People love Pixar movies so much that they are willing to ignore all plot holes or gaps in internal logic. I don’t know why Pixar gets a free pass on this because a lot of these are glaringly obvious. Perhaps people are willing to forgive lapses such as these if the overall experience of…
Okay usually I’m one to respect other’s beliefs on ANY subject, but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree and counter this argument by going through each movie specifically mentioned.
Toy Story: I find it hard to believe that someone can buy the idea of “talking toys” and yet you can’t get over the fact that Buzz can fly on plastic wings from an updraft. What?! How can you get through this entire movie and complain about THAT of all things? I’m sorry but this just makes no sense to me. You are also implying that you think a toy can slide down a banister with perfect balance and not slide to the side, as we see in the opening segment of the movie, which is also extremely unlikely, because yes I had a Woody doll as a kid and tried this. Does this mean the movie doesn’t make any sense? NO. So argument invalid.
Toy Story 2: Okay I admit, I like your thoughts here. There is some room for a potential prequel exploring Woody’s past. But with the exception of the Woody’s Roundup gang, do any of the other toys show any remembrance of their own pasts? No. And it seems pretty straightforward thanks to Toy Story 1 that toys believing they are real is an unusual thing. So it seems quite probable to me that toys do not automatically have some inner knowledge of who they are. Stinky Pete, Bullseye and Jessie lived around the Woody’s Roundup merchandise and the show itself, so that maybe be the reason for them knowing anything about their past lives.
Monsters Inc: “Literally no evidence to support the idea that humans are toxic”?! First of all, this movie is only an hour and a half to two hours long at most. There is only so much Pixar can cram into a movie in that amount of time. And why is this important to the plot anyway? The movie is not about how the monsters discovered that humans were toxic. All that we need to know is that “humans are toxic” and move on to the actual plot. Besides, with the Monster’s University prequel coming out soon, it’s quite possible this will be addressed anyway.
Finding Nemo: When I read this part of your review, I was very tempted to stop after the sentence that reads, “… it’s still incredibly uncommon for a fish to know how to read.” DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?? Dude, you are talking about a CARTOON. Made for KIDS. Which is obviously a FANTASY. And since when do fish talk like people?!
Cars: Again, the movie is not about the backstory of how the heck cars build a city or took over the cities from the humans or whatever. That is not the movie Pixar wanted to make. If they did, that’s what it would be. You seem to be forgetting the fact that these movies are FANTASY and NOT REALITY.
Ratatouille: AGAIN THESE MOVIES ARE FANTASY. YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS STUFF WITH FANTASY.
Toy Story 3: Wow dude. Just wow. Is that really the only thing you have to say about this movie? You have a problem with the freaking ladder compressing all by itself and setting the entire movie in motion? Wow. I don’t even have to say anything about this except WOW.
All in all man, these are fantasy movies. I can understand if you were expecting to see some mainstream, modern-day cartoon depicting real life, but that’s not what Pixar is.
Greetings redwritingwolf! Thanks for reading and responding to my Pixar post even though you don’t agree with me. I just wanted to briefly clarify that I am in fact an obsessive Pixar fan… as in, Toy Story is my favorite movie of all time. In fact, I love all the Pixar movies in their own way (yes even Cars 2). I have spent many a saturday afternoon watching and rewatching filmmaker commentary on my pixar DVDs. For every dumb-nit picky thing I say about each of these movies I can write dozens more about why they are great pieces of art and storytelling. My post was not intended to belittle the brilliant and revolutionary work and effort the men and women of Pixar put into these classic films. The reason I wrote this post was because I KNEW it was a contrarian opinion (believe me the angry shouts I get when I try to explain these theories to my friends drove that point home) and I hoped it would at least spark a conversation. Luckily it has so thank you! (also, I realize many of these points are kind of splitting hairs and groan-inducing. I didn’t really expect many of them to be taken seriously. I dont think I pulled off the comedic tone of the post as well as I would have liked).
I would like to defend some of my opinions because from the way you reacted to many of them it became clear to me that I may not have articulated as well as I could have.
First of all: of course I understand that these films are fantasy. That’s what makes them so fun! I mentioned briefly in my point about Cars that I can accept a concept as long as its internal logic makes sense. I can totally buy that toys are alive, or that rats can cook, or fish can talk, if those are “the rules” (for lack of a better word) that the universe of the movie has established. In the case of Toy Story: they ask us to believe that toys are alive. Okay no problem, if I don’t believe that then there’s no movie at all! So we suspend disbelief there because that’s how this fantasy world operates. What I have more trouble buying is Buzz’s ability to fly after it is established more than once that he can’t. I am the first to admit that this is one of my flimsier points (my argument on Toy Story 3 is equally ridiculous but I just wanted to see how much od a devil’s advocate I could play). In the moment when that rocket is about to explode and Woody and Buzz get away, you are so invested emotionally and so excited to see them “falling with style” that the moment doesn’t feel forced in any way. It’s a brilliant climax to a brilliant film. All I was trying to say with the post was that if we’re really trying to be sniveling d-bags about it … the laws of physics are technically being violated without any foreshadowing. Same goes of Ratatouille. Talking rats? No problem. Mind control through hair follicles? ehh…
Again, I am in no way trying to cheapen the brilliant body of work that Pixar has put out.
Second point: In Monsters Inc, I think it is certanily a slight problem that children are not in fact toxic. I realize that it is important to the narrative that every citizens of the monster world believe that they are because that is where all the drama comes from. If Sully didn’t immediatly believe that Boo was toxic he would have felt no need to hide her from the world and then we would have no plot to the movie. I just would have liked some clarification on why all the monsters are so willing to believe that children are toxic without any evidence. Even if it was briefly explained in an aside like “Wow children really AREN’T toxic! All our previous tests were wrong!” that would have been enough for me. It’s a slight weakness in the script I think.
As for Finding Nemo??? ……. Damn you got me. I do sound like a crazy person don’t I? And maybe I am. What I was trying to say was that Marlin is visibly surprised that Dory can read, implying that it is an uncommon skill for a fish to have in this established universe in which fish talk and have teeth and go on field trips. If reading was a skill that all fish could have I would have been okay with it. They can speak so why not read? But since reading was a skill specific only to Dory, it made less sense.
Thanks for reading! I don’t ask that you agree with me I just wouldn’t have been able to sleep if I thought that you thought I was not a Pixar fan. Also thanks for giving me an opportunity to debate such random things about these movies that I love. Please feel free to respond with counter points (or if you want to call me a sad strange little man again that’s cool too).
I look forward to hearing from you but If not, cheers and I hope you enjoy Monsters University! I am super stoked for it!
Mediocrity Mediocrity, and the inevitability of.
EDIT: I should probably preface this by saying I am an avid Pixar fan as much of what follows in this post will sound contrary to that. I love Pixar to death. I’ve seen all of their releases with the exception of Brave in theaters, Toy Story is my favorite movie of all time, and I wil often spend hours listening to audio commentary from the brilliant men and women behind who put so much effort into these brilliant works of art and storytelling.
People love Pixar movies so much that they are willing to ignore all plot holes or gaps in internal logic. I don’t know why Pixar gets a free pass on this because a lot of these are glaringly obvious. Perhaps people are willing to forgive lapses such as these if the overall experience of watching the movie is a positive one that gives you good feelies on the inside (to be sure Pixar does this better than almost anyone else in the business. Anyway, here is my analysis of several moments in Pixar films that if you stop to think about them for 8 seconds make absolutely no sense and make a substantial amount of the films plots impossible. Spoilers ahead.
Toy Story: After removing themselves from an exploding rocket high above the city street, Woody and Buzz are plummeting toward the ground at a terrifying 9.8 m/s/s. It seems that all hope is lost when all of a sudden Buzz, an action figure that has been established more than once to be “NOT A FLYING TOY,” manages to “fall with style” all the way into a safe landing in Andy’s car. Excuse me!?!?!? Who exactly are we kidding here?? We’re expected to believe that Buzz’s flimsy little plastic wings managed to catch a gust of wind in such a way that despite their complete lack of lift sent our heroes gliding through the air??? Not buying it.
Toy Story 2: Woody is supposedly a highly collectible, rare original vintage cowboy doll from a popular 50s TV show but somehow has no knowledge of this whatsoever. If he truly is a collectible of high value, Woody must have been originally manufactured at the peak of the show’s popularity 50 years before the events of Toy Story 2. If this is true, we must ask ourselves what happened in Woody’s life that caused him to forget all life before Andy. Can toys even lose their memories? Perhaps he is repressing a traumatic event from decades passed? Ripe prequel opportunities here.
Monsters Inc.: Everyone in the Monster world seems to believe that humans are toxic despite there being LITERALLY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS AT ALL!!! Wouldn’t the Child Detection Agency have a few kids in quarantine so that they could study them and realize that they pose no threat? Have there really been no peer-reviewed studies on child toxicity in the monster world? One may point to historical events such as the plague for evidence of the Monster’s fear of human toxicity, but the Plague was largely an air-born virus and the Monsters are really only concerned with physical contact. Additionally the phrase “toxic” is used repeatedly, which is very distinguishable from “diseased.”
Finding Nemo: There is no way that Dory knows how to read. There just isn’t folks. This poor fish cant remember a conversation she had 8 second ago and you’re trying to tell me that she can process and interpret symbolic representations of verbal speech?? Even if we assume that Dory learned to read prior to some sort of Memento-esque brain trauma that prevents her from making new memories, it’s still INCREDIBLY uncommon for a fish to know how to read in this reality given the surprise with which Marlin acts upon discovering Dory’s ability. Marlin certainly managed to go his whole life without picking up the skill. What use would a fish have for reading anyway? What was it about Dory’s pre-brain injury life that made this a lucrative skill to have? Also ripe for prequel opportunity.
Cars: I can buy pretty much any concept as long as a film’s internal logic isn’t deeply flawed. I can totally accept the concept that talking cars exist and occupy a world of their own but HOW DID THESE CARS BUILD ALL THESE BUILDINGS THAT THEY HAVE!?!?! They don’t have opposable thumbs! They can’t manipulate basic tools! How could they possibly build complex infrastructure that is made exactly to their unique car-sized specifications!?!?! The only way the world of cars makes any logical sense is if, one day, humans were enjoying their natural everyday lives when all of a sudden cars developed sentience!! Cars, being one of the leading killers of humans already, have no problem decimating most of the population and only spare the lives of architects, engineers, demolition experts, and construction workers. These survivors are then forced to demolish all human infrastructure and rebuild it to accommodate the cars and their specific needs. When finished, the cars kill off the remainder of the human race so that they may luxuriate in their new world without the tyranny of humans always sitting inside them and driving them places they don’t want to go. I would go broke paying for tickets to that prequel.
Ratatouille: Critics gave this movie relatively good reviews despite the fact that much of its plot hinges on our willingness to believe that a rat could gain complete control over the actions of a human being by tugging on locks of his hair … This is what we call “bullshit of the rankest vintage.”
Up: Regular helium balloons are not uprooting any house and flying it anywhere of any significant distance. Period. Also, if Carl is in his 70s, then Muntz has to be at least in his early 90s and I’m sorry but I don’t care how in shape they are neither one of them is doing what those two did at the end of that film at such advanced ages.
Toy Story 3: Andy places a garbage bag full of Toys at the bottom of an extended ladder that leads up into the attic. When he leaves the bag and the ladder unattended for a moment the spring in the ladder’s mechanism compresses ALL BY ITSELF, hoisting the ladder back up into the attic and setting in motion the series of events that eventually lead the Toys to Sunnyside Daycare. I have not experienced a single ladder in my life that will just retract willie nillie when it is already extended into a locked position. This plot contrivance is of special annoyance for me because it probably could have been done more convincingly with just another couple script rewrites.
Cars 2: See entry on Cars.
Okay that’s all I can come up with off the top of my head. As for The Incredibles, A Bugs Life, and Wall-E, nothing comes immediately to mind because I haven’t seen those films in quite some time. I believe The Incredibles to be the film with the most airtight internal logic; though I could be wrong. Wall-E I know for certain has a few errors but I haven’t watched it recently enough to accurately articulate the specifics. I have not yet seen Brave.
CISPA is a nightmare.
wow toy story 3 did you have to be such a fucking disappointment