Talk:Toy Story

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'.

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

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)

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)