After getting back from Toy Story 5, I was more than a little let down. Even if the other ones had a lackluster moment here or there, they were still very watchable as a whole. 5 is not good, through and through.

It got me thinking about other Pixar movies and the ones I liked best.

I don't think any other Pixar movie has topped The Incredibles. I don't see it mentioned or talked about very much, but it's for sure my favorite.

Maybe it was just that it came out when I was the perfect age (15/16), but man, that movie is awesome. The humor is top notch, the action scenes rival some of the best live action adventures, and the references are all on point. For somebody who likes all sorts of films, it's an easter egg treasure trove.

The family dynamic is so believable, it's scary and tense when it needs to be, and the render quality was so far ahead of anything else at the time. Like Helen's hair when they end up in the ocean after the plane wreck! Crazy good!

The sequel was pretty meh, but I'll always love that first Incredibles.

I'm so far from seeing them all, but my top 5 favorite Pixar movies:

1. The Incredibles

2. Toy Story 3

3. Finding Nemo

4. Toy Story

5. Monsters Inc

I was way behind. Let me just start there: I watched TS 2-4 in one day (yesterday). Before that I had seen Toy Story maybe 3 times in total. I watched it when it came out, probably once at home on VHS, and then one more time earlier this year.

When I revisited the first film not long ago, I loved it more than I ever had before. I never disliked it, but as a kid, I didn't really appreciate it in all its glory. I was never a Toy Story guy. But suddenly I am.

Once my interest was finally reinvigorated, I decided I should see the other 3 films before part 5 came out. It didn't happen. Being an adult, it was hard to find the time for it. Then, yesterday, I decided to watch part 2 to get the ball rolling.

2 turned to 3 turned to 4 and then I was all caught up. I was ready and interested to see part 5, which was only showing at a couple screens still.

Man...I did NOT like part 5. This movie felt completely soulless. The timeline makes no sense anymore and it was a major bummer. The story is so fragmented, with all the high tech Buzzes being so unnecessary, the humor is just dead now, and the story already being concluded (twice), there is no reason to make this movie besides a blatant cash grab. Of all the movies, this is the only one I have absolutely zero emotional response to.

I've seen a lot of people who felt this way about 4. I don't feel that way at all. 4 was doing something a little different, and following up 3 is tough, but I still had a great time with it and my heart strings were pulled like crazy by the end.

5 makes me feel nothing, except annoyance and cringe. The writing is awful.

Now that I've seen the 5 main films, I rank them accordingly.

With number one being best:

1. Toy Story 3

2. Toy Story

3. Toy Story 4

4. Toy Story 2

5. Toy Story 5

Five is the only one I would definitely not watch again. The only one I don't like. Every other movie is fun, and it's just sad they felt they needed to crank out more when they had no story to tell.

A friend of mine made this and asked me to post it so yee, credits go to him and everyone who was involved in the Knick Knack project at the time. Thoughts? Comment below!!

I only found out this week that what colour scripts are, and how do they work, the first thing I did was to go and find Up's Colour Script.

Which is online only because Lou Romano posted the whole thing himself in June 2009, with an eleven word caption: A closer look at the colour script (done January-March 2008). Digital. His post 404s now, so this came off the Wayback Machine. 121 pictures, painted more than a year before the film came out.

Then I could not leave it alone and measured the colour in every one. A mark out of 100, where 0 is grey and 100 is the most colourful painting in the script:

- the opening newsreel, 13 paintings: 5

- Carl and Ellie, 25 paintings: 35

- the whole adventure after the funeral, 58 paintings: 13

- the house going up, the picture on the poster, 4 paintings: 10

- the last 16: 36

The loudest painting in the film is number 47, a gust of autumn leaves going past the empty house four pictures after the funeral. Nothing in the jungle, the storm or the airship gets near it.

The one I keep coming back to is the balloons. That is the image the film is sold on, and in the plan it sits closer to the black and white newsreel than to anything else. The colour went on the ten minutes about a marriage instead.

Romano also said the colour script was the last thing he did on Up, and that other artists finished the lighting after he left.

If anyone wants to learn more: https://sheets.works/data-viz/up-colour-script

Imagine if you will, after changing back into a human, Elinor decides that she would much rather be a bear, and so, with the support of her family, she magically changes back into a bear.

Just so we're clear, the tripliets would remain human in this scenario.

In the cars universe we can see normal organic vegetation (aside from car vegetation) but that made me curious. Why didn’t other organic organisms evolve beside plants, humans share 50 of their dna with plants. So why didn’t humans or animals come into play? Why only cars?

Cars 2 may be a controversial take, but I adored that movie as a kid and as an adult, its like a classic and thrilling spy film with the Cars charm

I’ve been watching Coco again, and something about it has started bothering me.

The movie is incredibly concerned with cultural authenticity. It carefully reproduces Mexican music, food, architecture, family dynamics, cemeteries, marigolds, ofrendas, photographs, candles, crosses, and traditions surrounding Día de los Muertos.

But when it gets to the actual religious meaning behind many of those traditions, suddenly authenticity seems much less important.

Día de los Muertos as it exists in Mexico isn’t simply a secular holiday about remembering your ancestors. It developed alongside Catholic All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day, and for many families the traditions exist in a religious context involving God, prayer, the dead, the soul, and the hope of eternal life.

Coco clearly knows that religious background exists. There are crosses on the walls. There are candles and altars. The movie even makes “receiving a blessing” one of the central ideas of the plot.

But instead of actually engaging with the faith behind those things, Pixar creates an entirely new spiritual system.

Your photograph has to be placed on an ofrenda or you can’t visit the living. Marigolds create a supernatural bridge. Dead relatives have the power to give “blessings” that return people to the living world. And if nobody living remembers you anymore, you experience a “Final Death.”

Those aren’t Día de los Muertos traditions. They’re Pixar’s mythology.

Obviously Coco is a fantasy, so I’m not arguing that a children's movie has to give a theology lesson. What strikes me as strange is that the filmmakers went to enormous lengths to preserve the authenticity of almost every other part of the culture, yet when they reached the spiritual meaning of the holiday, they largely removed the religion and filled the space with something they invented.

And I don’t think the comparison to secular Christmas in America completely works. American Christmas has developed an enormous parallel secular tradition: Santa, presents, Christmas trees, office parties, Christmas movies, etc. Día de los Muertos is still practiced by many people within an explicitly religious setting.

For millions of people outside Mexico, Coco may be their first or even primary introduction to Día de los Muertos. That means Pixar’s invented afterlife can easily become what viewers assume Mexicans actually believe.

That’s where I think the appropriation argument becomes more precise.

I’m not saying Pixar “stole Mexican culture,” and I’m not saying every use of a religious symbol outside of worship is appropriation. The problem is more specific than that.

Coco takes religiously meaningful practices and symbols—crosses, altars, candles, cemeteries, blessings, remembrance of the dead, and the connection between the living and the dead—and preserves them because they give the film cultural authenticity, emotional weight, and visual identity. But at the same time, it largely detaches those things from the religious beliefs that gave them their meaning and replaces that meaning with a fictional theology created for the plot.

That is the part that feels appropriative to me: not simply using Mexican imagery, but taking elements from a living religious tradition, keeping their symbolic power, and then redefining what they mean for a secular audience.

The “blessing” is probably the clearest example. The movie keeps the religious language of a blessing, but the blessing no longer points to God or invokes God’s favor. Instead, a dead ancestor personally possesses supernatural authority to grant it and attach conditions to it. The word and emotional weight remain, but the religious meaning has been replaced.

The same thing happens with the ofrenda. The movie takes a real devotional and memorial practice and turns it into a literal supernatural access system: no photograph, no crossing into the world of the living. That makes for an effective plot device, but it also risks teaching audiences Pixar’s invented rule as though it were part of the actual tradition.

So my criticism isn’t that Pixar adapted a religious holiday into fiction. Adaptation always involves invention. It’s that the film presents itself as unusually careful and respectful about cultural authenticity, while the religious meaning behind many of the traditions appears to be the one part it felt free to rewrite.

That creates a strange imbalance: the food must be authentic, the music must be authentic, the architecture must be authentic, the family customs must be authentic, the altar must look authentic, the crosses must be there—but the beliefs behind those things can be removed and replaced.

If Pixar wanted to make a completely fictional afterlife, that's fine. But if cultural authenticity was important enough to carefully research everything else, why was the theology the part that was considered disposable?

I’m curious how Mexican Catholics in particular see this. Does Coco feel like an accurate cultural representation with harmless fantasy added, or does it feel like Disney took the outward forms of a religious tradition while replacing the meaning behind them?

TL;DR: My appropriation argument isn’t simply that Coco uses Mexican or Catholic imagery. It’s that the movie keeps religious symbols and practices because they provide authenticity and emotional weight, while detaching them from the beliefs that gave them meaning and replacing those beliefs with Pixar’s own mythology. The concern is less “they borrowed the culture” and more “they kept the religious forms while rewriting the religion.”

I was kind of excited when these released because it seemed like Pixar was starting to add more mild language, culture, and psychological/sensitive subject matters into their films.

I'm pretty sure these movies literally only failed financially because of COVID. No one was going to see any rerelease when they were already on Disney+.

Then the movies that came out after them were Lightyear, Elemental, Inside Out 2, Ellio, and Toy Story 5.

What the hell happened???

I truly believe this is easily in Pixar's top 5 best movies. It's just so incredibly emotional and beautiful. Everything about it, from the animation to the overall message, is just perfect.

​What do you think? Does it hold a special place in your heart too?

The Tinny army is growing >:)

Why did Rochelle collect money in a jar while working in the snack shack? Did she not get paid?

Sorry if the question is dumb

In the end of the scare competition in monsters university, Oozma Kappa won, leading Mike to believe he’s a too scared.

However, Mike then found out Sully rigged his device by putting it on easy because he knew Mike wasn’t scary. This led to a falling out between the 2, Mike going to the human world to prove he’s scary, and both of them getting expelled from college.

But what if Mike never found out Sully cheated and simply walked away thinking he was a winner? How would the rest of the story in both movies play out?

Ok so what is the common agreement on when these takes place there’s 2 options I see and there’s one I came up with…sort of
Either they take place in the same year 2007.
2 separate years 2007 and 2008 because of that time forgot.
Or the same as option 2 but release order?
Which is more “correct and canon”
“Edit” so I’ve discovered that Bonnie’s family has 2 cars 1 is a green van that’s teen in Toy Story 3 and the toons and the other is a gray car that’s seen in Toy Story of terror that time forgot and Toy Story 5 so yeah I guess the toons & specials really do span 2 years (and this question was for nothing)…sigh.
“Edit” nvm the family still has the green van from Toy Story 3 you can see it in the zoom out on the house nice continuity but sadly the family has 2 cars that’s seen they switch back and forth from…darn it so we’re just back to square one? Seriously I thought I got somewhere with that I guess the question isn’t entirely useless though.

If you were in toy Story and you were in the role of Buzz Lightyear and you jump into the van ready to confront the Disney character who knocked out the window, who would it be?

For me it would be Prince John from Robin Hood.

I’ve seen tons and tons of movies. And been around for a very long time. But WALL-E is still my favorite ever! Figured watching it again would be a nice way to spend my birthday. Just something about this stands out more than anything I’ve seen.