So...

So, do all toys in the Toy Story universe have an initial phase where they really think they're their characters or is it just the Buzz Lightyears?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xD2MSdyq7y0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's probably just new toys

so if buzz didn't know he was a toy...

why did he freeze around Andy?

I feel like it should be all of them. Can't remember if we saw any other brand new toys.
Stinky Pete probably learned he was just a toy when he shelfwarmed forever

Tour Guide Barbie in the second one seemed to be really in character.

uhhhh

Buzz was a character with an established background and part of a larger universe. He had chips inside of him. For example Rex is just a generic dinosaur toy, so he wouldn't have a specific personality.
Part of Toy Story 2 is the reveal that Woody wasn't just some generic cowboy but a famous character named Woody. However, due to the fact that he didn't use chips to talk but a special box (open up an old doll to see what kind of box, I'm sure you can find pictures online) on the inside he wasn't fully corrupted (notice how Woody is influenced completely when someone pulls on him: the box corrupts him into talking, but on his own he's neutral). When Buzz's audio effects are triggered they just happen since his entire body is part of the effect: he's one with the personality.

...

I'd like to add to this that Woody didn't start out with a personality since he didn't know about his background universe until Toy Story 2. Keep that in mind

Everyone in this thread needs to get laid.

...

fantastic post, thank you for contributing

>So, do all toys in the Toy Story universe have an initial phase where they really think they're their characters
where have I seen this before. hmmmmmmm

So, do you think that Harry Potter toys know that they are part of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises? Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though

"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

you're in here?

What do we do after that?

>No!
everytime

he's in a new and strange place, a fucking giant comes tumbling into the room, he sees how the other inhabitants react to this and he does the same

>Those replies
Sup Forums is literally just Reddit but a few steps ahead

me on the left

>lol
>kikebook
>sir

You must be new if you didn't already know this

watch toy story

based "stretched his legs" poster

Do you realize that post is from 2010 right?
And is also from Sup Forums aka the gateway to Sup Forums.

I don't see any le witty puns in that image.

>forgetting the image

Mediocre!

This is the old Sup Forums userbase:
youtube.com/watch?v=xD2MSdyq7y0

Goddamn, now if only there was a way to work the Jamie Lee Curtis pasta into this thread as well...

It unironically was a different time

Pretty sure it's just new Buzz Lightyear franchise toys. In Toy Story 2 all the toys in the store except for Buzz and Zerg seem redpilled. Only Buzzes visibly aren't and they get mocked for it.

Do toys have political views?

Imagine the existential crisis involved in coming to the realization that you're nothing. Barely even sentient and your entire purpose in life is to be a toy for an attack on titan-esque giant monster boy. I would Mcfucking kill myself.

Do you think toys watch their teenage owners masturbate?

In the initial draft of the film this would have been explained that in the Buzz Lightyear TV show there's an episode where giant predators are hunting Space Rangers but their vision is based on movement (inspired by Jurassic Park which had just recently come out). Buzz confuses humans for these and thus goes still.

Was cut out for some reason, Idk I would have found it funny

>no image
>poor opening line
>not even related to Harry Potter
Embarrassing, consider the noose.

That's such a cute image

>this guy doesn't shitpost

lel

IMAGINE. Imagine being a part of the dullest striptease in the history of movie stripteases? Seriously each wriggle of Jamie Lee Curtis' disgusting body as she attempts to prove that "SHE'S STILL GOT IT" has been indistinguishable from that of a gremlin. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the teases’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make the magic of sex unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Cameron vetoed the idea of Arnie doing the striptease; he made sure the scene would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody? just ridiculously absured vanity hour for Jamie Lee. She might be anti-Christian (or not), but she's certainly the anti-Bond-girl in her refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the body was tight though

"No!" The face is dreadful; the body was terrible. As I looked, I noticed that every time she went for a walk, the director instead that Arnie "stare at her legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time Arnie's eyes looked away. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Lee's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writhing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of True Lies by the same Quentin Tarantino. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are watching True Lies at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to watch my films ." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you see Jamie Lee Curtis dance you are, in fact, trained to see depravity and John Travolta.