Talk:Toy Story/Archive 1

Archive 1

Toy Story

I can think of nothing more absurd and chimerical than the notion that debian is a part of popular culture. Arvindn 03:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler template

The plot only describes the beginning, hence no spoiler template is needed. Is you would like to add details, please feel free to do so. — Stevey7788 (talk) 4 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Animated short

What animated short(s) aired with this movie at any time? This includes in theters or on DVD/VHS. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there were any - my VHS doesn't have any extras. Squidward2602 15:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing one when I saw it in the cinema in '96, either. BillyH 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't there the short with the two lamps and the famous star ball that they bounced on?

That was Luxo Jr., aired with Toy Story 2. BillyH 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

ABSOLUTLY NOT!!! There was no short film attached to the Toy Story film, on DVD or in "theters".

digital - analog - digital ?

The film is currently available on Special Edition DVD, with digitally-restored picture and remastered sound. ... this movie was produced digitally, therefore there wouldn't be the need for a digitally restored picture, only if they were so dumb not to keep a single digital source of the movie...

--Abdull 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the space needed to store all the high-resolution rendered frames from the movie. For a 90 minutes movie at 24fps, you have 129600 frames. Each frame may have taken something like 4 or 5 megs each. The result is roughly 500 Gigs... Sure in 2006 they are selling 500 GB HDs, but in 1995 it was an astronomical amount of space. The whole [World Wide Web] content from 1995 would probably be much less than that. In those days the idea of storing high-res frames as they are rendered on the computer itself didn't make much sense. Frames were erased from the computer HD and memory as they were printed on video or film.

Video tapes were probably the medium used to store and play draft renders, while the final outputs were printed directly on film. The editing process was probably done using traditional movie clipping methods.

Re: re: digital analog digital:

What makes you think they used an ordinary PC to make/store the movie? In 1991 some BBS servers could store up to 30 GB and have 1 GB RAM. Also, don't assume the final output of the movie was stored as .MPEG or uncompressed video, non-natural graphics can be produced with a variety of techniques, hint: flash movies, some are up to an hour long, high-quality and only a few megs in size.

Wow

Is it just me or is the plot summary pathetic? It is definitely not up to the standards of Wikipedia.

Sid

Sid really needs his own page.

No. He doesn't.--Suit-n-tie 04:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he does!!!--ANNAfoxlover

Factual Errors

The fictional Pixar movies show varieties of many various things that could not happen in real life.(Such a Sid not being able to create a 'mutant' lava lamp.)

Boy, I've got a big one for this section: Did you know that in reality, toys can't move around and/or talk? Seriously, though, this section seems nitpicky and just plain silly, especially considering that it only has one entry. It's an animated film; obviously it can break physical and logical rules that the real world cannot. There isn't a section in the Wile E. Coyote article that discusses the unlikeliness of Wile E. surviving a three mile drop onto jagged rocks or getting blown up by dynamite. I vote this section off the Wikipedia. 138.69.160.1 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(Just place it in the goofs section)

Mr. Potato Bully

Does anyone think that Potato Head was being mean to Woody, when he was the first to blame Woody for Buzz's death as well as thoughout the movie ?

Also on a more ironic note do you think that Potato Head should be the main character of Toy Story 3 ?

I agree with you. Mr. Potato Head was much nicer in Toy Story 2. 71.38.209.207 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article?

What are anybody's thoughts on trying to improve this article to FA standard? Naturally, the first step would be a peer review, then we can work on it. It would be nice to emulate the success of the Final Fantasy articles and have several Pixar articles featured. RMS Oceanic 10:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's anywhere close to a featured article, or a good article. There's an opening paragraph and an infobox, which is good, but it goes downhill from there. The plot section is probably too long (I haven't read it, I haven't seen the film), and other than that, there's one two sentence section about awards and the rest of the article is filled with bulleted lists, which should be changed to prose. Furthermore, there's exactly one reference in the entire article. - Bobet 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy's Absent Dad

As has been noted in trivia section, Andy's father is never seen or referred to in either Toy Story film. I'd go further than speculate and say that it is obvious that Andy lives in a single-parent household. As to what happened to Andy's father, I believe there are enough clues, especially in Toy Story 2, to indicate that he was somewhat older than Andy's mother and that he died a year or two before the time of the first movie. Read on...

Considering the movies are essentially contemporary (ie, set in late 1990s), Woody is a rather old-fashioned type of toy. This is confirmed in Toy Story 2 where we see Woody on the cover Time magazine from 1958, establishing that his line of toys date from the fifties. Andy, therefore, cannot have been given Woody from new. This is confirmed in TS2, when Al tries to buy Woody at the yard-sale. Andy's mum tells him that Woody is "an old family toy". So who did Woody originally belong to? It would have to be Andy's father, who, being a kid in the fifties, would be in his mid-forties by the time Andy was born. He must've held onto Woody through his early adult life and then handed him down to his son.

Since Andy has a younger sister who is about two, we can presume Andy's dad was still around up until at least two years before the movies (there's no indication that Molly is anything other than Andy's full sister). Also, from the generally cheerful mood in the household, we can be sure Andy's dad didn't depart recently. How do we know he is dead, rather than just absent? It is Andy's mum who rescues Woody from Al at the yard-sale and seems rather upset at the thought of selling him (going so far as to lock him in the cash-box). Woody must have had some sentimental value for her too, which would be unlikely if he'd belonged to a wayward spouse who'd up and left her.

Seen this way, there is another reason why Woody is so special to Andy. Not only is he an excellent toy, he is also a link with the father he misses terribly. --Oscar Bravo 10:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What the HEck are you talking about?--Suit-n-tie 00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's literary analysis. OK, so TS is just a movie for kids, but it is rather exceptional in many ways and it may well stand the test of time. Future generations may study it as an important, seminal work. If you guffaw at this, take a look at Talk:Hamlet - there, they debate Polonius's nationality and whether Gertrude knew the cup was poisoned - speculations within the universe of the drama. --Oscar Bravo 07:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I get where he's coming from, and if this was a forum for discussing Toy Story, I'd agree with him. However, this is Wikipedia, a site based solely on fact. There has been no official source declaring Andy's family's status, so any comments regarding his father is speculation, original research or POV. RMS Oceanic 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure - which is why this on the Talk page, not in the article :-) --Oscar Bravo 07:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very interesting, Oscar Bravo! Are there sources which explore this further? If so, perhaps we would want to put it in article main space after all. -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ron Pickles quotation (plea to Jienum)

I have removed again the offensive phrase ("What are you staring at, you bald-headed Jew Prick?"). Perhaps before putting it back, you would like to read why:

This page is about a movie that is very popular with children - my own kids watch it constantly. Therefore, many kids will visit this page. Children have a right to spend their childhood in blissful ignorance of the nastiness that permeates the adult world so, in that spirit, I don't think this page is the place for quoting racist, offensive lines from an adult movie.

You are very clever to have found this important reference involving Mr. Potato Head but please ask yourself, do you really want to share it with seven year-old kiddies. Please, do the right thing...--Oscar Bravo 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

one thing. Its Don Rickles. I don't know who Ron Pickles is. That's all.--Suit-n-tie 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that comment belongs in the Trivia Section, but toned down a little. How about, "Don Rickles is also insulted this way himself in his previous film, Casino, by Joe Pesci."? Jienum 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No problemo! Thanks. --Oscar Bravo 07:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

....there was bondage pic instead of poster...i fixed it. :\

Yeah, I just was about to say something 'bout that. Lemmy12 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs improvement

This article is too heavy on plot and too light on what matters:

• History
• Making of
• Distinctions
• etc.

People want to know where the idea came from, negotiations with Disney, technological advancements of the movie. Was it John Lasseter's idea? Was it made as part of the deal with Disney? What were some early concepts of it? What problems did they have? How did it launch Pixar into the spotlight? What distinctions and honors does it have (e.g. first feature length 3d film by Disney)? Mazin07^C₪_T 22:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnyard

In the film Barnyard, there is a bratty boy who likes cow-tipping so the cows "boy-tip" him while he's asleep and he gets a fear of cows like Sid gets a fear of toys.

I don't think this is really a reference to Toy Story. Nonetheless, I'll leave it alone, because I can see why whoever put that there did. Lemmy12 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but regardless of whether you can see it, if there is no reference to support that, then it should be removed. If it is only the opinion of the person that put it there, then it is original research and should be removed. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Release date of Toy Story 2

The release date of Toy Story 2 is mentioned, and it says it was released on November 19, 1999. I happen to remember seeing the previews for it and the release date was November 24, 1999. I remember because it came out right after my birthday, so I'm going to fix it right now.

Tires

"Lightning McQueen's tires in Cars, and those of the RC car in Toy Story, say Lightyear, a parody of Buzz Lightyear and Goodyear Tires."

Lightning McQueen's tires do say Lightyear, but RC's tires say "Goodtire".

No plot?

I had some time, and I wrote a plot for this plotless article. I hope it's not to long and it's good enough. Someone respond. I LOVE GOOGLE!!! Thank you. --ANNAfoxlover

It's me again, ANNAfoxlover. I just added the plot to this article, but I need some help separating it into paragraphs. Someone do this for me. Thanks.

Video Games

What are the three video games based on Toy Story? I know just about one: Toy Story: Activity Center. Tomer T 14:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also a Game Boy Color Game I know of. I think also that there was one for the original Playstation, but I'm not sure. 68.211.9.202 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a Toy Story 2 game, I can remember. For the N64 and probably the PS. Doppelganger 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture & Trivia

References to the use of gas station Dinoco in both Cars and Toy Story can be found in both the POP Culture and the Trivia sections. The reference in the Trivia section is poorly written (capitalization). I say someone remove it from there as all the other Cars/Toy Story similarities are listed in the Pop Culture Section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.127.70.220 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I'll raise you. This is mentioned in Cars' page, so it should be removed from this page entirely. I think the book/comic/tv show/film making the reference should contain information about it, rather than what is being refered to saying where it's refered to in. Finding Nemo has a similar problem. RMS Oceanic 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First or second?

The Cassiopéia article mentions some controversy over whether Toy Story was in fact the first fully computer-animated film:

Pixar Studios made the heads of the main characters from clay sculptures that were digitized with a Polhemus 3D wand), thus excluding its status of a 100% computer generated movie, while Cassiopéia was made from scratch and made entirely from a virtual enviroment, from the modeling to the texturing. This difference between both films is defended by Brazilian animators who consider Cassiopéia as the first CGI movie, even being released a few months after Toy Story.

Does anyone know what a "Polhemus 3D wand" is exactly? Esn 06:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a 3D scanner that translated real-life 3D objects into vectors that 3D renderers can read. nowadays some video game developers use it to get realistic faces. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the message of the movie

I honestly don't know why, out of many movies I chose to lose my last hour of free time with this one, I guess I hold some nostalgic value when I first watched it as a tyke of 5. Also because I didn't realize this movie was the first pure computer-animated movie so I was curious to see how bad the graphics might suck (we all know how limited shit was back in 1995) so after watching this movie again after 10 years (as an adult not as a kid anymore) something came to my attention: the message of this movie may be discussing "delusions" that some children have (actually, any kid aged 4-10 probably does) e.g.

Boy: I am Tarzan! Aaaaayaaaah!

Parent: You are not Tarzan, you are Brian, a boy. Tarzan is just a fictional character.

Boy: No, I am Tarzan, *starts climbing trees and trying to swing from vines*

And in this movie we see Buzz Lightyear saying "I'm a space ranger, I'm on a mission to protect the universe from Zurg." The other toys told him "You're not a space ranger, you're a toy and your only mission is to play with children." Furthermore, he calls Andy the "chief of this planet" and has "officially accepted him as part of their culture" by marking his name on his foot, and called the surface of the bed "unstable terrain" and kept trying to "fix" his spaceship which was really made of paper and was "choking" when woody uncovered Buzz's helmet etc. etc.

While it is normal for young children to have these temporary "delusions," Buzz Lightyear is an adult figure and this movie is explaining how problematic delusional adults are. For example, Buzz got them into trouble when they almost found Andy at the Pizza Planet place, Buzz crawled into a rocket-shaped toy crane thinking he would return back to his planet that way or something, which caused them to lose Andy and instead be picked up by that sadist kid, Sid. And broke his arm when he tried to "fly" out the window but instead fell cuz obviously he's made of plastic and can't really fly.

In conclusion, the message may be "Delusional adults are trouble, the only cure is a good friend," or something along those lines.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Burningham, Bruce R (2008). "John Lasseter's Toy Story as postmodern Don Quixote". Tilting Cervantes: Baroque Reflections on Postmodern Culture. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 0826516025.
• Grenville, Bruce, ed. (2008). "John Lasseter: Toy Story 1995". KRAZY!: The Delirious World of Anime + Comics + Video Games + Art. University of California Press. ISBN 0520257847.
• Gulino, Paul Joseph (2004). "Toy Story: Firing on all eight". Screenwriting: The Sequence Approach. Continuum. ISBN 0826415687.
• Hooks, Ed (2005). "Toy Story". Acting in Animation: A Look at 12 Films. Heinemann Drama. ISBN 0325007055.
• Kanfer, Stefan (2000). Serious Business: The Art And Commerce Of Animation In America From Betty Boop To Toy Story. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0306809184.
• Lasseter, John; Daly, Steve (2009). Toy Story: The Art and Making of the Animated Film. Disney Editions. ISBN 1423129679.
• Neuwirth, Allan (2003). "Pretty as a pixel: Toy Story becomes the first CGI toon feature". Makin' Toons: Inside the Most Popular Animated TV Shows and Movies. Allworth Press. ISBN 1581152698. (another chapter: "To infinitives and beyond: Scripting Pixar's Toy Story and Toy Story 2")
• Paik, Karen (2007). "Toy Story". To Infinity and Beyond!: The Story of Pixar Animation Studios. Chronicle Books. ISBN 0811850129.
• Velarde, Robert (2010). "Identity". The Wisdom of Pixar: An Animated Look at Virtue. IVP Books. pp. 30–39. ISBN 0830832971.
• Williams, Linda Ruth; Hammond, Michael, eds. (2006). "Toy Story". Contemporary American Cinema. Open University Press. ISBN 0335218318.
• Wojik-Andrews, Ian (2000). "1990s United States and European Children's Cinema and Film: The Bicycle Thief, Toy Story, and the End of Children's Cinema". Children's Films: History, Ideology, Pedagogy, Theory. Children's Literature and Culture. Routledge. ISBN 081533074X.

removed trivia section

Section blanked by User:Alientraveller, please find citations and restore INTO THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE any trivia that can be cited.

Trivia;

- Trivia|date=June 2007

-

• The Pixar logo with the hopping Luxo Jr. is absent before the film. He is present at the very end of the credits instead.

-

• Sid's outfit is identical to that worn by Chris Cornell in the 1994 Soundgarden video "Black Hole Sun". Both shirts feature logos which resemble the skull logo used by Zero Skateboards. The black tee shirt with white upper skull also resembles the traditional outfit of The Punisher.

-

• The "Hand" in the Box in Sid's room plays the same music that the toy did from Tin Toy (1988), the short movie that inspired Toy Story.

-

• When Woody jumps through the window of the Pizza Planet truck, there is a sticker on it that appears to be Herbie's famous number 53.

-

• The toy shark, wearing Woody's hat, proclaims, "Look, I'm Woody! Howdy howdy howdy!" This references a cowboy-eating vulture in one of Gary Larson's "The Far Side" daily comic strips from the early 1980s: "Look, I'm a cowboy! Howdy! Howdy! Howdy!"

-

• The toolbox that Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) pushes off the milk crate bears the name "Binford Tools," the name of the fictional company which sponsors Allen's character's show in Home Improvement (1991).

-

• "Hakuna Matata" from The Lion King can be heard in Andy's mother's car on the way to their new home.

-

• During the staff meeting at the beginning of the movie, some of the books on the shelf behind Woody are named after some of Pixar's short films, such as Tin Toy and Knick Knack.

-

• In the movie's opening scene, Mr. Potato Head says "What are you looking at, you hockey puck?" This is one of Don Rickles's (the voice of Mr. Potato Head) trademark insults.

-

• In Hannah's tea party, her teapot is the Utah Teapot, famous in the computer graphics community.

-

• The moving truck company is called Eggman Movers. Eggman is a nickname of Pixar Art Designer Ralph Eggleston.

-

• The license plates on the cars feature words in place of names of states. For example on Andy's mom's minivan, the plate reads "Minivan" in place of a state and another car's reads "Auto".

-

• There are numerous references to Star Wars (Such as Buzz's monologue regarding a space station with enough power to destroy a planet, a reference to the Death Star). Pixar was originally formed from the Industrial Light & Magic Computer Graphics Group.

-

• When Buzz gets knocked out the window, he emits the Wilhelm Scream.

-

• In 2003, the Online Film Critics Society ranked the film as the greatest animated film of all time.

-

• All of the cars in Toy Story are registered for November 1995, the film's month of release.

-

• Sid's room contains an issue of "TM 31-210 IMPROVISED INTERROGATION HANDBOOK". However, the real title of TM 31-210 is Improvised Munition Handbook.

-

• A poster on Sid's wall that says "Megadork" is perhaps a pun on the metal band Megadeth

-

• When Sid is attacked by his abused toys, a doll behind him screams 'redrum', an homage to Stephen King's novel, 'The Shining'. During the same scene, Woody spins his head around 360 degrees; an homage to 'The Exorcist'.

None of these are important enough to warrant inclusion in this article.99.118.2.20 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)SailorSonic

References

Santa Clause 2 reference

In one of the final scenes of Santa Clause 2, Scott is fighting the plastic Santa, and the plastic Santa goads him in saying "You are a sad and strange little man." Toy Story much? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.152.120 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it sounds like it would be (since it also is played by Tim Allen). trainfan01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.10.254 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone rewrite plot summary?

Hi! I'm SunDragon34. I want to work this article up to FA-status. (This film is too great an animation milestone not to be featured.) Can someone rewrite the plot summary so that it keeps to the size limit (700 words or less) set forth in WP:FilmPlot? I can take care of spelling and grammar for the article if someone can rewrite that plot summary. Thanks!

SunDragon34 (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I managed to go over the plot summary as best I can, but I still think we need to make it a lot shorter.

SunDragon34 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re-wrote the plot from scratch after watching the movie tonight. It's considerably briefer and a much better starting point than the minutiae-laden 'summary' that was there before. Tim Bennett (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• (New to editing, so just a talk comment, not an article edit) I'm just re-watching this movie and noted the plot section has at least two confusing statements:

1. Currently: "With his family moving home one week before his birthday" should say "With his family moving _to a new_ home one week before his birthday 2. Currently: "the aliens force the two towards the claw". Sid first gets an alien, then sees Buzz, and thus attempts to get him. When Woody is trying to yank them both out the rear access door, the only thing the aliens do is gently "help" Woody go with Buzz (cheering them on really) since Buzz has already been grabbed by the claw. Satjiwan (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion on copyedit

Almost forgot--I'm done with my first proofread. Can I get a few other people to double-check the grammar? Once we do that, I think we can check grammar off of the list on the template above.

SunDragon34 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixing article

I've been studying the Manual of style: film guidelines and FA film articles, and I see that this article doesn't match up in quite a few areas. The maintenance tags are just one hint. Take a look at the guidelines and the FA film articles and you'll see what I mean.

We need a new lead section, the Plot section has to be redone for length, style, and tone, some of the lists have to be rewritten as prose, we need a section on Pixar's history, the trivia section needs to be taken apart and its pieces worked into other sections, etc. And all the data needs references, of course.

I've been working on a new lead section, to get renovations started. I did it carefully according to MoS guidelines and followed the style of some FA film articles. And it's pretty well-referenced. I'll put it up now. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got the new lead section up, but it needs a lot of wikilink work: adds, point CGI at the right page, etc. I don't have the time to do it right now, so if anybody would like to hack away at this, please do. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a crack at completely rewriting the Plot section. I think it's a marked improvement but there's plenty of scope to do more. Tim Bennett (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Working on Trivia

I'm chipping away at the Trivia section; I think I can get rid of a few of the items and organize the rest into paragraphs. Until then, I'm going to prioritize the list in order of descending importance (in my opinion).

Looking back through the talk page archive, I found some great feedback on the article, so I'm pasting a copy of it here. I thought it gave some good suggestions as to how we might further improve the article.

SunDragon34 (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Mazin07:

This article is too heavy on plot and too light on what matters:

• History
• Making of
• Distinctions
• etc.

People want to know where the idea came from, negotiations with Disney, technological advancements of the movie. Was it John Lasseter's idea? Was it made as part of the deal with Disney? What were some early concepts of it? What problems did they have? How did it launch Pixar into the spotlight? What distinctions and honors does it have (e.g. first feature length 3d film by Disney)? Mazin07^C₪_T 22:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot creep

I am keeping a strict eye on the length of this article's 'Plot' section. According to WP:FilmPlot, this should not exceed 700 words (596 currently) and should provide a 'comprehensive plot summary' - summary, not a re-telling. For some reason, this article has frequently had a too-long plot summary (over 1,100 words as recently as July 2008). A recent edit added 300 words for no good reason than to describe the film's action in greater detail. One addition still required, according to WP:FilmPlot, is to 'concisely describe the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences' before going into the complete summary. I'd also like to see the summary compressed further towards the 400-wordrecommended minimum. Tim Bennett (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

714 words right now. I guess it's time for us to give it a trim, huh? SunDragon34 (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Burningham, Bruce (2000). "Walt Disney's Toy Story as Postmodern Don Quixote" (PDF). Cervantes. 20 (1). Cervantes Society of America: pp. 157–174. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help) Surman, David (2003). "CGI Animation: Pseudorealism, Perception and Possible Worlds" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Thought I might make a quick run to Google Books and Scholar to see if anything was readily available. I'd say these are worth checking out. Cliff smith (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I found one too. It's the book To Infinity And Beyond!: The Story of Pixar Animation Studios. It's not cheap, but it has 20+ pages on Toy Story. It can solve our production section problems. I'm unsure of myself concerning how much I should include from this book because it's a lot of info to go through. I'll just start writing and let others sort it out, I guess. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Music section cleanup

"Music" contains a single uncited relevant fact, and a bunch of remnants from the now-zapped 'Trivia' section. This section may be salvageable (consider adding some more stuff about Randy Newman, for instance), but I'm considering blanking it too. Thoughts? Tim Bennett (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that—pardon my mess. I was just looking at that, thinking I should move it. I am trying to improve the Development section, and there are bits and pieces there that I haven't incorporated into the prose yet. Really it's at the bottom of the development section, but it looks like it's in the Music section. I'll move it.

As for the rest, I think it just needs expansion. The article should definitely have a Music section, because there is a story behind the music in Toy Story--Disney wanted it to be a musical like Snow White and the like, with (the Disney standard) seven songs sung by the characters throughout the film. Pixar really, really didn't want to do that. So there is content to be included there; I just haven't gotten around to adding and referencing it yet. I've found some really good sources, so I've got some work to do on the whole development section. SunDragon34 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources are good! So many changes to be made on this page - I can't believe it was in the "Best Picture Award Winners" category for so long before somebody noticed. Tim Bennett (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Should "Real products that appear in the film" be removed?

Is the section "Real products that appear in the film" truly relevant, or is it just trivia? I'm wondering if it should be removed. Opinions? SunDragon34 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just another kind of trivia. As I'm sure the filmmakers needed permission to put 'real products' in their film (see the Barbie/Mattel notes in the article) this could form part of the 'Development' section.Tim Bennett (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section returned

Hi. Someone has restored the Trivia section that was in the article several months ago. Trivia sections are discouraged on Wikipedia, and I had already sorted through the trivia section and removed it. I have already placed relevant items of that list in their appropriate articles. Actually, the section that really, really needs expanding right now is the development section. May I please remove the Trivia section again? SunDragon34 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRIV suggests some guidelines for removing trivia sections. There are a few items, such as the Online Film Critics Society rating, which could be incorporated into the main article. There are many others that aren't of 'significant importance' to the article (hence 'trivial'), and still others that explain the movie's in-jokes. Perhaps the latter are worthy of their own section, as there are quite a few of them (Eggman, Utah Teapot, Tin Toy, Knick Knack etc). Considering you'd already sorted through the section, has anything of value been added subsequently, or was the section just restored as it was when you removed it? Tim Bennett (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is just the way it was when I removed it. I am open to making a section for the in-jokes, however. Also, is the "Real products that appear in the film" section relevant, or should it be removed? SunDragon34 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I propose a section for the in-jokes (perhaps called 'Easter Eggs'? Not sure if definition fits.) and have responded to the "real products" section above.Tim Bennett (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Big changes to 'Production' & others

Here's a summary of what I've done tonight:

• Changed 'Production' section to 'History' and incorporated development, reception, awards, crew, references and real products subsections.
• Re-written the 'Development' subsection in consultation with a book on Pixar's history
• Nuked the 'Trivia' section
• Fleshed out references where possible

In my opinion there's not enough in here about the technical history of the project (eg Pixar's involvement with RenderMan, technical details such as the movie's 1536x922 resolution), which I believe are significant in an article about the first feature-length computer-generated film.

As with my July re-write of the 'Plot' section, I've done a whole lot at once instead of in pieces. I hope it meets with approval! - Tim Bennett (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it looks great! I'll try to add some more stuff with my Pixar book, but in the meantime, I'm nomming this for reassessment back to B-class. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy?

I disagree with labelling Toy Story as being primarily a comedy film - it is certainly funny, but it's more a funny adventure film than an adventurous funny film. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and expansion

After seeing the article nominated for GAN, I did a quick cleanup yesterday. I think that such an important film needs further expansion so I'll be adding additional sources in the next day or so. There should probably be more details on the animation, additional sources for the awards, details on the soundtrack, expansion on the box office details, etc. There are a vast amount of sources available for this film, and I'll try to incorporate as much as I can. Hopefully the article is not reviewed for awhile (especially with the backlog, and it having just been nominated), because I'd like to fine tune it first. Good job to all who have contributed to the article, and please watch my edits to make sure there no mistakes. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I like it :) Tim Bennett (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I have expanded the article quite a bit, it now has over eighty citations. The article has several new sections as well as expansion in the preexisting sections. Please take a look to make sure there are no errors, as I usually tend not to catch my own. I know of a book at my local library I might be able to get to further expand on the article, so we'll see how that goes. Again, good work to those who have contributed to the article in the past. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Film was "re-shot" for foreign language versions

Hi! It would be worth mentioning that the film is unusual (maybe unique?) because, in some or all of the non-English versions, not only was the dialogue replaced by the target language, but the mouth motions were modified to fit the new dialogue, so the video footage is actually different in the different languages. I have verified this myself by seeing the French language version and am writing here because I can't figure out where to add this information within the current article structure - maybe someone more familiar with the article's flow could do so. Martinwguy (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds interesting and could be included. However, we need a source for it to add it. I couldn't find anything with a Google search, but maybe one of the DVD special features covers it. I think I had heard something like that before with other later animated films, so it may not be the only one. However, it might be one of the first to modify the animation for other audiences. When a source is found, it can probably be added to the animation section. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toy Story/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Well, here's my review:

• Plot:"Removalist" isn't a word.

Other than that, it's fine! When fixed, please contact me.Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a word, although "moving van" or "mover's" might be better, and what do you think about the in-universe perspective of the Plot section? If you're going to continue to do GA reviews, Limetolime, please work on thoroughness. 72.86.49.64 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article, I appreciate it. Looking at the Moving company article, a removalist is another term for describing it. A Google search reveals that there are plenty of hits for the term. It may not be the most popular term, but perhaps it will educate others on what it means. If you still think it should be changed, then I will. Thanks again for the review and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the word "removalist" to the article. I'm Australian, and it's common in local usage, but I acknowledge it may not be a prominent term worldwide. The problem with a term like "moving van" (which I considered using) is ambiguity - is it a van that's in motion, or a van used for moving items? Tim Bennett (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Updating CGI

Toy Story is almost 15 years old and is starting to show its age. Wall-E looks so much better, which isn't surpising since CGI has improved tons since then.

Is there any chance Pixar could update their older films, re-rendering them with todays software? Star Wars got a makeover. Why not Toy Story, Bugs Life, etc.? 74.100.48.167 (talk)

Then people would start yelling about the changes. Other than that, it's a good thing Pixar kept their source files. --Addict 2006 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

3D Re-Release

Do you think there is a way we can make a new article, specificly for Toy Story & Toy Story 2's Disney Digital 3D re-release? I just wanted to do that to have more information about the event instead of just looking for pieces of info in different articles. J. Severe (Talk)

I don't think it would be appropriate to start an entirely new article. Re-releases generally don't get articles, but it is definitely something to include here, on Toy Story 2, and on Toy Story (franchise). BOVINEBOY2008 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bovineboy2008, a new article isn't necessary. Each article can have its own mention, as well as possibly the third film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we should leave trying to cite the two-week run being extended until Friday at least when we know for sure it has been extended. --Addict 2006 03:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fandango shows it as being extended into next week, you can buy tickets now. Bobrocks95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

It's okay. I went on October 3. Now the official website and the site of the theatre I went to list ticket dates beyond today. Cited the October 12 updates. Although I kind of want to go again, there's almost no point. --Addict 2006 00:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Gross revenue

Hello, Box Office Mojo lists this amount whilst The Numbers lists another. Which one do we use? Arctic Night 13:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually Box Office Mojo is the site referenced the most on here for weekend and total gross. I tend to use The Numbers for citing figures such as rentals and DVD sales. As the vast majority of our film articles use BOM, we should stick with that for consistency. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nehrams. I reverted an IP's edit, which changed the BOM number to another number (which I later found out was on The Numbers). Good to see that I wasn't reverting something against consensus! Arctic Night 09:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Film set in Michigan ?

Hello, has someone a good reason to set the film in Michigan ? I don't remerber this fact in the film ? --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I, so I removed it. If someone has proof that Pixar set the film in Michigan (even a fictional town within the state), then they can (a) present it for verification and (b) we can incorporate it into the article, instead of it just being a category. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well in the 3rd film because of the name of the Daycare it is possible the place could be the town of Sunnyside, but then again, maybe not. Additionally the only 'Sunnyside' I can find in the US is in Washington (state). trainfan01 —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just copy/pasted some categories from the franchise article I suppose. Feel free to remove it. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm pretty sure a location is never specified. Tinyboy21 (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

They do mention the tri-county area in the buzz lightyear commercial if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.161.1 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

FA push?

I am considering an FA push for this article. This article looks really good. Before we take this to FA, I am going to take this to peer review. Are there any comments or objections on this matter? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Of the film articles I've worked on, I think this would be a great candidate for FA for the impact it's had on the film industry and is box office/critical success. Before going on to FA, it's going to need expansion from available print sources and a section on themes. I'm currently busy with other articles at the moment, but would help out in getting it to FA a few months down the line. Hopefully there are helpful comments in the peer review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then. That will help. Best wishes, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nehrams that the article would benefit from use of print sources. I added books to the "References to use" section at the top of the talk page. See if your local library has any of them! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not too many. I'd probably need to do some inter-library loans or Amazon them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

buzz is a what in toy story

WHAT IS BUZZ IN TOY STORY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.254.238 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusion in Animation

I believe there is a source of confusion in the Animation section. It says the making of the movie used 800 000 machine hours for 114 thousand frames with 2-15 hours per frame. It gives an impression that it actually took 2-15 hours to create every frame which results in at least 25 years of production time (which would make no sense). I think the way that the information is presented is, on purpose, exaggerated to overstate the production time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.68.154 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

800,000 hours for 114,000 frames is ~7 hours per frame on average, so the 2-15 hours per frame range sounds about right. If you want to change "2-15 hours" to "2-15 machine hours" (assuming that's the intent), I think that would clear things up appropriately. I don't see any unnecessary overstatement, though. If the numbers are actually especially large, there's nothing wrong with them sounding especially large... --Fru1tbat (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This confuses me too. I always hear about how it takes many hours to render a single frame, but if Toy Story took 800,000 hours to render, that translates to 91 years, and it obviously did not take that long to make it unless production started in 1904. Either way, I'm missing something crucial here. How many machine hours translates to real life hours? Why would any non-technical person care how many "machine hours" it took to make a CGI movie? Let's keep things as concrete and least confusing as possible, people.142.59.42.197 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty standard measure of complexity of a computing task, which is why it's important to mention. And yes, if it takes 800,000 machine hours, and only one machine is working on it, then it would take 91 years. Of course, they had more than one machine working on it in parallel, which doesn't change how much work has to be done, but does change how much actual time it takes, drastically. If they had, for example, 91 machines working on it, it would (theoretically) only take about a year to render. Does that make any more sense? --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Much, I understand now. Thanks for the simple explanation.142.59.42.197 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

National Film Registry Mention

The article mentions that Toy Story, along with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, is only one of two animated films in the NFR, but the wiki page on the National Film Registry lists many. Even if we restrict it only to feature films, at least Beauty and the Beast and Fantasia are on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwrush (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Buzz freezing when humans are around

Was it ever officially explained why Buzz freezes along other toys when humans are around, despite him not knowing he's a toy? - 89.70.239.244 (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Toy Story - "Hakuna Matata"

The song "Hakuna Matata" is featured in the 1995 computer-animated Disney/Pixar film Toy Story.

Regarding that YouTube video.

In the section "Sequels, shows, and spin-offs" I see this sentence:

"In January 2013, a fan-made live-action version of the film was posted on YouTube which has gone on to have 14,751,219 views before being taken down by Disney for copyright of the audio."

I seriously gotta ask, how is this notable in any way? Last time I checked in order for something to belong to an article, it needs more than just being popular online.

I mean think about it, The Amazing Atheist is extremely popular on YouTube. So are TheJWittz, Jeremy Jahns and Chris Bores. But we don't have an article on them because there are no secondary sources. So what makes this video special?

Because it got taken down for copyright? Big deal it happens all the time, all YouTubers have to deal with it at some point. That doesn't make the event noteworthy. And since this video doesn't have its own article, nor does the person who made it, I don't think it's noteworthy enough. If there are no objections I will remove that from the article in 24 hours. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal. Seems like WP:Fancruft. None of this appears to be notable whatsoever. Zarcusian (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually I found out that one of the sources is this and it looks like a reliable source to me. So I'm leaving it as it is. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toy Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100626184848/http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/PDFs/toy-story-story.pdf to https://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/PDFs/toy-story-story.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of employees

In March 29 the number of employees at Pixar was reduced to just 42. Alvy Ray Smith resigned once he knew Toy Story would come true, reducing the number to 41, unless they had already started to hire new people for the upcoming movie by then.

But the Wikipedia article says "When production was greenlit, the crew quickly grew from its original size of 24 to 110, including 27 animators, 22 technical directors, and 61 other artists and engineers."

I have not been able to find anything that conform this according to the sources (maybe it does, and I have just not be able to find it). According to this link, there were 28 animators and 30 technical directors, and like the article says, 110 in total.

Only 24 people at Pixar at one point? Is it possible that it was just the animation department it was referred to, and not Pixar as a whole? 84.210.34.27 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

those who have not seen this

Who born in between November 22, 1995 and November 22, 1996 has never seen this movie? Surely, it is not safe to say everybody has seen it cause there is always an exception. I know a lot of top films of a decade that people have not seen. --97.113.114.127 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Toy Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://crankycritic.com/qa/pf_articles/billycrystal.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timeout.com/film/features/show-feature/8840/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1998/b3605001.arc.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cinepad.com/lafca.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208150126/http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr2005.html to http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr2005.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/41777/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210091605/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n19_v35/ai_18752351 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n19_v35/ai_18752351

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Toy Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/a/m/mv_t.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027140419/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Cracking-Auction-Gromits-Bristol-tops-2m-mark/story-19886480-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Cracking-Auction-Gromits-Bristol-tops-2m-mark/story-19886480-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921202812/http://www.pixar.com/features_films/TOY-STORY to http://www.pixar.com/features_films/TOY-STORY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toy Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017233532/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_animated_films/toy_story/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_animated_films/toy_story/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancies in the "Home media" section.

Looks like someone edited the article to say the 2000 DVD (Ultimate Toy Box and 2001 standalone releases) was sourced from a 35mm print and also had the fullscreen version, when the latter only applied to Toy Story 2 and both were direct-digital masters on DVD. This needs to be fixed. --CARS FOR ME (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusion on the earlier home video releases - Digital vs. 35mm

From what I can tell, the article has a weird discrepancy spelling "fullscreen" or "full screen" as "FullScreen" and it says that anything before the 10th Anniversary DVD were from 35mm sources, when the older DVDs were direct from the digital intermediate (possibly made in 1999 or 2000 from 1994-95 renders and credits from a film source, with multiple images stitched together, digitally moving up) like the later releases.

This is confusing. CARS FOR ME (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Bo Peep and Slinky

In the movie, they were the only ones that didn't turn on Woody after he knocked Buzz out the window. Why is this being removed? It makes no sense!2601:246:C302:2F0:54EA:24E7:8D5F:F99D (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ending of the Plot

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the match that Woody used to light the rocket on Buzz's back, not actually light the rocket, because a car passed by and put it out? I remember Woody recalling when his face was burned by Sid using a Magnifying Glass and using that knowledge, he lights the rocket using the glass from Buzz's helmet. CreeperDudeBro (talk) 22:53 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - good catch! I think mentioning the detail of the match and the helmet would be a little awkward, so I fixed it by rewording it a bit instead. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The poster should be changed.

It isn't official. Scratchu90 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Toy Story, I feel like...mmm...you should be...semi-protected? Because you’re a...mmm...a popular page? 66.192.212.158 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Storm of Ram Ranch" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Storm of Ram Ranch. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hb1290 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Toy Story (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

Is there by any chance someone could update the "Casting" info in the "Production" section of the article? I was originally gonna add some addition info before it got protected. Because according to the website ScreenRant, several other actors were also considered to voice Woody and Buzz. Including this one:https://screenrant.com/toy-story-famous-actors-almost-voiced-iconic-roles-disney-pixar/, both Clint Eastwood and Robin Williams were considered to voice Woody, plus it also states that Rick Moranis and John Cleese were also considered to voice Rex and Slinky. Finally in this article here:https://screenrant.com/toy-story-movies-disney-franchise-behind-scenes-facts-woody-buzz-lightyear/, fourteen more actors were also considered to voice Buzz Lightyear. Including Jason Alexander, Dan Aykroyd, Matthew Broderick, Kevin Costner, Michael J. Fox, Richard Gere, David Hasselhoff, Michael Keaton, Wayne Knight, Bill Paxton, Dennis Quaid, Kurt Russell, Adam Sandler and John Travolta. 2600:1000:B049:F4D2:48A3:7BA1:A2BA:D6DC (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. A lot of people can be "considered", but there's not much more to say about that. Screen Rant is also a low quality source. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

I just want to edit the part of "the first fully 3d animated computadorized movie" because i found there is a movie called "Cassiopeia"

in Brazil that is really the first full 3d animated movie since in Toy Story they used some stop motion effects. MCZilio (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

Replace the last paragraph of the "Accolades" section of the article with the following, copy and paste from source. The removed reference, TV Tropes, is unreliable as a reference and external links per WP:RS|unreliable and WP:ELNO:

Toy Story was nominated for two Golden Globe Awards, one for Best Motion Picture—Comedy or Musical, and one for Best Original Song—Motion Picture for Newman's "You've Got a Friend in Me". At both the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards and the Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards, the film won "Best Animated Film". Toy Story is the highest-placed (at No. 99) animated film in Empire magazine's list of "500 Greatest Movie of All Time". In 2005, Toy Story, along with Toy Story 2 was voted the 4th greatest cartoon in Channel 4's 100 Greatest Cartoons poll, behind The Simpsons, Tom and Jerry, and South Park.

2603:7000:1F00:6B91:7D96:D0FE:31F0:6D3D (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done SoyokoAnis - talk 14:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Undone for another edit request patroller to review and handle. Was improperly done without sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources were added by another editor. Marked as 'answered'. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Add Pete Docter navbox on the page 2603:7000:C300:862F:657F:D5A1:2EA0:3A09 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done He's listed under people in the Pixar Animation Studios section ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Production - Development section appears to lift directly from Walter Isaacson’s Steve Jobs

I was just reading Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. Chapter 22 talks about the production of Toy Story, and the story was very interesting. I was curious to learn more so I came here, and reading through the “Development” section I can see that most of the sentences are actually lifted word-for-word from Isaacson.

I haven’t looked through the edit history — I suppose it’s also possible Isaacson lifted his text directly from Wikipedia, but I doubt that. The book was published in 2011 so if the Wikipedia text was added after 2011 it’s been plagiarized. I’d recommend investigating and removing/rewriting the section to correct for this. 12.202.65.58 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the infringing text was added on 2 August 2012 by User:Saginaw-hitchhiker, so after the book was published. I have done my best to re-word those sections, but someone probably needs to look at the Price source as well (I don't have a copy of it). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"the first entirely computer-animated feature film" seems incorrect?

This phrase links to Firsts in Animation which says it's the first G-rated CGI feature film, and that The Rescuers Down Under is the first computer-animated feature film (referring to animated digitally, not CGI). I'm not sure if it was a mistake or intentional so i dont know if I should change it. RainbowCardboard (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source in this article that directly states that fact it shouldn't be in this article. Wikipedia, which includes links to other articles, is a WP:USERG source and isn't a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)