game spin-offs of their films and TV shows, the “journalist” team of Merissa Marr and Nick Wingfield drop this bombshell:
“In Pixar’s coming movie Toy Story 3, Woody the cowboy and his toy-box friends are dumped in a day-care center after their owner, Andy, leaves for college.”
If this was public knowledge beforehand, it’s news to me (and AICN‘s Quint). What to make of this first post-Andy’s bedroom installment? I suppose it’s the natural progression of things: the toys are in their autumn (or winter) years, being used and abused by kids who aren’t accustomed to having top-of-the-line playthings. Should be heartwarming stuff. But how do you keep this scenario from acknowledging the big “D”? How much longer do the toys have before they’re busted beyond repair or torn to shreds? I hate to burden a kids’ film with such ponderous notions, but the beautifully rendered existential quandary of Toy Story 2 – in which Woody refused display case immortality for the fleeting joy of being loved by a child – leaves me no choice. There are high standards to be upheld here (I still think Toy Story 2 is the best film of 1999).
Lucky for me that I’m heading up to Pixar this Friday for a tour of the facilities and a preview of Wall-E. I don’t think Andrew Stanton had (or has) much input on Michael Arndt’s screenplay for Toy Story 3, but I’m gonna grill the poor bastard anyway.
Lee Unkrich is directing Toy Story 3 (which is currently scheduled for release in 2010). He previously co-directed Finding Nemo, Monsters, Inc. and Toy Story 2.
10 comments
Man, that notion is rife with existential possibilities.
Toy Story 3 will end with the uprising of the toys and their slaughter of the day care.
"…before THEY'RE busted beyond repair…"
Actually, I remember reading that exact synopsis years ago on AICN when the movie was barely even a possibility. I'm glad that they actually ended up going with it.
I remember reading a different plot at one point for the film that involved Buzz Lightyear being "re-called" and shipped off to Japan, with the rest of the troupe going on a rescue mission to save him from destruction. And if it wasn't a possible plot for the third one, then it damn well should have been! It sounds a whole lot more interesting than them being stuck at a daycare center.
My reaction: KICKASS. Here's why…
If you have to original "Toy Box" special edition DVDs of the first two movies, you might recognize this plot idea from the history stuff and the commentaries: This was the original "day zero" plotline for what eventually became Toy Story. Lasseter and company's initial concept was about lost/discarded toys looking for a legendary "heaven" where toys never 'died' – it would've turned out to be the playroom of a Day Care Center, where there'd <i>always</i> be new children to love and play with them. On the same discs, the Pixar guys mention a few times that they felt eventually revisiting that premise with the TS gang would be the perfect "happy ending" for the series – the idea of closing out on a note that definatively says "Buzz, Woody and the gang are going to be safe and cared for and played with forever."
So… you guys are miffed because you didn't break the synopsis first? Hey, I think the Journal is going the way of the turd as well, but this isn't an example of it.
The movie will suck without Jim Varney. Word.
I think I saw Stanton's name attached to 'John Carter of Mars'. Which would mean Pixar's doing it!? See what you can find out please.
In reality Andy would have put Woody on Ebay years ago so he could buy a bag of wicked buds with the cash…
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.