You know why Lightyear is suddenly getting bad reviews when Disney/Pixar never does, and why they are seeming to set this up to fail?
They want Pixar to only make stuff for Disney+ and not theaters, and they need a way to justify it. At the same time they want to get good PR for being "serious" about having LGBT stories.
What easier way to do both then to put in a gay kiss so it gets banned from China and a bunch of other countries so it can never make back its budget? And make the usual circlejerk critics who even said Rescue Rangers was good to hate it in the west.
And when it does fail they can say "whoops, there isn't enough confidence in your films even with your biggest IP, guess all Pixar films will be for Disney+ only now"
They did similar where the wanted to kill off 2d animation so they put Winnie the Pooh 2011 to compete with the final Harry Potter film.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>Inb4 OP predicts the next major announcement from d*sney
frick Disney and frick wypipo
Frick Disney and frick Black folk.
one struggle
Frick Black folk
I don't know what your racial background is, but I guarantee you are better off now than you would be without white people.
Disney should be more concerned about WDAS. Strange World has all the ingredients of a bomb. Is Disney trying to get everybody out of theaters other than MCU and Avatar?
a philly radio station sounds like the least of their problems
Well, yes. Why they should tolerate theaters demanding a part of the ticket price when streaming platforms you own won't complain?
Still they can say they burn a lot of money in Star Wars productions
you still get more money out of ticket sales, dummy.
A 6 year old boy watched a woman get impregnanted by another woman in 1995.
They had a sex scene in the movie?
thats not what kissing does anon. ask your parents again
It is a fictional work.
I wanna boop that snoot and fondle those beans.
What are you talking about?
this, and now many people are trying to say "well is a dictional universe where gays were acceptable back in the 90s". of course this is the same Toy Story whose director of the 4th movie blatantly made fun of fans for creating the theory that all pixar movies are connected. As a content creator, i would wish for fans to come up with something so fun out of my stuff while these jerks laugh at them
>of course this is the same Toy Story whose director of the 4th movie blatantly made fun of fans for creating the theory that all pixar movies are connected
They really didn't, though.
they did, watch the movie with director's commentary, they mention that the mother is reading a book that is a jab to the pixar universe theory
That's not mocking the fan, it's just an easter egg that is meant to be taken in jest.
>it's the future
>just one white person exist
what a horrible future we are living, at least star trek made it optimistic
>taken in jest
>a movie that can't follow it'w own timeline by making molly older than she is supposed to be in the flashback
>character assassinating woody and buzz being flanderized based on his first characterization in the first movie
highly doubt it
>>just one white person exist
thee were plenty of whites in that movie.
assassinating woody
They didn't.
>They didn't.
They did, though.
qrd?
We’re not going to support Lightyear even if you manage to convince us it would be contrarian, OP.
So, I just came back from seeing the movie, it's not bad but the leaked villain twist was true
The gay aspect is simply Buzz's friend settling in and marrying an other woman, while Buzz refuse to abandon the mission and keep moving in time 4 years by 4 years.
By the way, maybe it was already known, but the connection between this movie and Toy Story is that this is a movie that actually exist in Andy's world from which the toy come from and this is basically that movie we are watching. It's said at the beginning of the movie so it's not really a spoiler.
Thanks GonnaSeeBuzzLYanyway
.
If this was the movie Andy watched then he would have been bored out of his mind and would have gotten something else for his birthday.
He would have been a kid, he wouldn't know shit.
I thought Jurassic Park 3 was fantastic as a kid.
Just admit you forgot to pay people off, OK?
The film is good, I can see kids easily being entertained by it. The robot cat is actually an enjoyable character.
It's a future version of Buzz who stole a tech far in the future to go back in time to stop the crash. He need the crystal to make a final jump back in time, but present Buzz stop him because it would cause people to never exist
It's, as many had complained before, kind of lame evil twist, and I honestly think it would have been better if Zurg had been just an evil being, but I think the writers felt obligated to have some kind of deep villain or an important reason to be the antagonist as well as having an more important connection with the story and the hero and that's all they could come up with.
I have the feeling, they tried to come up with something else, like a conspiracy within the settlement to stop Buzz from succeeding his mission, might be just me, but it look like there were seed of such a plot here and there, but it seems like the writers couldn't come up with something that would satisfy them wit that direction.
I'd say there are some contrivance that can easily be ignored, such as future Buzz yeeting the moment he is not welcomed as an hero when he succeed to have a working crystal, which is out of character, imo, and making "accepting the new situation to the point of forbidding to keep trying anyway" that really feel forced and do'nt make any much sense if you think about it, which make me think it was tacked on rather late in the writing when they couldn't find something else for the villain.
the character dynamic is great anyway and Buzz is a great charismatic hero in it when he doesn't try to go in the future.
Oh,n by the way, they actually name the villain Zurg (it's the only word the robots are able to say, as they are trying to pronounce the villain's actual name)
As for reference to Star Command, I do'nt if it was intentional, but they establish Buzz preferring to work alone and not liking having to deal with rookies, such as it was the case in the first episode of Star Command.
And the robot that serve Zurg all have a beautiful yellow paint, just like the Hornet that serve Zurg in the Star Command show, with nice little wing that deploy in the back. Again, I do'nt know if that's intentional.
Zurg and his robot look actually cool, this is Zurg, in design, unfortunately, the villain twist kinda make it all a bit lame.
Isn't Zurg Buzz father?
Only in the toy's bio, apparently.
How it is explained that Toy!Buzz with a unique belt?
Makes more sense, The Toys watched the show.
It's a toy that came several years after the movie, as the toymaker are trying to come up with new things so that people keep buying the figure again.
In the cartoon series, Zurg was never Buzz's father and only ever said it to catch him off guard in a fight.
>The film is good
lol, well thanks for confirming that you're a paid shill. Explains why you type like a pajeet.
I think it was the animated series, Same deal with American godzilla.
lmao it goes further than American Godzilla, think of it as Mighty Ducks.
The way it works, the Movie first came out, which got a toy that was gifted to Andy and then later there was a TV show loosely base on the movie, as it is sometimes the case.
They toy company saw that the movie was ass and did something better with the TV show which the toys are based off of given how Zurg in TS2 has the design of the animated series.
I think the toy came first and it was popular enough to make games, a cartoon, and more toys as we can see in TS2, with Zurg being based on the cartoon instead, as the cartoon was developed alongside the Zurg toy.
The intro to the cartoon movie proves that the cartoon was based on the toys. The film doesn't exist in the Toy Story universe. Buzz was a Bionicle style toy with enough popularity to warrant multimedia tie ins. Origins were most likely a comic or something before being rebooted into a toyline. No i dication he was a movie hero.
>The intro to the cartoon movie proves that the cartoon was based on the toys.
It doesn't really state that, not that it forbid the exitence of the movie if it was anyway.
>Buzz was a Bionicle style toy
Not really, Bionicle started a toy, Buzz's character already existed before the toy.
>it doesn't explicitly, not really
Keep headcanonning to make yourself right, please.
>Keep headcanonnin
There is zero headcanon, anon:
-Buzz's toy is based on an existing character: canon established by TS1
-Videogame made based on the new poplar toy: canon established by TS2
-the toy was based on the lightyear movie: canon established by the lightyear movie.
where is the headcanon, anon?
And why do you insist so much that they can't make a game based on the toy model when you had no issue with that before the Lightyear movie existed?
>Same deal with American godzilla
Release the original black and white Japanese Akira Ritoyeru
>This gay kiss
>In 1995
Most unrealistic thing about it
At least on family sitcom, there was actually a growing positive depiction of gays, o it's not completely out of place
Dude when you're a kid you'll sit through fricking anything if you're already hooked.
What the deal with the villain thing?
This is bullshit. Zurg was Buzz's dad in Toy Story 2. This twist contradicts that entirely. No, the only film Andy saw was pic fricking related, before his mom bought him the VHS and this is what Buzz was based off of in his universe. Frick this film.
>This is bullshit. Zurg was Buzz's dad in Toy Story 2
And he was just a villain with no connection to Buzz in the cartoon. So I guess he is only his father in the toy Bio.
The father thing gets acknowledged in the cartoon as something Zurg said once to catch Buzz off-guard.
Like others have said, "Buzz Lightyear of Star Command" is probably what the Buzz Lightyear tie-in toyline was based on. The CGI film is probably the movie the cartoon was based on.
Like how Free Willy was originally a movie, but then had a cartoon where he fights an evil cyborg that had frick-all to do with the movie.
>Like how Free Willy was originally a movie, but then had a cartoon where he fights an evil cyborg that had frick-all to do with the movie.
Thanks frick for reminding me of this, I still haven't managed to come over that, somehow.
In that case, they should release the Star Command show on D+ to complete the circle.
>And this was the show based on the movie that Andy watched that made him want to get a toy!
That still doesn't make sense, because the video game they play in TS2 depicts the chartacters as their toy aesthetic. The cartoon being a spinoff adaptation with alt bios is sensible, but why would the toys in the world look like neither the film or the cartoon, but the game made for the film looks like the toys? It makes no sense, stop trying to justify it. They made that bullshit "it's what Andy watched" line as a reason for this movie existing, when we all know it xists just to milk Toy Story nostalgia while rehashing an already done sci-fi movie plot.
The character in the video game still has plastic mold lines and screw holes, so clearly the video game was based on the toy.
I'd say the toys look reasonably like the cartoon, the cartoon is just more stylized/simplified. Example: the Ninja Turtles cartoon.
>e, but why would the toys in the world look like neither the film or the cartoon
The final armor design look exactly like the toy, a bit more detailed, but that make sense that a toy has a design a bit more simplified.
In the movie, he even has his retractable wings.
And it's not just a subtle design change, Zurg is a fricking giant in the new film and neither the toys nor cartoon depict him this way. Look, if the new film looked like the video game in the beginning of TS2, the plot could literally be anything. The fact that the designs are so far removed makes no fricking sense. Pic related should be how the Buzz Andy recieved looked if this was the film he saw.
>Look, if the new film looked like the video game in the beginning of TS2
the model in the videogame of TS2 is the same as the toy in TS2 and it's basically the same model as the final space-suit they don in the new movie, it just look more detailed, so it's not really an issue, there.
>it's basically the same
If you remove the colors it's not at all the same. The aesthetic is all fricking off. If Buzz looked like this in the new film, or something similar, retaining the same sillouette with just extra panelling and greebles, I'd buy into the "this is what he saw" pitch. It fails to make any sense in universe.
>If you remove the colors it's not at all the same.
I can tell you that the final suit look like the suit of the toy in TS1. I do'nt know where you got that pic, but it look nothing like that in the movie.
You're not even reading my posts correctly, it is a retcon, stop simping, find me a film where the toys look nothing like the source material and then a tie in game was made using the toy designs over the film designs.
>Zurg is a fricking giant in the new film and neither the toys nor cartoon depict him this way.
tbh that is the kind of change i can see happening in universe, having characters be really mismatched size wise is a pain in the fricking ass from a cartoon making perspective and not ideal from a toyline perspective either, since you'd want to be able to mash them together
Toy lines used to look for excuses to have huge guys they could sell for more money all the time.
Notably, the commercial Buzz watches that finally makes him realize he's a toy doesn't mention a movie or TV show at all.
I can forgive Toy Story 2 because it's just a playful gotcha opening. I still remember watching it in the theater as a kid and realizing, "Oh, this is gonna be a dream or something!" Later on, they use the video game playthrough strategy as a way of sneaking into Al's apartment, so it's just more of old Pixar's expert storytelling that doesn't let anything go to waste.
Easy, the movie moderately ok in the box office but the TV show made more money. So the company ditched the Movie designs for the show ones.
>the movie was meh even in universe
lmao
I mean, I can totally believe no one cared that much about the movie. But as a kid and seeing this commercial I would 100% beg my parents for a Buzz.
>One hour later...
Bro you shot on everyone else they're only come acks will be headcannon. You buttfricked them with facts and lore and hit a fatality.
Not really
see
>Like how Free Willy was originally a movie, but then had a cartoon where he fights an evil cyborg that had frick-all to do with the movie.
Well you completely derailed anything I was potentially thinking about the thread topic. Now all I can think about is that this is a thing that existed.
Also Jessie could talk to animals because he was a white guy with some native american superpower. I miss that show.
Can we just have the thread be about this crazy ass show instead of watching monkeys throw shit at each other over fictional toy timelines?
Toy bios having a separate continuity is a thing. Like how the original Beast Wars toys claim Optimus Primal and Megatron are the original characters who got reconfigured by a bomb, while the cartoon and every other continuity says they're descendants. Some of the He-man and Ninja Turtle toys have wild backstories that the cartoon threw out, too.
The movie outright start with saying Andy's toy is based on this movie, though.
From what I understand, it's Movie->toy->cartoon
there is actually a sort of joke in the movie about that, hen Zurg open his armor and Buzz see him, Buzz see old future Buzz and call him "dad", before future Buzz correct him
So, my theory is that the toy bio of Zurg was done by someone who didn't saw the movie but got mistaken in thinking Zurg was Buzz's dad because of what he had heard of this movie.
Then the cartoon came and competently dropped the dad thing (only to make a joke about it where Zurg bluff Buzz saying he is his dad, only to say he was lying). So Zurg is only Buzz's dad for the toy.
Again, it's a bullshit retcon.
But the buzz cartoon came out after the toyline. So they made major redesigns for the toys, then redesigned further for the cartoon?
It's still too far removed aesthetically.
Because in Toy Story's universe, the game was made to promote a toyline that started off as just that. A toyline with it's own lore thst was so booming, a spinoff cartoon and video game were eventually produced. Buzz was the HeMan of Toy Story. Find me a movie where the toys look vastly different, then a game made for said film that uses the toy designs over the film designs. You won't.
>But the buzz cartoon came out after the toyline. So they made major redesigns for the toys, then redesigned further for the cartoon?
It happens. A recent example could be the BotBots cartoon.
>Again, it's a bullshit retcon.
There was no retcon.
>But the buzz cartoon came out after the toyline. So they made major redesigns for the toys?
here was no redesign.
>It's still too far removed aesthetically.
You haven't seen the final design at the end of the movie.
>Because in Toy Story's universe, the game was made to promote a toyline
that's never explicitly stated. Might also be a "lego game" case.
Once again, the toy is based on the new movie, in Andy's universe. And the cartoon, come out after the Toy is released, in andy's universe too.
This film placing itself in the Toy Story universe at all is a retcon.
>you haven't seen the end
The shape of the man himself, his head, eyes, sillouette, are all wrong. Zurg being fifteen feet tall with legs instead of a hovering skirt is wrong. Find me one toyline where the designs are as far removed feom the sourse material as TS2 Buzz and Zurg are from their Lightyear couterparts, then find me a game using the toy designs over the film ones. Nobody writing Toy Story intended for Buzz to be a film tie in toy. Prove to me that Andy saw a movie with Buzz in any material before this film's production. Pixar had no intention of this ever being a thing twenty years ago. It's a retcon, and a sloppy one at that.
>This film placing itself in the Toy Story universe at all is a retcon.
Not really, it bring new information, but doesn't really change anything that was established.
>The shape of the man himself, his head, eyes, sillouette, are all wrong.
You have never seen toy based on movie characters?
It's like you have never paid attention to how Toy tie-in to a franchise usually work before.
Well he is described as "The world's greatest superhero, now the world's greatest toy!" That sounds like there was another media of sorts being adapted. Although that term seems odd for this version of Buzz Lightyear.
Assuming that the show is even canon (which is not), it's left ambiguous whether or not Zurg is actually Buzz's dad or it's just Zurg gaslighting Buzz.
I think he is because he then plays with another Buzz like a dad.
It’s literally just a tired Darth Vader joke.
How does the movie end? Do we get the full Gunbuster rip-off with Buzz being transported thousands of years into the future?
Buzz accept that the settlement is their new home and he is put in charge of creating a new Space Rangers Corp for this settlment, to become part of the galactic alliance.
the main thing that bug me from this is that to rejoin the galactic alliance, they'll have to recreate a crystal anyway, making Buzz's "acceptiation" of the new situation feel a bit empty.
The main contradiction in the movie is how "accept to live there" is almost forced and they even seems to forbid attempts to find a way to leave the planet.
this was needed to create a sense of urgency for Buzz, but the final of "accepting we are stranded here" do'nt mesh well with, "we will still be part of the Galactic alliance" conclusion.
So the moral of the story is give up? Lmao
The story of a white guy realizing he needs to help his Diverse friends instead of exploring space.
More like, don't let your goal in live turn into obsessions that will hurt others, by trying to change what can't be changed.
almost all stories have protagonists getting help from their side-kick. Buzz is basically a mentor to all of them.
>instead of exploring space.
The movie ends with restoring the Space Rangers Corp and resuming space exploration, but with the settlement used as the new home-base.
>Toy story came out in 94
>Implying a children's movie with an openly lesbian couple would ever be made, let alone shown in theaters
Other discrepancy with our universe, in our universe, toy don't become alive.
We don't know that. And neither do they.
or do they?
so what's the point of andy being human? why not all humans in toy story are blue skinned? after all now we are taking discrepancies into the conversation. just admit you're a paid shill
I mean, nothing forbid it. The point is wanting a 1:1 with out world is just ridiculous.
that was the point of the movie, "what if toys were alive" that's it, there was no deep analysis, just a dumb superficial situation but nowadays everything needs to have some sort of iceberg theory or whatever is called
there isn't really any icberg theory there, though, it's just a trivia about the lightyear franchise that has no actual importnace in the movie itself.
The movie doesn't seem like something that would be made in 1995. There's no way a lesbian kiss scene would've made it in a kids film in 1995. And there's no way the CGI animation is that good in 1995.
I hated the Zurg twist
>entire movie has Buzz mistreating AI, autopilots, and robots
>There's an AI named IVAN (stands for Interactive Virtual Automated Navigator or something)
>was fully prepared for Buzz to go far enough into the future that Star Command created a rogue version of IVAN that took over everything
>became self aware, began calling itself Emperor Zurg (Z-class Ultimate Ruler of the Galaxy)
>surprise, it's actually old Buzz from another timeline that apparently exists
>because the theme is regret and obsessing over the past
>bad Buzz does this and it's bad
>do you get it? Do you get that it's bad?
>everyone makes mistakes and Buzz's lesbian friend still mattered despite Buzz's mistake, that is the theme of the movie, mistakes are okay and people matter, have you gotten it yet???
movie has Buzz mistreating AI, autopilots, and robots
's an AI named IVAN (stands for Interactive Virtual Automated Navigator or something)
>>was fully prepared for Buzz to go far enough into the future that Star Command created a rogue version of IVAN that took over everything
self aware, began calling itself Emperor Zurg (Z-class Ultimate Ruler of the Galaxy)
I really wish they would have go that way.
>Emperor Zurg (Z-class Ultimate Ruler of the Galaxy)
This would've been neat. For a brief moment I thought maybe it was going to be the Rookie from the start of the film.
Not that it wouldn't have worked before, but I feel like I have heard of that before.
every D+ Pixar release was supposed to come out in theaters originally
Checks out. I'll have to wait until I can pirate it and judge for myself. Pixar has been resoundingly "meh" lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a stinker.
That said, not like it matters a single fricking bit; people LOVE trash as long as it makes them recognize things and clap.
It doesn't really make sense with what Buzz says in Toy Story, in that case it should be: toy, weird ass movie, cartoon that tries to be more like the toy.
>It doesn't really make sense with what Buzz says in Toy Story
How so?
>Right now, poised at the edge of the galaxy, Emperor Zurg has been secretly building a weapon with the destructive capacity to annihilate an entire planet! I alone have information that reveals this weapon's only weakness. And *you*, my friend, are responsible for delaying my rendezvous with Star Command!
> As a member of the elite Universe Protection Unit of the Space Ranger Corps, I protect the galaxy from the threat of invasion... from the evil Emperor Zurg, sworn enemy of the Galactic Alliance!
Zurg is far more powerful in the toy lore.
see
Also, the movie actually conclude with Lighyear and his new friends recreating the space rangers Corps and making the Settlement a new place for the galactic alliance there is a final post-post-post credit scene (after the Pixar logo) where you see Zurg's armor reactivating.
if lightyear movie was the movie that led to the creaiton of the toy, then why bother with the cat? in fact why not include the tiny cat with the buzz toy? also isn't it weird that buzz only got to have a toy while the rest don't have one? or is this a social commentary on how the only white man in the movie gets the privilege of having a toy?
>if lightyear movie was the movie that led to the creaiton of the toy, then why bother with the cat?
see
I'd have supported it if it followed the star command cartoon. It does not so it can frick off right along with Pixie
>Space adventure replaced with Tumblr fan service navel gazing.
Humanity dies with Earth.
We could have stopped Adventure Time before it was too late.
The space adventure was not replaced. This is definitely a space adventure. that Buzz used to be friend with a lesbian did in no way cause the movie to be les space-adventury.
I hate the reception to this movie. I love Lightyear's aesthetics, and I want to see more like it. Unfortunately it's the de facto Pixar B movie.
So many morons think this shits on the Toy Story brand, when the 4th movie already did that. There are more possibilities from this kind of expansion. I'd love to see a western movie about Woody, but Rango already exists.
>I'd love to see a western movie about Woody, but Rango already exists
Since Woody already has a definitive origin as the merch for a puppet show, I doubt they could really pull the same trick. Also believing for even one second that a Pixar film would allow Woody to carry a gun is precious.
Look, if you like the movie, more power to you. Maybe it’s an entertaining flick on its own right, but so far it seems awful uninteresting to me. And all that “it’s the movie that Andy watched” just feels pointless as does the attempts to connect it and the rest of the Buzz Lightyear/Toy Story media. It’s a spin-off, simple as. Everything else just feels like a vain attempt to elevatate into something that it isn’t.
>And all that “it’s the movie that Andy watched” just feels pointless
It has no impact, but it's a nice nod.
A jarring one though. I would have bought it if they tried to recreate the adventure/sci-fi feel of movies from the early 90s, but everything about this movie feels 2020s. Not something Andy would have watched back then.
Know what it would have been nicer? Just say outright that this a new, rebooted version of Buzz that is also releasing in thr TS universe (maybe have the crew from TS4 mention it). I think that would have been a lot more respectful both to the new movie itself and the older media, not this unplausible “this was the original Buzz all along!” thing.
>I would have bought it if they tried to recreate the adventure/sci-fi feel of movies from the early 90s, but everything about this movie feels 2020s. Not something Andy would have watched back then.
It's definitely something Andy would have watched. And it clearly recreate the classic adventure/sci-fi feeling.
you're a dumb homosexual, or a shill
If they just said this is an in-universe reboot film based off the original Buzz Lightyear IP it would make more sense and seem more authentic.
The cartoon WAS the reboot, just like the Jumanji cartoon.
A tie-in cartoon that aired around the time the original toys came out is not a reboot.
You're making it sound like a bigger deal than it was. The cartoon did basically the same thing.
Maybe I am. I get peeved easily by stuff like that. Ignoring that tho, the movie looks kinda dull, but wouldn’t say no if someone invited me to watch it. It just ain’t something I’ll get out of my way to watch with my own money.
>we now debate the fictional universe of a fictional cartoon in a pre-established franchise
normally it takes decades of yoga practice to suck your own dick but Lightyear gave it to us in under a few months!
he is telling you to check these
Same shit they pulled with Princess and the Frog when they wanted to kill 2D animation
I’m all for killing 3d animation if this is what we get
4D animation, let's go!
So, some things for how things line up. Cartoon in no way was the originator of Buzz; watch the intro Jessie and other Toy Story 2 additions are there when they get it and it's described as a "new" movie, but you also get Buzz being impressed at the existence of a Buzz Lightyear movie in the first place. The cartoon also includes the LGMs from Pizza Planet (the toy versions sport the Pizza Planet logo) and as a product/mascot for a restaurant/entertainment chain likely existed before Buzz; their inclusion is likely an in-universe brand deal. Rex is playing a Buzz Lightyear game modeled after the toy version in Toy Story 2.
So the original release was:
Buzz Toyline > Buzz game + Toy re-release with game tie-ins > Buzz animated movie/cartoon
With Lightyear, it basically just shoves the live action movie in-front as the originator. And it's likely that if successful and they continue to make more films, they'll further retcon that the game/Buzz re-release with the belt is actually a tie-in to whatever sequel they intend to make. That said, with how the toy shelves in 2 only feature Buzz and Zurg from the toyline and Buzz's box only mentioning Zurg as another character in the franchise, it's pretty obvious that a movie spawning the franchise (particularly a movie so heavy on including sidekicks and talking robot cats) doesn't match the original idea of how Buzz was made in-universe and is a pretty big retcon that leaves conflicts at how poorly thought out the decision was.
They should've just made the movie as an in-universe reboot, ala Bayformers, that Bonnie is seeing or something. Trying to treat it as a movie that Andy saw is just nostalgia baiting.
Thank you.
>You're not even reading my posts correctly, it is a retcon
see
It's not a retcon, seeing even TS1 establish
>And to reiterate, they have tie in toys right now that you can purchase that look exactly as Buzz does in the new film, softer sculpts and all, and they're still a stark contrast to the Toy Story look of the character.
there was something before the toy.
Not an issue. Nothing forbid for the movie to be what the toy is based on.
Again, that's not how the final design of the suit look like. the final suit look exaclty liek the toy in TS1, only less detailed.
And pointing out the toy do'nt look like what the character look in the movie clearly show you know nothing about Toy adaption of movie character.
>Buzz Toyline > Buzz game + Toy re-release with game tie-ins > Buzz animated movie/cartoon
>With Lightyear, it basically just shoves the live action movie in-front as the originator.
see
at 0:13, the commercial says "The world's greatest super hero now the world greatest toy". So, even in TS1, they establish that the toy is based on an already existing franchise.
So, no, it never started as a toy, there was something before. It's not really an issue that this something in question was a movie.
Prove it was a film and not a comic.
Then find my example. Otherwise Buzz is like Heman, comic with toyline and then cartoon, and this film is a bullshit retcon.
>Prove it was a film and not a comic
I do'nt need to. It could be anything, so it can be a movie.
> find me a film where the toys look nothing like the source material
Boy you have no idea
>I coomed on a Mace Windu figure every day for a year and this was the result.
Sillouettes are the same. Bad QC is not the same as a total design overhaul.
It doesn't. Find me
My example. To illustrate further, imagine if Bayverse Transformers was released in the Toy Story universe, and all the Optimus toys were his G1 toy. Then they made an Xbox game where his clunky ass was shown as his toy, not as the film character. That's what your shit retcon says happed to Buzz in Toy Story. Unless you can find me one example of this phenomenon happing in the real world, shut the frick up.
>Bad QC is not the same as a total design overhaul
Which isn't the case in the movie either. Like I have said several time already, the final space-suit they don at the end look like the toy design in TS1.
I do'nt know which is the saddest
-That you complain about something that can be so easily ignored it make no sense to obsess about it
-That you are not even right in your complain.
I think the saddest part is you consooming such a blatant retcon with no wuestions asked. Find me a movie with tie in toys that change the look of the character drastically, then a game being made for the film using the toy design over the film design.
>I think the saddest part is you consooming such a blatant retcon
That's beside the point. Not my fault you obsess over this non-sissue and try to make a big deal about it. at leastif you were right, but you have been shwon to be wrong several times.
And it's not a Retcon as retcon require to change things previously established.
Buzz was always based on something that existed before the toy.
The Transformers setting of the same generally story being retold many times with different aesthetics and motifs makes way more sense than claiming this movie is supposed to actually be from the early 90s and the other characters that are blatantly toyetic were completely ignored for BUZZ LIGHTYEAR.
>magine if Bayverse Transformers was released in the Toy Story universe, and all the Optimus toys were his G1 toy.
In real life, the Bay movie toys for the first movie looked less like the movie version than Buzz did. Maybe in the Toy story universe McFarlane toys made the Buzz figures for the second Buzz movie. Maybe there's super accurate Neca ones or imports. But in the 90's in a kids line you weren't getting that.
Now find me a game for Terminator or Transformers having their clunky innacurate toys as the in game models as opposed to their movie designs.
The PS2 game.
The model of the toy and the game aren't clunky or even inaccurate, they are simplified design.
Also, it could be a case of "lego game" where the game is based on the toy instead of the movie itself.
The game model literally has screw holes and captures batteries as a power source, like you said, depicting the game after the toys. Find me an irl example for this.
>muh Lego
Lego making games based off of established licenses is not the same. Those are Lego games using various themes. The Buzz toys aren't third party. They're the only toys produced for the character. The game taking their design over the film doesn't make sense. The game is a Buzz game. Not a (toy manufacturer) game.
Not a film. Retcon. There's never even proof Andy saw a film, his mom could have literally just gotten him the toy because his friends already had it and he wanted one too.
Reread my post. Find me an example of characters in a movie tie-in game that use designs based off of their toys and NOT their film design. Characters never in the film but that had toys are not what I am referring to.
>Find me an irl example for this.
Lego games.
>Lego making games based off of established licenses is not the same.
IT's exaclty the same as making game based on the toy figure.
Heck, Binaltech had a game based on the toy figure.
>Not a film. Retcon. There's never even proof Andy saw a film
You don't need proof, you only need that nothing cotnradict it. The fact that the TS1 movie establsih the toy is based on something else existing clearly establish this.
>his mom could have literally just gotten him the toy because his friends already had it and he wanted one too.
The commercial made it clear it's based on something else.
>Find me an example of characters in a movie tie-in game that use designs based off of their toys and NOT their film design.
Lego movie.
could be a tie-in game to promote the toy. Nothing Toy maker would be above of doing.
Find me a movie with a toyline that looks different from the film. Like how simple Buzz and Zurg look in Toy Story compared to Lightyear. Now find me one of those, with a movie tie in game, and the game models choose the toy designs instead of the film. Notice I said movie tie -in. Lego games are not movie tie-in games. They're Lego games based off of the Lego toys.
>Lego Movie
I said where the game chooses the toy designs INSTEAD OF the film designs. The Lego Movie figures look exactly as their film counterparts. Toy Buzz does not look like Lightyear Buzz.
>inb4 yes he does
>Find me a movie with a toyline that looks different from the film.
No, because the final suit Buzz don at the end look like the toy. How many time do I have to tell you?
I can think of examples, but they are all way to early in history to also have tie-in video games. By then I think toy lines tried to actually resemble the movie unless they were a specific existing toyline with an established aesthetic (like imaginext or lego).
The video game is my main point of contention. If a game was made for Lightyear, it'd look like Lightyear, not the goofy ass action figures.
You realize thats what games looked like in the 90's, right? You either had chunky stylized sprites or simple poly models.
If you take Toy Story 2 at face value the SNES can handle real life tier graphics.
Except the game in question looks like this, and would rather use the design of the Buzz TOY instead of the Buzz ACTOR that this new film claims that Andy saw, and the subsequecent toy franchise was spawned from. Find me where this has ever fricking happened.
If they don't use his likeness, they don't have to pay royalties.
>not using likeness
So why the toy designs? Why do Zurg and his robots need to be the toy designs? Give me an example of this happening irl. Make this retcon work.
If they want to make a video game to cash in on the popular movie, George Notlucas would cut into their profits if they base it on the movie. Since the company that produces the toys already pays for the name liscence, they can just base it on those ones instead.
Weird that the movie tie in game used this design for the Zurg Bots instead of the way they look in the movie. Hmmm. Weird.
>toyline/game original designs don't exist
The Zurg bots appeared in the movie Andy alledgedly saw and the toyline/game was made for There were no drones in the Bayverse movie. Reread my post. Find me where
this, the toy model beingg the in game model, would be done as opposed to the game model being like this
Can you just accept that someone on the development or marketing just didn't think through the implications of their claims? The main goal was to be a refresh for a popular series they could sell new merchandise of.
I do accept that, that's my whole point. It wasn't properly thought through. My who tirade is because people itt want to simp hard and pretend it makes perfect sense logistically when it doesn't.
So why do the Zurg bots in the game look like
but not like pic related?
The game developer thought they didn't look touch enough for final battle enemies or couldn't properly render those. Alternatively the toy company wanted to market their versions too. For all we know the 2022 Zurg bots are in other levels.
Yeahhuh. That's why Buzz and Zurg also look like toys and the characters the game is portraying according to Lightyear.
The Transformers Armada game uses the voice actors from the show, but the designs are closer tot he toys including the colors of the toys over the anime.
Literally how they looked in the show. The game models aren't riddled with screws and premolded fists, now are they? Zurd is stuck with his wheelie legs and corny toy blaster. Why not look like he does in the film the game supposedly is based on?
>Literally how they looked in the show
And also how the final space suit look like. you are shifting away from your point, there, anon.
Zurg in the game looks nothing like Zurg in Lightyear. Neither do his robots. Zurg should look like the right in the TS2 game instead of the left if the retcon your defending worked. Make sense now, moron?
>Zurg in the game looks nothing like Zurg in Lightyear
As established before, the game was made to sell the toy. Not really an issue.
also, the game only come later, in TS2, at this point the franchise has moved away from the movie and toward the toy and the cartoon.
>game was made to sell the toy
Find me an irl example that's not Lego. Find me a standalone action toyline based on a movie and then said toyline getting the game.
>Find me an irl example that's not Lego
>find me something that prove me wrong, aide from what has already proved me wrong.
No.
thats just you obsessing abotu somethign while being wrong.
An universe where toy-makers would make a game to maintain sales is not something I need to prove to you is realistic.
It is though. You want this retcon to make sense but it doesn't. You saying it doesn't need to make sense doesn't prove me wrong. Vise versa, if you want to say it does make sense, you would have to prove it does by giving me anything in real life comprable to the asspull retcon given of a game using toy models over the movie models.
>You want this retcon to make sense but it doesn't
You have said nothing that allow you to conclude that.
>ou saying it doesn't need to make sense
Not what I said. I actually provided you explanation for every point you mentioned.
>you would have to prove it does by giving me anything in real life comprable
I did. we all did. You are just ignoring them.
And you keep ignoring that the toy model is actually the same as how the movie look, for Buzz, at the end of it.
Now imagine this as the character model in a game as opposed to your pic.
There's not really a conflict here though. All three resemble the same entity.
Director has said the Star Command cartoon exists as a 90s spinoff to the 80s Lightyear movie trilogy and the Buzz and Zurg toys are based on the cartoon rather then the actual movie.
As much as Disney's trying to pretend Star Command doesn't exist including their promotional documentary on Disney Plus, Angus MacLane (who actually did the CG intros for Star Command) is sending mixed messages when elaborating on his take on the imaginary history of the Buzz Lightyear franchise
If the plot anon is to be trusted then Star Command and the Galactic Alliance are mentioned but not the focus of the film, so it looks like it is meant to be a sequel or something similar.
>Director has said the Star Command cartoon exists as a 90s spinoff to the 80s Lightyear movie trilogy and the Buzz and Zurg toys are based on the cartoon rather then the actual movie.
Believable, just still really weird that they would decide to inject throwback retro sci-fi aesthetics into the reboot, if they weren't based on SOMETHING from the original.
Unless like, the 80s movie is a reboot of an even earlier pulp series than the 90s show is actually drawing it's aesthetic from.
Per
, Pizza Planet was one of the sponsors of the cartoon series, which is why the LGMs are in it at all and the restaurant has more of those retro sci-fi aesthetics then the Ridley Scott look of the LIghtyear movie.
The star command artoon came out after the toys. Rewatch the intro to the pilot film where Andy's toys discuss it.
But the game Rex plays depicts toy Zurg instead of movie Zurg, and this would literally never happen.
>The star command artoon came out after the toys.
yes and?
>But the game Rex plays depicts toy Zurg instead of movie Zurg, and this would literally never happen.
Of course it would. Its a 90's toy based on an 80's movie and the toymaker are more focused on making their toy popular, especially as they are trying to resell the same toy but with new accessories.
the game will be made to sell the toys.
Find me 90s toys based on an 80s film with a game based on the 90s toys, homosexual.
>find that thing I have made very specific
No. Next you are going to complain there wasn't a real lightyear movie in the 80's in real life.
Lego games exist. that's all you need to consider realistic that a fictional toy company would do this.
Lego is not the same. The Buzz toys are the only toys that exist for that character. There is no Lego theme based off of a movie that has a game, but that movie has no other merch outise of the Lego sets and the Lego game. You can't find an example because standalone toy companies don't and have never made tie in games for a film franchise that use their toy instead of the film. Notice I said standalone companies. Not Lego.
>Lego is not the same.
It is. It's a game based on a toy to sell the toy.
>. You can't find an example because standalone toy companies don't and have never made tie in games for a film franchise that use their toy instead of the film
>toy companies have never made that very specific thing
Doesn't mean it's unrealistic one would do it, anon.
Rambo got toy based on his cartoon.
There's a clear difference in quality between what was shown before it's revealed to the audience it's just a video game and the moment it's shown Rex is playing the video game. For the 00s it's not that much of a stretch.
that still looks like a very reasonable aproximation of the 2007 CGI model
The toy of Buzz in TS1 is way closer to the movie design.
Hahahaha no.
Now you are just arguing in bad faith. Even the non-final version of the suit look closer to the toy in TS1 that this optimus look to the optimus in the bay movie.
>Why doesn't Buzz look like the movie?
Some of you guys didn't grow up in the 90's and it shows. 90's toys didn't go for complete movie accuracy, they bulked up the sculpts, simplified things, and so on. Does this seem like a movie that'd be out in the 90's? Not exactly, but the idea is there. Buzz didn't look exactly like a 90's toy, but a stylized interpretation of one. Pizza Planet doesn't exist either.
Except I did, and you're full of shit What about Zurg's massive overhaul? His fricking robots look absofrickinglutely different. Buzz in Toy Story is more comprable to this Batman toy. Now imagine this toy was the only toy made for the live action film, and a game is made that has this toy's design as the one used. Now, since it is Batman, lets pretend that the one film is the only depiction of the hero. No comics, no other films, no nothing. Just Batman Forever, with this toy, then a followup cartoon. It doesn't logistically make sense.
Those are all modern toys, I'm talking about the 90s, zoomers.
Find an example of a toy from the 90s that looked like Buzz Lightyear other than Buzz Lightyear to begin with.
Like I said, Buzz doesn't look like a 90's toy, but a stylized of what could be one. And relative to that,t he toy versions of movie characters int he 90's almost always went for more bulkier, muscled sculpts, brighter colors, and softer details than the movie.
And to reiterate, they have tie in toys right now that you can purchase that look exactly as Buzz does in the new film, softer sculpts and all, and they're still a stark contrast to the Toy Story look of the character. If your explanation made sense, this would be how the toy Andy got for his birthday looked.
Kenner or whatever who made the Buzz Lightyear toys redesigned the toy version heavily to look cooler. Why there is a lack of variety of Buzz Lightyear variants to the point of just first release, New Belt!, and Zurg is probably just a budget thing since the movie was remade in less than a year for a background joke about Grapple Hook Buzz Lightyear, Alien Disguise Buzz Lightyear, Reentry Fire Buzz Lightyear, etc.
Find me an instance where this happens.
Once again, the final suit they don at the end look exactly like the toy from TS1.
nice trips
Yeah, it almost say GAY MAY.
Plus after Frozen they never made a white princess ever again.
>and Elsa sells so damn good
huh
Do normalgays even know the cartoon exists?
Normalgays don't even watch toons
Quads of truth
Depends what you think of as normalgays. Most people define normal gays as zoomers-millenials. In that case, its mainly just late Millenials since the show was only on the air for like 4 years and only ran new episodes for a few months.
What if Buzz Lightyear had only 5 points of articulation?
So the story is pretty much Star Trek Voyager's finale with future Janeway trying to get present Janeway to prevent a disaster, only for the present version to double down?
Yes.
I’m confused. If having open lesbianism is controversial NOW then how could this be the movie Andy watched in 1995? Or does Toy Story take place in a much gayer timeline?
It isn't actually a period piece. The Andy who watched this and got the Buzz Lightyear toy was born in 2016.
maybe the movie director was the gene roddenbery of 90s explosion movies
thats got to be bullshit, the first film has the most 90s aesthetics known to man
Sliding time scale.
sounds crazy enough to be true.
but i also think it's getting bad reviews because they weren't expecting the premise being something a film college student would make for their film festival, but with a higher budget.
So tl;dr, the retcon of this movie being in the Toy Story universe doesn't hold water, since the video game based on the franchise shown at the start of Toy Story 2 would use the character designs in the Lightyear film, were it actually based on the film. Instead, because the Lightyear film never existed in the minds of Pixar twenty years ago, the game Rex plays uses the toyline designs for Buzz, Zurg etc. because that's all they were. Toys with tie in merch. Like Heman. There has never been an instance of a tie in game for a movie deciding to rip the models of the toys and use them instead of using the live action designs. The retcon doesn't make sense, it doesn't work, stop making excuses for such a lazy attempt at trying to explain why this film is necessary.
>So tl;dr, the retcon of this movie being in the Toy Story universe doesn't hold water
It does actually.
Don't make conclusion that goes against everything people have demonstrated.
>since the video game based on the franchise shown at the start of Toy Story 2 would use the character designs in the Lightyear film
Not if the game was made to sell the toy instead. It doesn't have to.
> the game Rex plays uses the toyline designs for Buzz, Zurg etc. because that's all they were.
Wrong, the TS1 movie establish the toy is already based on something else.
>There has never been an instance of a tie in game for a movie deciding to rip the models of the toys and use them
The armada games did.
>the retcon doesn't make sense
Not a retcon and you have been systematically shown that a movie pre-exiting to TS1 does make sense.
>There has never been an instance of a tie in game for a movie deciding to rip the models of the toys and use them instead of using the live action designs
Eat shit.
That's a tie in game for the cartoon you monumental disingenuous fricking prostitute. The characters look like the cartoon, which came before the toys. There is not one instance of what I want, which is what happens according to you nd Disney, with Buzz. The timeline of film, then toy, then game using hi def toy models nstead of film models, then cartoon, never has fricking happened.
>look how similar buzz looks
Make a side by side with those optimus pics and then have Zurg in there in place of Buzz, since he loomed absolutely different than this films version. A game with Zurg wouldn't use his toy. Just fricking give up. Nobody else agrees with you. Nobody else thinks the retcon works logistically and isn't sloppy.
>That's a tie in game for the cartoon you monumental disingenuous fricking prostitute. The characters look like the cartoon, which came before the toys
You are the only one acting disingenuous, anon.
The GB toys and cartoon came in the same years, meaning they were a joint operation.
the same can likely be assumed about the Buzz toy and and the star Command cartoon.
>he timeline of film, then toy, then game using hi def toy models nistead of film models, then cartoon, never has fricking happened.
>it didn't happens in the exact order I said it would so it doesn't count.
you are so full of shit, the Real ghostbusters did exactly that.
>take a side by side with those optimus pics and then have Zurg in there in place of Buzz
It wasn't about Zurg, dipshit, you tried to say it was laughable that the toy Buzz looked closeer to the movie Buzz than Otpimus did to his toy counterpart.
that's what it is about, now eat your words instead of moving the goalpost.
Also, Zurg is based on the cartoon, not the movie.
Except the Buzz toys and game came out well before the cartoon as shown by the intro to the Star Command movie, and the toy and cartoon look different. There was a game made irl for Star Command, and it's actually modelled after the cartoon, not the toy. Notice Buzz has his stylized look and isn't riddled in joint cuts and screw holes. Just shut the frick up. This retcon is a lazy one and doesn't work for anyone with any level of brainpower beyond that of a ten year old. Disney failed to make this film in the vein of a retro scifi film, failed to keep the character designs consiatant, etc. Now if this was a oneoff or a reboot, fine. The fact that this is being marketed as "the movie Andy saw" doesn't coincide with what they actually produced. This is the equivalent of the Blofeld/Spectre twist in the Daniel Craig Bond movies, or the Unicron retcon in the Bayverse films. If you shut your brain off it works. To the rest of us, it doesn't.
>muh goalpost
I said all over this thread that both Zurg and Buzz fail to look the same, you're latching to Buzz because thr difference is less egregious in his case. Still doesn't make sense why his game model looks like the toy in your timeline though. I suppose if i bash my head off a rock I'd see it a little more from your perspective.
>Except the Buzz toys and game came out well before the cartoon
We actually don't know if the game or the cartoon came first., so nah.
>There was a game made irl for Star Command, and it's actually modelled after the cartoon, not the toy.
that doesn't forbid for a promo game to have come out in 2000 to promote the new accessories of the toy, anon. Once again, if you have issue with that, that's an issue with TS2 in itself, the addition of the movie existing does not create this problem or make it any worse. Your issue is with TS2, not with the movie existing in Andy's universe.
> The fact that this is being marketed as "the movie Andy saw" doesn't coincide with what they actually produced.
It does, seeing that the commercial in the first Toy Story establish the toy is based on an already existing character.
>I said all over this thread that both Zurg and Buzz fail to look the same
No, anon, You laughed when told that the toy Buzz looked closer to the movie buzz than the toy Optimus looked like its toy counterpart.
You couldn't even admit being wrong and are now trying to make it about Zurg, when Zurg is based on the cartoon show.
>FMV cutscenes had been a thing for years by this point,
That was gameplay, anon. Rex got his character killed while he was playing.
You do'nt need a citation for a working explanation that works within the known information, anon.
This trivia ruin nothing and contradict nothing.
>The timeline of film, then toy, then game using hi def toy models nstead of film models, then cartoon
>then game using hi def toy models instead of film models, then cartoon
We don't know if the game or the cartoon came first.
Also, stop asking for game with high-def graphic in 2000, you know it's a bad faith demand.
You say that as if the movie existing make it inconsistent, but no games to begin with were based on their toy model to begin with. That's an inconsistency exist by TS2 and if only TS1 and TS2 existed and nothing else, The issue that "it has never happened in real life, i.e. making the game model based on the toy model, screw holes and all" would still be there.
So, no, that one last point on which you anchor everything of your argument (because, let's face it, Real Ghostbusters fit everything else) is not on the movie, it's on TS2 itself, so stating that the movie inspired the toy is not and has never been the glaring writing mistake you pretend to be. It was all on TS2.
Just let it go, anon, you are wrong.
Jesse is literally with the crew at the beginning of the Star Command film, Andy owned Buzz for an extensive period of time by this point. When thry roll out the pilot episode VHS they are talking about it being new. You are ignoring and altering events to fit your homosexual ass headcanon because you don't want to admit the marketing of this film doesn't work for what we recieved. Shut it.
>stop asking for Hi Def in 2000
FMV cutscenes had been a thing for years by this point, if there was a video game for Buzz in Andy's world there is no reason he should look like the toy and not the film.
>muh real Ghostbusters
Cartoon came first, shitheel.
Activision doing the rainbow on logo thing before it was cool.
I never thought people assumed this was being retconned as the origin for Buzz (the toy).
His gear and vehicles are clearly evoking old space-race hero aesthetics. This movie barely has that.
Unfortunately you expect to much from Disney drones.
they can easily say that Zurg is mistaken as Buzz's father or its a coverup lie from Star Command. Zurg even looked like Buzz in the show
Protip: this movie doesn't match the TS2 intro because they didn't care. They even said they beefed up Zurg based on Gundam because it made him actually threatening.
Are there any aliens in the film version of star command?
See this? this make sense.
Also, Pixar honcho finally acknowledging Star command. Joy. Maybe this means it will finally be released on D+
So why does the game use the toy designs? Consoomerist simp.
Because the game was designed as a tie-in to sell the toy.
It's at a point where they are re-issuing the toy with new accessory. gotta maintain the hype.
suck up
It really would've been more simple if they'd just did what some anon suggested and gone like "this is the modern Buzz Lightyear reboot that Bonnie is watching". Everything would be far more simple if they didn't try to make this Andy's favorite movie. It doesn't even look like it'd fit in the 1980s or 1990s; it looks and feels like a movie from the 2020s.
Also, the movie itself should explain everything plot-relevant. Patching shit up on Twitter like this is reminding me of fanfics, tumblr headcanons, and all sorts of fanwank.
>It really would've been more simple if they'd just did what some anon suggested and gone like "this is the modern Buzz Lightyear reboot that Bonnie is watching".
It's not really something that is complicated to begin with. They made a nice connection to the TS movies. they didn't need to, but it's an enjoyable nod.
Kinda funny that this means in universe kids only gave a shit about Buzz and Zurg since none of the diversity hires or the stupid robot cat got toys made of them and were replaced by original characters in the cartoon
lol this isn't the win they think it is, because it implies that the diversity characters and support cast was jettisoned because no one liked them. Why the frick not simply say it's a fricking reboot that Andy is watching now that he's 40, attempting to cash in the nostalgia is just fricking cheap.
you can tell the movie is bad when all the context is filled through tweets and not in...the actual movie. this is awful storywriting and the writers are saving their asses by reaching out some logic through their decisions knowing full well lightyear cannot fit into the universe and timeline they so much try to push. Also if we take examples like Terminator, Rambo and many other not suitable for children at its time, the differenc ehere is neither of those other movies had a talking robot cat that served as comic relief. they can't even stay consistent with whatever is they're doing
>you can tell the movie is bad when all the context is filled through tweets and not in...the actual movie.
this is just funny trivia. That tell nothing of the quality of the film itself.
trivia is extra content that you can live without knowing it and won't change how oyu percieve the media
i rly just dont care about buzz lightyear
also all their latest movies have came out on d+ so having to go to the cinema again to watch one seems a little stupid
specially since covid is about to return and we can enjoy direct to streaming movies again like it should always be
>Toy Story 4/Frozen 2: its okay to leave your family
>WIR 2: its ok to leave your friends
>Lightyear: its okay to give up
This kind of shit only gives /misc/tards more ammunition about demoralization. These moronic writers need to give up the mopey shit before people go ACTUALLY insane
Retcon or not, they should have had SOMETHING on Zurg's design to evoke the cape. Jetpack wings. some sort of skirt armor like you see on some Gundams. Something to set him apart from his robots more.
I can tell you Zurg at least look very Zurg-like. The cape is the only thing missing, but otherwise, everything is there.
Is there a deeper meaning behind the cat or is it just a shitty joke?
The cat is simply a side-kick companion that ends up being very useful to Buzz. I actually found it enjoyable.
>no aliens
>not even LGM
I don't even care if it's sequel bait. pass
One thing I don't understand is that they are marooned, but they can travel at the end, but they also ACCEPT they are marooned? How does that work if they can travel?
>How does that work if they can travel?
It really doesn't and it's one of my main grips with the movie.
Is it that they can't warp but they can fly to other planets?
No,they just resume space exploration, o I guess they figure the right formula for the crystal again at some point. It's the cat who figure it out, and the cat is still with them, so they could recreate it (though the cat lost the computer on which he had calculated the formula)
Anyone else think of this chap first time they heard "Zurg?"
Eh, Toy Story came out before OG StarCraft did.
funny you mention them.
Disney were about to sue Blizzard for using the name Zurg back then, only for one of their lawyers (not sure from whose side) pointed out they used E to spell Zerg, and now this movie comes out and there's space insects that look exactly like StarCraft 2 Zergs.
>Almost sued by Disney
>Almost sued by Games Workshop
Blizzard really was a troll.
So, to sum up
-Lightyear movie trilogy come in the 80's.
-90's get a toy from it
-Then a cartoon is made solely inspired by the 80's movie with a retor-sf look becuase Pizza planet was a big sponsor.
-Toy zurg is made based on the cartoon, with the dude in charge of the toy bio badly remembering that Zurg was Buzz's dad, because of Buzz first thinking old Buzz was his dad in the movie.
-A game is made to sell help sell the toy, probably came in a cereal box. (ahh, the 90's)
Wrong.
That's exactly what has been established by the commercial in TS1, by what is said in the movie and what is confirmed by
who made the Star command intro.
I am 40 years old, butthole. I remember what it was like before the internet, where I didn't have to deal with moron like you.
I am old enough that tie-in commercial video game I played on didn't even come on CD but on a fricking floppy.
played this shit and it was an awful version of "catch whatever fall from the sky why jumping over holes"
>I am 40
Hahahahaha I thought you were fricking moronic but holy shit, say no more. You type like a fifteen year old with aspergers. Fricking troglodyte. If you've been alive this long you should be even more perplexed by this asspull retcon since you lived through the 80s into the 90s and have never once seen what has happe ed in the Toy Story universe where the game uses toys instead of movie likenesses. God, you're pathetic.
>. If you've been alive this long you should be even more perplexed by this asspull retcon
There is no asspull.
TS1 explicitly said the toy is based on an existing franchise.
the toy look like Buzz look at the end of the movie.
I am only perpelexed by how you sperge about an issue that only exist in your head and how you have to make very specific rule to argue that it doesn't make sense.
>ahh the 90s
You never lived the 90s, zoomer. Stop talking like you know what your consooming.
Don't care. Not gonna see Buzz LY anyway.
Man if you guys think this movie is bad wait til you hear about the Mr. Potato Head movie.
I'm not joking either. They are working on it. Yes there will be a tribute "dedicated to the loving memory of Don Rickles" in it.
Why is this moronic tripgay so aggressively defending this incredibly mediocre movie? Are they a professional Disney shill or something? The whole conceit of "Lightyear is the original 90s movie that inspired the toys Andy owned" is moronic because it looks and feels absolutely nothing like you would see in the 90s. It's just the barest of excuses to make an "original" movie out of some shitty recycled scifi script. That's not to say a Buzz Lightyear movie in twenty-fricking-twenty-two was ever a good idea but they went the laziest route possible and removed everything that made Buzz Lightyear potentially interesting by using him for some completely unrelated and hackneyed time travel plot. It's painful how much better and interesting the 00s show is, the shit they added actually felt like something that would inspire a kid to want a Buzz Lightyear toy to begin with.
>Why is this moronic tripgay so aggressively defending this incredibly mediocre movie?
I am not see
>but I think the writers felt obligated to have some kind of deep villain or an important reason to be the antagonist as well as having an more important connection with the story and the hero and that's all they could come up with.
>I have the feeling, they tried to come up with something else, like a conspiracy within the settlement to stop Buzz from succeeding his mission, might be just me, but it look like there were seed of such a plot here and there, but it seems like the writers couldn't come up with something that would satisfy them wit that direction.
It's just that some anon started sperging that it doesn't make sense and it's wrong that the movie is supposed to be the movie the toy is base on and he really didn't like to be proven wrong. Especially when its something of very little importance to begin with.
The movie wouldn't be better if it had no tie-in to the TS movies.
>It's just that some anon started sperging
You mean you?
Do you have autism or something? Because all I can see is everyone providing proof why the idea that Lightyear came first in the 80s/90s is moronic and the best you can muster is "nu-uh!" Like I said before, the entire premise falls apart since the movie has absolutely nothing that would suggest it's from the 80s or 90s, it has too many trappings of the modern day to be anything but a contemporary movie in terms of both subject matter and aesthetics which is particularly mind-boggling because 80s and 90s nostalgia bait is all the rage right now. It's just a shitty excuse for a reboot that no one asked for and the result is a by the numbers and generic movie that has nothing of note other than a lesbian couple and some brown people.
>You mean you?
You are the one who is trying to make a huge deal out of the thing that can be the easiest to ignore, while at the same time being very wrong about it.
I'm the one you replied to moron,
was my first comment after seeing this shitshow of a thread that you've been aggressively defending and tripgayging for. Way to sidestep the entire point both times too.
>hat you've been aggressively defending and tripgayging
I used trip because I said I was gonna tell what I think of the movie after having seen it. I will never use it again after this thread.
And again, you have just been shown that I did not, in fact aggressively defended that movie.
It's one anon insisting that it's a huge deal that the movie is supposed to have inspired the toy in Andy world when it really isn't and several people showing to him that he is wrong, not just me.
I know my spelling is lackluster because of typos, but jesus christ, you word sentences like a fricking moron. Are you a client in an assisted living home or some shit? Who's letting you on Cinemaphile? Why did a 40 year old man go see a children's movie? Are you a wizard?
>Why did a 40 year old man go see a children's movie?
Why are you posting on Cinemaphile?
Because I'm waiting for pizza with the girlfriend and laughing at you, you fricking autismo.
Too cool for school, I see. You know you have to be 18 to post, here, right?
>But here's the difference: In TS2 the 'game' is just an excuse for a short action sequence in the beginning of the movie, otherwise it's an extremely minor scene
Hey, guess what else is extremely minor? that the movie mention it's the one that inspired the toy.
>For Lightyear, it's the entire premise of the movie.
No, it's really not, it's just a little nod that is in no way essential to anything in the plot of the ùmovie itself.
Also, you have failed to show how it contradict anything or how it doesn't make sense.
Your argument is still "a toy company would not take liberty in adapting a character as a toy" (while ignoring that the toy is actually faithful to the final design), "a toy company would not make a game to promote their toy" and "I am going to completely ignore that TS1 establish Buzz was already an existing franchise".
Sorry, dude, but you are the moron, there.
>ù
The tripgay typing like a moronic third worlder makes sense now
I'm sure you're totally normal and not some mentally disabled shut in anon, it's fine. Keep defending Disney shlock at the age of 40.
>he says while posting on an imageboard.
Should I have a Facebook and an Instagram to be well adjusted? Shut the frick up.
>waaah bad faith
You're wrong. I don't need to be friendly to tell you this.
>Should I have a Facebook and an Instagram to be well adjusted?
You should not spit in your own soup.
>You're wrong. I don't need to be friendly to tell you this.
Just so I do'nt worry about your capacity to perceive images, this is meant to be a bit, right?
it's the grungy details on Lightyear meanwhile the toy looks too clean.
the Bayverse toy on the other hand does its best to replicate all that greeble.
>it's the grungy details on Lightyear meanwhile the toy looks too clean
There really isn"t that, though, it's objectively a clean design, that a toy version of that look more simplified make sense. It's not even the suit he wear at the end of the movie, that is really close to the toy.
You making a complete asspull that the toy of Optimus prime somehow manage to be more faithfull.
It does turn into a truck of the same model, it's Transformers so some concessions can be made for the sake of transformation. By movie 2 the robot mode looked real close to the CGI robot model.
>Nice cherry pick, moron
There is no cherry picking
YOU are the one who claimed there
that this figure there
look closer to the movie model than the TS1 toy compared to the movie Buzz.
Your claim, not mine. And now you complain that I picked the very figure you pretended to closer. A bit of honesty, please?
Actually these posts are mine.
The polite ones, so to speak.
Sorry. But as you can see, there was no cherry picking from my part.
>Toy Buzz looks too clean and smooth
So does the movie model. Especially with the final suit (not shown there).
It remains the movie model of Buzz is closer to the toy than Optimus prime is to his own toy, which was the statement that anon laughed at and denied to be true.
Nice cherry pick, moron. Good job not even picking the first version of Optimus released for a movie, and glossing over that 2 years later, they made an even more accurate figure to the movie design. Are you suggesting in the same difference between Toy Story 1 and 2, they couldn't make the Buzz toy more accurate beyond a non existent belt, a Zurg figure completely different from his design?
>Good job not even picking the first version of Optimus released for a movie
Hey, moron, the figure here
it IS the first voyager class version of a toy based on that model
https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Optimus_Prime_(Movie)/toys#Voyager_Class_toys
Is this mean to be a bit or are you that confident in your own ignorance?
>they couldn't make the Buzz toy more accurate beyond a non existent belt,
The toy IS accurate to the final suit he don at the end. Also, by TS2, the cartoon has become popular and they are sticking to the cartoon model instead.
Why do you try so hared to pretend there is a problem when there is none? Why do you need a non-existent problem to sperge about?
>Nice cherry pick
I didn't pick it, you are the one who claimed it looked closer
Are you gonna eat your words, now?
Even taking the 2007 leader instead of the 2007 voyager, The TS1 toy still look closer to the movie buz than leader 2007 prime to his movie model.
Toy Buzz looks too clean and smooth, Bayverse toy Optimus is more greebly and key elements are well replicated even if the silhouette isn't a match at all.
Nice cherry picking. Also, find me a game hat depicts the TOY of a film franchksise while being a game about a fricking FILM franchise.
>muh Lego
Shut the FRICK up.
I remember getting this model for Christmas, it was cool as shit
>Nice cherry picking.
That's no cherry picking, you asked for a toy who do'nt look like movie model and it's clear even the non-final suit look closer than this optimus Prime figure.
>>muh Lego
>try to prove me wrong except for that thing that already prove me wrong
No.
Also, the toy is a late 90's early 2000 figure based on an 80's franchise, if the game is goingto be to push sale, they are going to push for the toy aspect of it. there is no contradiction and you keep ignoring TS1 confirm it's based on an existing franchise.
you are a moron unable to admit he is getting upset for a non-valid reason.
Arguing about how Lightyear fit in the Toy Story world isn't really defending the movie.
trying to pass for a Disney shill someone who has actually given a measured review i not really helping you.
Also, Cinemaphile has adult comics and cartoons discussed frequently. You are a 40 year old man who went to go see a Disney film. Probably alone, right?
>Because all I can see is everyone providing proof why the idea that Lightyear came first in the 80s/90s is moronic and the best you can muster is "nu-uh!"
You have been told repeatedly that the Toy actually look like Buzz at the end and that alone means you are wrong.
But you have alwso been shown proof of bad toy adaptation, of toy being based on cartoon instead of the original movie, you have been shown games using toy design and th ebest you could musters was "but it didn't happens all at once for a single franchise", which in no way means it's unrealistic.
You know what is unrealistic? Video game looking like they did in TS2 in 00's. that doesn't stop you from using thhat as the core of your argument, that doesn't even hold like this.
you are the only one here relying on "nuhu" when you are shown all the evidences that you are wrong.
I saw the movie and the toy doesn't look like Buzz, Black person. You have been provided toys that do look like Buzz,
And they look nothing like the Buzz in toy story. Had the Lightyesr fild actually tried to draw aesthetics from the Toy Story buzz like
It might have fit into the Toy Story universe better, but it didn't and doesn't. Also, as others have stated, this movie even fails to be like an 80s flick at all in terms of stylings and with the brazen lesbian couple. That shit wouldn't exist in an 80s kids film.
>I saw the movie and the toy doesn't look like Buzz,
The final suit does look like the one of the toy.
>And they look nothing like the Buzz in toy story.
The suit at the end does. Also, you have been shown toy that do not look like the movie they come from.
> Also, as others have stated, this movie even fails to be like an 80s flick at all in terms of stylings and with the brazen lesbian couple
Andy universe is not the same as ours. Nothing forbid to have movies of a different style or to be okay with a woman marrying a woman.
>That shit wouldn't exist in an 80s kids film.
Pretty sure it was more an equivalent to Star Wars rather than solely aimed at kids.
Guess what moron? It's a plothole there too. But here's the difference: In TS2 the 'game' is just an excuse for a short action sequence in the beginning of the movie, otherwise it's an extremely minor scene that can be easily handwaved away. For Lightyear, it's the entire premise of the movie. There is literally an opening that puts flashing lights on the fact this movie is meant to have started the entire Buzz Lightyear craze and its viewing inspired Andy to get the toy. That is the entire goddamn tagline for the movie yet it doesn't look like anything from the 90s, let alone a movie that would have started any sort of phenomenon which itself is such an incredibly prideful conceit. It's even more moronic that the best 'new' thing the "house of ideas" could come up with is taking the character's name literally and making about Lightyears and time travel.
The tech aesthetics are more 80s sci-fi and Zurg and his robots are deliberately animated as if they're stop motion puppets from a Robocop movie. It's just contrasted by the more modern blockbuster writing sensibilities and the more modern need for a diverse cast.
>The tech aesthetics are more 80s sci-fi
Have you watched 80s scifi before? Because I don't think you have if you think this movie has an 80s aesthetic to anything.
>Zurg and his robots are deliberately animated as if they're stop motion puppets from a Robocop movie
So you've never seen stop motion or Robocop too?
Lightyear's all grungy and blocky used future shit as was the style at the time.
It's an 80's set in an universe who has game graphics of 2010 in 2000, I think some discrepancy is allowed.
2010 games graphics running on a fricking Super Nintendo.
GOD FRICKING DAMNIT I KNEW IT! WE NEED THE THIEF AND THE COBBLER NOW MORE THAN EVER!
>NOOOO WHY HE ISNT LIKE IN THE 90S LIKE THE CARTOOON NOOOOOO BUAAAAH
the thread
i have high hopes for this movie
>arguing about the aesthetics instead of the plot
so im guessing it did buzz's character justice at least
i thought Cinemaphile wanted more action guy type male heroes, anyway. it certainly complains enough
Everyone is shitting on the time travel plot though, even the shills don't see it as worth defending.
THIS is what white people care about? lol
Or maybe the movie's just bad.
>You know why Lightyear is suddenly getting bad reviews
Uh yeah they put blacks and homosexuals in it for no reason.
Truth is they should have stop with Toy Story 3
Do they ever refer to Zurg as an evil Emperor?
Nnnnnnnope
just read GSBLYA's posts:
Zurg is Buzz's dad right? Right?
what if it turns out he is his son?
who is lgbt in this movie?
his partner and her asian(?) wife
they grow old and die off-screen anyways
>They did similar where the wanted to kill off 2d animation so they put Winnie the Pooh 2011 to compete with the final Harry Potter film.
Didn't they just do that again with that bob's burgers movie?
>Buzz Lightyear? more like
>MID LIGHTYEAR
Why does XR have a bulge?
>2022
Oh no we have been forgotten….
>when you notice all the LGM that are t-posing
lmao
Early 3DCG was a wild time.
The truth CN be found based on what the bots don't want you to reply to. Bots and Disney shills do not want you replying to posts mentioning their plan to force Pixar's hand into making a PG-13 rated film
*truth can
I haven't seen the movie, but I find it annoying that the Buzz Lightyear we see in the Toy Story movies is clearly taking inspiration from pulpy sci-fi media, but the movie we get about him is trying to look "realistic".
>but the movie we get about him is trying to look "realistic".
It really isn't. I mean it's o more realistic than how the humans look in Toy story.
I'm more referring to the environments and technology, they look like they are from modern sci-fi movies rather than something pulpier. Buzz himself looks like they tried to make the original character "more realistic" while keeping him recognizable.
Don't bother explaining the differences in sci-fi aesthetics by time period, hejust sees the green an purple armor and the face dome and claps his hands in excitement because
>OMG BUZZ BUT HE REAL
Don't waste your time.
Except the explanation has already been given, for the difference in style. One is a movie made in the 80's looking closer to Star wars or Star Trek the Motion picture, while the he toy and coming cartoon released in the late 90's and was sponsored by Pizza Planet
I don't really care what sort of explanation you have for me, the Lightyear movie takes different inspiration from what inspired the character from the Toy Story movies because the people at Pixar wanted to make something they thought would appeal to modern audiences more than a pulpier movie.
If that's something you don't care about, fine, it's a fairly minor gripe for me too and I don't need to to be justified by anyone to "fit into" the "universe" of Toy Story.
It looks nothing like a sci fi film from the 80s.
>we got gay 2020's Lightyear movie instead of a life action practical effect Buzz Lightyear modeled on the effects of Disney's 1979 The Black Hole but the cast of the animated series
>no Kodak 65 mm film practical effect movie made to look like it was made in the late 70s
>no Mira the blue skinned babe with 70s hair sprayed so much it stays in perfect position when in zero-g
>no big bird type suited puppet Booster
>no muppet RX who's just a model on a skateboard on those wide shots running down a corroder
>no setpieces made up of spraypainted MCDonald's trash hotglued to a wall or space rock landscapes made up of matte paintings and cloth setpieces
>no shots with that old trick of having something float in zero-g by taping it to a glass plane infront of the camera to wow the audience
>no huge miniatures of even larger setpieces or spaceships for those establishing shots
I honestly want to know how much such a thing would cost nowadays compared to cgi because it may be more expensive but I want them practical effects dammit
>Buzz himself looks like they tried to make the original character "more realistic" while keeping him recognizable.
Buzz might be designed to look like an actual human from Andy's world, as I believe from, his perspective, it's a live action movie.
The game is probably one of those game distributed freely to promote Buzz's new accessories they were then released.
I do'nt see why you wouldn't believe a toy company wouldn't do this. that's definitely not something that become impossible to do the moment a movie start existing in the past, especially as the first Toy Story movie establish the toy was based on an already existing character.
>citation needed.
Frick Disney marketing this movie the way they are, convince me it works.
>that's what you asked for, game based on cartoon
No. I said a game based on a film that is using the toy models instead of the film models. The cartoon didn't come out till after the movie, toys, and game, so find me a game without a cartoon attached to it, using the toy designs over the fim designs. Refer to the toy Optimuses provided earlier, then look at the models for the Ps2 game.
>we don't know which came first
Rewatch the intro to the Star Command film. It is established thatthe cartoon is new and came out well after the toyline.
>it's gameplay
Irrelevant, what's shoen on screen is toy Buzz and toy Zurg. Provide a game of a film using toys of the character in either cutscenes or gameplay, since you tried whining about "no hi def in 2000s" so I'm expanding it for you to make it easier. Either way, you won't find it. Because it would never be done that way. Transformers games use models that look like their on screen counterparts. Same with Superhero games, Wrestling games, etc. None of them have joint cuts and screws indicating they're plastic toys like the Buzz game in TS2. Suck my dick.
>deletes his post
LMAO now who's backpeddling, fricking idiot.
>No. I said a game based on a film
The game is based on the toy, anon.
that's an issue that exist within TS2 and the movie add nothing to it. Your compalin i not justified.
>Rewatch the intro to the Star Command film. It is established thatthe cartoon is new and came out well after the toyline.
It doesn't. Coudl have come at the same time as the ne toy accessories and Zurg.
> the Lightyear movie takes different inspiration from what inspired the character from the Toy Story movies
The movie came in the 80's along the lone of Star wars and Star trek movie, the toy came in the late 90's. It make sense it had different tone.
It borrow from that aesthetic.
Fuxk you, you deleted your post saying staunchly that the game was made based off the cartoon,
>No, anon, You laughed when told that the toy Buzz looked closer to the movie buzz than the toy Optimus looked like its toy counterpart.
You couldn't even admit being wrong and are now trying to make it about Zurg, when Zurg is based on the cartoon show.
You are wrong. Tripcode or not. Frick off.
You still laughed when you were told movie Buzz was closer to its toy than optimus.
You are wrong and tried to move the goalpost to Zurg.
>It borrow from that aesthetic.
And somehow still fricked it up to look like it was late 2000's at least
>Because it would never be done that way. Transformers games use models that look like their on screen counterparts.
Then the issue is with the TS2 movie itself. the Lightyear movie add nothing to that and, again, your complain is simply baseless. Nothing forbid such things to happens.
It's just something you have arbitrary deicided is impossible to happens and you insist on ignoring the toy has Always been based on an existing character.
>that's an issue with the TS2 film
Which it would never be if Disney didn't retcon the Toy Story timeline with is fricking movie. As stated, if the toys were what the game was based on and thryonly had something like a tie in comic, I'd buy the game being modelled after the toys themselves. Bionicle did this with it's flash games and promo CDs in 2001. But, since now Buzz Lightyear's toys are based off the film, the game would be a movie tie-in game, which no longer works because as stated a thousand times, the game uses toy models. It did work before the retcon, like Bionicle, now it doesn't. Eat fricking crow, wienersucking shill.
Pic related. The retcon wasn't an issue for TS2, but now it is. Gee, it's almost like I've been saying, that the injection of Lightyear doesn't work in the Toy Story timeline.
And look, once the Mask of Light came out, a game was made that borrows from the film designs. You don't know how tie in games operate and you're a fricking idiot trying to say you do.
>You don't know how tie in games operate and you're a fricking idiot trying to say you do.
You know you are not making any point, there.
That it hasn't been done this way doesn't mean it can't be done. This is an arbitrary rule there is no need to follow.
Once again, making a cheap game to push the sale of new toys is not something that is impossible to happens.
This was never a contradiction.
>that it hasn't been done this way doesn't mean it can't be done. This is an arbitrary rule there is no need to follow.
>once again, making a cheap game to push the sale of new toys is not something that is impossible to happens.
>this was never a contradiction.
Suspension of disbelief, anon. It makes sense for a tie in game for a toyline to have the characters depicted as their toys. This is simple to understand because it exists, so we can accept it easily in this manner. The retcon provided by Lightyear has neber happened for a film franchise, with the toy designs superseding the film designs. The fact that mental gymnastics are now required to justify the retcon involving the game Rex is playing, that is an issue. It made sense before, now you have to sit there and say
>j-just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't, it's just a mocie bro shut your brain off
That is the problem. You are proving to everyone right now exactly why the retcon doesn't work. Had the game Rex played used realistic looking Buxx and Zurg, then this new movie just took the designs from his game and made a feature film, everything would work out fine. It doesn't though. I will not buy into the marketing or the shilling or the simping saying this retcon doesn't provide new issues. It does.
>Suspension of disbelief, anon
Yes. Basically everyone can suspend their disbelief to the concept of a toy company making a game to sell new toys.
Only morron would claim it's impossible.
>That is the problem. You are proving to everyone right now exactly why the retcon doesn't work.
"It actually work and is possible" is not how you rpove a retcon doesn't work. it's not even a retcon, TS1 establish the character already existed before the toy.
Agaon, prove it was a live action movie and not a Bionicle or Heman instance using what we are given in the films.
see
I do'nt need to prove anything, It simply need to be possible.
>it simply need to be possible
Lmao and Andy could be retconned as never having a dad, just his lesbian mom getting turkey basted at the clinic, and dude would tout the same line.
>it don't hurt movie we never saw dad, he do'nt dad
Enjoy your dead thread anon.
>Lmao and Andy could be retconned as never having a dad
There is no established dad, unless I am mistaken, so it wouldn't be a retcon.
>>it don't hurt movie we never saw dad, he do'nt dad
That's precisely how it works, anon. It seems like you have difficulty with basic logic.
>toy company making game to sell toys
That's what it was. Now it's
>movie franchise making game to promote movie characters but they look like the toys
It's right in your fricking face. Whatever, I know you're going to continue because you're judt that dedicated to dying on this hill. I made my points, multiple anons agree thst the retcon is sloppy for multiple reasons, so frick it. I'm going to work, unlike you, I'm sure your NEET ass will sit there and do a victory lap because my autism wasn't as dedicated as yours. Congrats on giving the mouse your money, moron.
>That's what it was.
No. it always was
->existing character->toy->game to sell new toys.
franchise making game
At this point in time it has shifted more toward being more a toy and cartoon franchise. Lightyear was a 80's movie while the toy only came up in the late 90's. it make sense the focus would shift more toward the new popular toy.
>multiple anons agree thst the retcon is sloppy for multiple reasons
Not really, several people have said your complain is not really valid and you are the only way insisting it contradict anything.
Learn english you fricking pajeet.
Et toi, arrête d'être un neuneu obstiné par un détail dont personne n'a rien à foutre, en plus d'avoir tort à ce sujet.
>hon hon just accept ze retcon, turn your brain off
No.
-Not a retcon
-Actually providing argument as t why it works is not "turning your brain off".
>N-no it izn't
>I want ze last word
Nope
Ignoring arguments won't help you.
>I gave arguments
And your wiener was routinely smacked, frog.
>inb4 no u
Ignoring arguments wo'nt make you magically right. you have managed to show no contradaction and the only argument you still tout about was already there before the Lightyear movie still existed.
And the suit is the same. The toy has just a simplified design of it.
>Ignoring arguments wo'nt make you magically right.
Uhuh.
Not real irony, there. You are holding against the Lightyear movie an issue that already existed ever since TS2 came out.
Bionicle was provided to explain how a toy with a comic could totally have a game with the characters shown in toy form, which explains the line in TS1 of.Buzz already being a hero. It works fine until you insert Lightyear.
>inb4 more
>NONONOLALALA
>Bionicle was provided to explain how a toy with a comic could totally have a game with the characters shown in toy form
That doesn't make it impossible for it to happens to a movie, anon.
Showing that it's possible for comic doesn't mean it won't happens for an old 80's movie.
Suspension of disbelief. If it's never happened, it probably wouldn't. Made sense before Lightyear. Not it doesn't. I provided how it worked before, you fail to explain how it works just as well if not better. It's worse off now. Give up.
>Suspension of disbelief.
Indeed, If something is possible than the suspension of disbelief is maintained.
Example: a movie set no too long after 9/11 does not mention 9/11 at all. It's possible and therefore not something to be upset about.
>If it's never happened, it probably wouldn't.
Not really
>I provided how it worked before
And it also means it can works now.
that it was a comic or a movie, in both case, it's believable.
>ou fail to explain how it works
You have been told several time that it's possible it was a cheap game made to help sell new toys.
>And your wiener was routinely smacked
I wouldn't call "I don't care if it's possible" that.
>i don't care if it's possible"
>That it hasn't been done this way doesn't mean it can't be done.
>I don't care if doesn't exist
>>I don't care if doesn't exist
Now you are getting it. It only need to be possible. that's the whole point of fiction.
I was mocking you. You don't care becausw it's fiction. By your mindset, Andy could be a martian that crash landed on earth and his mother found and raised, and you'd nod and say
>only if possible in fiction
Still fail to prove that the Lightyear injection doesn't cause the game plotholes. If it was like Bionicle, which it was seen as at first, like Stinky Pete mentioning explicitly space TOYS, not space FILMS, just a toy with possibly a comic or some pulp fiction before becoming a toy, thr game featuring toys works. You have to grasp at straws with Lego games and fricking Ghostbusters games, when the Lightyear injection would make the game about the movie. Which it looks nothing like.
>By your mindset, Andy could be a martian that crash landed on earth and his mother found and raised, and you'd nod and say
Sorry anon, that's not comparable to a toy maker making a game to help sell their new toy that was originally based on a movie.
> fail to prove that the Lightyear injection doesn't cause the game plotholes
There is no plothole to begin with. Nothing forbid it from happening.
>If it was like Bionicle, which it was seen as at first, like Stinky Pete mentioning explicitly space TOYS, not space FILMS, just a toy with possibly a comic
Binocle started as a lego toy, not a comic.
If you don't consider TS2 has having issues on its own, then you can't complain about the inclusion of the Lightyear comics.
Existing character->toy->games(using toy model)&cartoon
this is what you are complaining about and this has existed since TS2 came out.
>The retcon wasn't an issue for TS2, but now it is.
Nope. If it isn't an issue for TS2, then it isn't either with the movie.
Either there is an issue and it was caused by TS2 itself, or there is no issue at all.
The injection of the movie cause nothing.
How would the issue be with TS2 if it was made before Lightyear you fricking idiot. That's like saying the fault is with Transformers 07 instead of The Last Knight when they retcon Bumblebee not talking for centuries, despite talking at the end of the 07 film. Or again, Blofeld and Spectre in 007. Not that you would know about these, since you clearly don't watxh anything rated above PG.
>How would the issue be with TS2
Your main grip (which is ridiculous, by the way, nothing forbid it and it isn't a contradiction that things happened this way) is that the game in TS2 is based on the toy model when it should be based on the the original character instead. But TS1 establish that Buzz's toy is based on an already existing character.
If you had no issue with the game model in TS2 not being based on the original character before the Lighyear movie existed, then you still shouldn't have any issue now.
Prove to me Buzz was based off of a live action film using what is provided in TS1 and 2. Prove it was without a doubt a film and not a multimedia/comic thing like Heman or Bionicle. Prove your theory.
>Prove to me Buzz was based off of a live action film
Not how it works, anon. It only need to be possible for the movie not to be a contradiction.
If you insist this is still an issue, then its within TS2 itself, the lightyear movie create no issue.
>Which it would never be if Disney didn't retcon the Toy Story timeline with is fricking movie
Wrong. The issue already existed beforehand
TS1: Buzz toy is based on a a character that already exist
TS2: Game is made based on the toy model.
the movie cause zero problem that weren't there already and you have been sperging and moving the goalpost for nothing.
And it's not even a problem: they made a cheap game to sell new toys.
also, THE FINAL SUIT LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE TOY!making your whole rant pointless.
Bionicle shoots you down entirely. Toyline with a comic, which Buzz could have had, comic depicts characters as their toy designs, then promo games use the toy designs. Buzz was never based on a live action film, if he was, he'd look like it, not like a plastic fricking toy. Look at all the game screenshots showing
Movie franchises with games and toys.
Compared to toy franchises with multimedia promos and games.
Notice the distinct difference in using film designs and toy designs as focal points for the games attached.
>Bionicle shoots you down entirely.
It doesn't. A situation existing doesn't mean a diffident situation is impossible.
>Notice the distinct difference in using film designs and toy designs as focal points for the games attached.
And? That's still an issue that exist solely within TS2. The movie create no issue.
>How would the issue be with TS2 if it was made before Lightyear you fricking idiot.
Because your issue is that the game design is based on the toy, when TS1 already establish the character exited before the toy. If it's okay for TS2 to not have had its game based on the original character but on the toy itself when it came out, then it's still not an issue now.
>tfw Mr Enter does a review on lightyear and says this film is not accurate to the 90s action blockbuster due to the lesbian couple and the special effects being too advanced.
The disney shills will be in full force in twitter
Buzz was never a movie hero. There is nothing in the Toy Story films proving this.
>the commercial
He literally could be a comic, a novel, or the like. Makes more sense that way given the creation of the character was shown to be based off of more retro style type of scifi shit. Not an 80s action flick. If the toy was made to revitalize a long standing character and reboot it in the 90s as a tot driven theme, it would most likely be from some old, antiquated theme as to completely take over the looks of the characters within their multimedia tie ins. No 80s film has ever been rebooted explicitly into a toyline with the toys being the forfront of the designs. Provide evidence to the contrary if you want me to be wrong.
>it's fiction, I aint gotta explain shit
No.
>There is nothing in the Toy Story films proving this.
It doesn't need to be proven, it only need to be possible.
>>it's fiction, I aint gotta explain shit
There is no explanation required to begin with. Toy got popular, made a game to sell even more of it. Does in no way contradict the existence of a movie and this was like this ever since TS2. if you had no issue witth it then, you shoudk'nt now.
>He literally could be a comic, a novel, or the like.
Or a movie, glad we agree.
>I don't need to prove
See? You just say
>well, it could
Andy could be a martian. Woody could be a bootleg. These elements would change the lore. They wouldn't simply expand, but alter the perception of the characters origins and preestablished canon. Buzz was originally concieved as an old retro sci fi hero from the pulp era of sci fi fiction.
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv-and-film-buzz-lightyear-was-nearly-called-lunar-larry-20200806.amp.html
Literally has his name inspired by Buzz Aldrin, and the lunar landing was in 66. As described by Pete in TS2 about the space race, the idea behind Buzz as shown from cutting room floor, he was and should be, a toy inspired by a scifi hero that most likely originated in the 60s or 70s at the latest before getting a reboot in the 90s. The Lightyear film looks nothing like a film from those decades, let alone the 80s, but moving on from that, the character's inception was NEVER as an 80s film hero. He would have probably been in some kind of Star Trekesque franchise in the 60s, as this was even an idea floating around during the inception of the Star Command cartoon. Nobody working at Pixar treated Buzz as being from an 80s flick Andy watched. If they treated him as a 60s hero, he is a 60s hero. I have given you an extensive list of reasons why his origin being altered by NuDisney is a retcon. Prove otherwise, I fricking dare you. As a 90s reboot to an oldscool 60s comic/film/show, the game in TS2 being based on the rebooted toyline works. The other way doesn't.
>See? You just say
Yes, that's how it work. If it's possible, there is no contradiction.
>Andy could be a martian
You know bad writing can happens without contradictions, right? You are nto showing there is a contradiction by proposing this.
>Woody could be a bootleg
Woody is a certified original, recognised by a toy Professional, as established in tS2. it would be a contradiction.
It still remains that your "argument" is about something that has existed ever since TS2 came out
existing character->toy->game with toy model
This has always been like this. if it didn't bother you before , it shouldn't now.
Oh, and by the way, bionicle is
toy->comics based on toy->TV show.
My argument is thatthe origin and inspirations behind Buzz has been altered. Retconned. It has become different from what Pixar concieved and shown us throughout years of interviews, behind the scenes, and concept art. Everything flowed and made sense, and even if it still does as you say, Buzz was a 60s era hero. Unless yoou provide evidence contradicting mine that Pixar intially concieved him as being from an 80s film, I don't wanna hear it. Please make sure you see I said INITIALLY. The opinions of NuDisney do not pretain to the original creators of Buzz.
>My argument is thatthe origin and inspirations behind Buzz has been altered. Retconned.
Now YOU are using headcanon. Nothing befoe the lightyear movie in the canon material establish how the franchise started.
I actually agree that it can be read differently, but even if the movie came at a different time, it still work.
This thread ahas been you failing to show any contradiction or how it's impossible.
It still remains that if you are going to sperge about the toy mode being used in TS2, that's an issue that existed before the lighyear movie existed and you don't see you had any issue with before.
>there is nothing existing in canon
The artist's vision. Whether or not it is explicit in the films, the inspiration behind Buzz was not an 80s film hero. I told you how. It's right there. Again, it's never stated Andy is a martian, so they could recton him to be one in Toy Story 5. That is still a retcon because he was never intended to be a martian. Pixar neber intended Buzz to be an 80s film hero. So he has had his orgins retconned. Argue semantics all you want about whether that is a retcon, but it is an alterstion previously not concieved. Provide evidence by Pixare pre 2020 that Buzz was an 80s film hero and I might see how this isn't an alteration. Otherwise, it's an alteration to his origin.
>The artist's vision.
Movie are a multi-people project and most artists and writers will tell you that as long as it's not actually done and released as the actual material, everything is flexible. Especially as in this case, the director had already worked on Buzz before. His previous work is also part of what made Buzz buzz.
there still isn't any contradictions in the actual canon. The moment you start to rely on the author's intend, you enter in a whole different area
If you want to tell me that the Lightyear movie departed away the initial vision the first writers of the Toy story movie conceived him with, you will hear no disagreement from me.
But that's not your argument, your argument is that it contradict canon, which isn't the case here and you failed to prove.
I feel like I did. multiple anons agreed with my sentiments. You not being convinced means nothing because you have proven to be so sycophantic in your belief nothing will change your view. It makes more sense, following original creator's intent and gleaning from real world toylines(which you never once could find an irl equivalent to what now apparently happens in Toy Story; an 80s film being rebooted in the 90s then the 90s designs getting games, and then simply saying "I don't need to it's fiction"), Buzz was initially a 60s character from old space race fiction, rebooted in the 90s as a new toyline. He wasn't an 80s film hero. Not initally, which you cannot prove explicitly beyond interperating the commercial in TS1 how you want it, but it is just that, interpretation, with nothing the creators intended or said supporting this. Does this new change work? To you, yes. To me, no. And that will not change no matter the bickering. At the end of all of this, Disney has once again dug up an older IP and decided to reap in the nostalgiabucks with a bullshit spin of this "being what Andy saw" as the line to draw people like yourself in. Whether or not you think it works means nothing. This film is mediocre, and it has no heart behind it.
>inb4 muh SOVL
They altered his origins. For no reason other than money. I do not care if you think it's fine because it's fiction. I think it isn't because he was one way, and greedy Hollwood executives decided to make him another twenty years later. I think one way, you the other. We each had a few anons agreeing with both of us, simultaniously disagreeing with both of us. It's over. We're going in circles. Give it a rest.
>multiple anons agreed with my sentiments
Many disagree too.
It remains that you have showed nothing that wasn't already existing before the Lighyear movie came out. It was
Existing character->toy->game based on toy model
and if you had no issue with that before, you shouldn't now. Bionicle started as a toy, not as already existing characters.
>They altered his origins
They didn't. The movie contradict nothing established by the actual canon.
If you have to rely on writer intent, you are no longer relying on canon.
Yup. Literally say at the end of my post how anons disagree with me too, but again, you're not budging/refusing to read my shit in an unbiased manner.
>origins were not changed
I disagree. I explained why. You aren't convinced, I know, and as I said, I don't give a shit. You aren't the arbiter of truth. Neither am I. You think you explained your case and I didn't. I think I did and you didn't. Wanna continue with the eternal back and forth, frogboy?
>I disagree. I explained why.
Writer intent is not enough to say the canon was changed. In most story, everything that isn't set and established in the actual media is up for change and flexibility. Most writers work by that guideline.
It's not enough to complain that they ruined continuity when the continuity, based of what os given by the movies alone, was never actually changed.
> I think I did and you didn't
Are you even aware of how many time you had to change your arguments?
-you started by saying that there is no case where the toy does not look exactly like the movie model
-when shown it actually happened, you argued that it's not possible for the video game to use the cartoon model instead of the original model of where the figure come from
-when pointed out that this is an issue that existed ever since TS2 came out and not caused by the movie Lightyear existing, you started to argue this can actually work if Buzz was coming from a comic instead of a movie, using Bionicle as a proof, saying it's only okay if it happened in real life
-when you were pointed out that Bionicle first started as a toy, not a comic, you completely dropped the argument and are now trying to rely on writer intent.
All this make you look like someone who argue in extreme bad faith.
>Are you even aware of how many time you had to change your arguments?
Multiple people have been arguing with you, in part because you are CLEARLY wrong and will not accept it, but also because not everyone is (by your own admission) a 40 year old tripgay with nothing better to do with their day than argue for literal hours about toy story lore.
>Multiple people have been arguing with you, in part because you are CLEARLY wrong
I am not the one who kept making up new rules when shown my point didn't hold, anon.
>with nothing better to do with their day than argue for literal hours about toy story lore.
It takes more than one to make that dance, anon. you do'nt get toc complain about that without being an hypocrite.
Your entire argument falls completely flat because you're saying that the authorial intent of Buzz Lightyear not being based upon a movie from the 80s and instead based off retro-futurism aesthetics from the 50s and 60s isn't valid because it's not specifically in the movie, but your entire argument for it being an 80s live action movie that was later turned into a cartoon, then turned into a toy, is based off a twitter post and not in any way shape or form in the movie. In the movie it said that Andy watched the film in 1995, so per canon and not twitter screenshots the movie came out in 1995. Your argument is incredibly silly, and I HOPE you're a mouseshill getting paid for all this.
>It takes more than one to make that dance, anon. you do'nt get toc complain about that without being an hypocrite.
I woke up, read a few comments of your bullshit before I went to work. I'm on my lunch break and see you're still in this same thread repeating the exact same arguments people have been dunking on you for endlessly.
Attacking your arguement from dicferent avenues and providing multiple issues you igore is not making up new rules. You want to stick to little gotchas throughout to appear right when after it all adds up you loose footing. Buzz was a 60s era IP before becoming a 90s toy, frick what you say.
>Buzz was a 60s era IP before becoming a 90s toy, frick what you say.
You know, seeing that nothing contradict the movie came out in the 60's, you have no actual point, there.
>you started by saying that there is no case where the toy does not look exactly like the movie model
>when shown it actually happened, you argued that it's not possible for the video game to use the cartoon model instead of the original model of where the figure come from
I argued there was never an instance where a game made for a film franchise uses the toy, not cartoon, toy, model instead of the film models. I provided the Star Command game because YOU said that the game in TS2 was to promote the cartoon, to which I had to keep reminding you, the game uses toy models, and if a Star Commad game was made, it'd look like the cartoon, not the toys. It was never an issue, because the timeline shows the game coming out BEFORE the cartoon. So the game depicting the toy heroes was a multimedia tie in for the TOYLINE lime what BIONICLE did.
>so what about Buzz's commercial
Again, if he was a 60s hero rebooted in th 90s, something akin to what happened with Bionicle, the toyline having comics/games and all depicting the characters as toys because that's what Buzz intially was, a 90s standalone, rebooted/revived IP of some long dead franchise, it works. When you throw in
>actually it was an 80s film
You cannot provide an example of a movie tie in toyline and game, where the toys take over the look of all the merchandise. Never has a toyline followed a movie and then the games look like toys. I showed multiple movie tie in games where they look like the movie characters, not toys. You twist my words and misinterpret my arguments, and this is why I don't give a shit what you think. Frick off.
>Again, if he was a 60s hero rebooted in th 90s, something akin to what happened with Bionicle,
Bionicile started as toys, not comic
>the toyline having comics/games and all depicting the characters as toys because that's what Buzz intially was, a 90s standalone, rebooted/revived IP of some long dead franchise
And that's exactly what happens here with the movie, where the 90's toy is based on a movie you have no idea when it comes out. You have showed no actual issue, there. Nothing that wasn't already existing when TS2 came out.
>You cannot provide an example of a movie tie in toyline and game, where the toys take over the look of all the merchandise.
Please, the toy and carton of Real Ghostbusters were developed jointly.
and even if I couldn't provide anything, that would still not be an issue that doesn't stem from TS2 alone.
>and providing multiple issues you ignore
Please, Ignored nothing.
> You want to stick to little gotchas
No, I simply present why the argument made is incorrect.
>Your entire argument falls completely flat because you're saying that the authorial intent of Buzz Lightyear not being based upon a movie from the 80s and instead based off retro-futurism aesthetics from the 50s and 60s isn't valid because it's not specifically in the movie, but your entire argument for it being an 80s live action movie that was later turned into a cartoon, then turned into a toy, is based off a twitter post
I do'nt need the twitter post. It's simply a valid explanation. It's just a confirmation that there are no contradiction, but there would still be no contradiction without it.
Per the opening of LIGHTYEAR, it comes out in 1995 you fricking morons.
Yes it does. Jessie is in the opening for the animated movie, which is the pilot for the cartoon. The toys treat the cartoon as if it is something brand new. Ergo, the videogame in TS2 has to come before the cartoon.
>Per the opening of LIGHTYEAR, it comes out in 1995 you fricking morons.
Actually, 1995 is the year Andy got his toy, not the year the movie came out.
https://twitter.com/PixarsLightyear/status/1536800649538441220
>Jessie is in the opening for the animated movie
That they watch on VHS.meaning you can't tell the time between when it came out and when Andy's family actually bought it.
>fricking morons
It's the same moron. Buzz is either standalone with tie in media or a reboot of a 60s IP, and the Lightyear film does not fit with the timeline or make sense with how Buzz was merchandised. Frenchie can suck my fat one.
>Buzz is either standalone with tie in media or a reboot of a 60s IP, and the Lightyear film does not fit with the timeline
Actually it still fit. You haven't shown any timeline contradiction.
You have just moved the goalpost from actual canonical element to writer intent.
>or make sense with how Buzz was merchandised.
Pizza planet sponsorship.
Actually, if that's the explanation, it could have come in the 80's or the 60's, Pizza's planet meddling would still make it have this 60's vibe.
No. I disagree. Told you why but you're pulling shit out of left field likr Ghostbusters games made for CARTOON SHOWS instead of the MOVIE, and being all
>AHA THEY LOOK LIKE TOY
They look like the cartoon.
Also
>We don't know when the movie came out
Had to come out close enough to Toy Story 1 since it was an 80s film Andy saw, yeah? So find me
>an 80s film that is then rebooted as a standalone toyline, changing lore entirely and removing all the side characters
Make sure they are less than then years apart, then show me
>the toyline having a game where they depict the characters as toys with screwholes, plastic bodies, not stylized,
Make sure the game in question is explicitly tied to the toys and not a cartoon, since the game in TS2 was before the Star Command cartoon canonically. You can't.
>Bionicle before comic
Alongside. Which could have been Buzz's case. That, or he really was a reworking of an old IP, which would be a 60s fictional hero according to behind the scenes, not an 80s film. There are real world examples of old 60s scifi resurging in the 90s in reboots. 80s franchises were getting sequels well into the 90s, they wouldn't, and haven't done full scale reboots of 80s film franchises in the manner you keep insisting. Frick yourself, froggy.
>No. I disagree. Told you why but you're pulling shit out of left field likr Ghostbusters games made for CARTOON SHOWS instead of the MOVIE, and being all
>>AHA THEY LOOK LIKE TOY
>They look like the cartoon.
Again, this all become moot when the issue you are complaining stem from TS2 alone, it isn't caused by the Lightyear movie existing.
>Had to come out close enough to Toy Story 1 since it was an 80s film Andy saw, yeah?
You know a movie do'nt need to come close for kids to watch them, right? Nowadasy, kids still watch star Wars and classic Disney.
>Make sure they are less than then years apart, then show me
How many time do I need to tell you? It don't need to prove it, I only need to establish it's possible.
>since the game in TS2 was before the Star Command cartoon canonically
That isn't established.
>Make sure the game in question is explicitly tied to the toys and not a cartoon
I don't need to. TS2 already establish on its own
character existing->toy->game based on the toy model.
If you have issue with that, then you have issue with TS2 on its own.
>Alongside.
It still started as a Lego project. And TS2 establish the character existed BEFORE the toy. You are not proving anything with bringing Bionicle.
>which would be a 60s fictional hero according to behind the scenes, not an 80s film
Nothing forbid that.
>That isn't established.
lalala if I ignore their evidence I'm le right!
>It's the same moron
There's always two posts directly after each other. It's definitely the frog just double posting to make it look like someone agrees with his shilling.
What evidence did I ignore?
It came on VHS it could have been watched any time.
>It came on VHS it could have been watched any time.
Absolute headcanon. The characters call it a new movie. There is literally no reason to assume that they do not literally mean that it is new except to fit your moronic shilling on behalf of a Disney advertising campaign.
Mouseketeers do it For Free.
>Absolute headcanon
We literally see them put the VHS in the VCR, anon.
>The characters call it a new movie.
still new if it came out a week or two ago.
It's just a fun trivia for those wondering how it fit in all that. Noting really important, but some sperger have decided it somehow ruin everything and make a big deal out of it when they can't even prove their point.
>it ruined everything
No it didn't, it's just not canon. Buzz is a 60s reboot toy.
> it's just not canon
You haven't really proven that.
>Buzz is a 60s reboot toy.
Nothing forbid that movie to be what was that' 60's thing it rebooted from.
>If the cartoon came out "a week or two ago" than it came out after the video-game from TS2,
TS2 happens within a few days, so no. It's entirely possible for the movie to come out,then the game then the event of tS2 happens, then they finally receive the VHS tapes.
>Buddy you've spent your entire day replying to every post in this thread
You do'nt get to complain about that, anon. Look yourself in the mirror.
>you haven't really proven that
Yeah, I did. Frick this retcon.
>Yeah, I did
Writers intent doesn't mean canon, anon.
You haven't even managed to prove Lightyear didn't hit theatre in the 60's.
>Writers intent doesn't mean canon, anon.
Neither do throwaway tweets, but if I had to choose from one or the other, I'm taking the original creator's intent.
>because the timeline shows the game coming out BEFORE the cartoon
It doesn't, actually.
>It has become different from what Pixar concieved
the toy and cartoon and game still exist in a 60's vibe, a it was more fitting with the Pizza planet sponsorship.
>Literally has his name inspired by Buzz Aldrin, and the lunar landing was in 66.
that's the direction the toy and following cartoon took because of Pizza planet.
>with the movie release it throws a monkey wrench in everything
It really doesn't.
But is it good?
It's okay.
Look at us. We're all arguing over a timeline of a fictional toyline. I mean I get it, with the movie release it throws a monkey wrench in everything. If the movie actually came out in the 95 it would've had the same energy as Galaxy Quest, Total Recall, and The Phantom Menace.
The movie came in the 80's though.
What
see
Ok
Technically this doesn't mean that the movie came out in the 80s though. The guy is just using it as an example. At least that's how I read it
He doesn't care, scan the thread. You give him the alternative and he just sits there saying
>no it work
Over and over.
Well you k then
*Well ok then*
so the movie is just not coming out in china then? i figured it wasn't coming out in russia because of the war but
We are like 25 years removed from Ellen coming out. lol I’m so sick tired and bored that “queer representation” is nearly always lesbians. This shit is not as controversial and revolutionary as people think and if Disney/Pixar had any balls it would have been a two men gay couple.
one gay arabic man and one gay russian man
and they swing with a gay chinaman
>his shit is not as controversial and revolutionary
The point is not for it to be cotnroversial or revolutionary, the point is to make it become banal. To the point people will just see it as a normal part of a setting, the same way heterosxual people can be the normal part of a setting.
>The point is not for it to be cotnroversial or revolutionary, the point is to make it become banal. To the point people will just see it as a normal part of a setting, the same way heterosxual people can be the normal part of a setting.
Well given that it's never any males it's not seen as normal, just some sexualized thing
I hope this guy got paid to write all that
You just do'nt like being wrong, don't you?
Why did they say that Lightyear is LITERALLY the movie that Andy watched as a kid? Why couldn't this be a soft-reboot, like Bayformers? Cheap nostalgia? Is a fake reboot to complex of a concept for disneyshitters?
>They want Pixar to only make stuff for Disney+ and not theaters
woah
I'm not giving (you) a reply.
>still new if it came out a week or two ago.
If the cartoon came out "a week or two ago" than it came out after the video-game from TS2, which per your moronic argument makes no logical sense.
>some sperger have decided it somehow ruin everything and make a big deal out of it
Buddy you've spent your entire day replying to every post in this thread because you want to suck NuDisney's wiener so hard. You are the sperg.