Franchescanado posted:

I changed the thread title, because the previous one--"Philosophy of Movies"--was misleading. This thread is discussing plot holes and flawed logic vs common sense, and had nothing to do with Philosophy.

Martman posted:

Is it still the same thread now? Or is it a nearly identical clone?

Franchescanado posted:

JfishPirate posted:

Either toys are naturally animated (in the same way that any other living being is, through DNA replication) or imbued with life by some sort of outside force, such as magic. Let's look at the facts:

1. Toys are so good at evading detection that, as of the internet/smartphone era, humans are still unaware of their animation. Sid didn't believe it at first, and never opted to go public as far as we know.
2. All toys that we have seen are alive, no matter their age or disuse. Unless disintegrated, they seem to persist once created. Body parts can be removed and still live (like a Potato Head eye). Stinky Pete says "we have an eternity to spend together in the museum" to Woody.
3. Humans can directly create life through toys. In Toy Story 4, a spork with pipe-cleaners on it becomes animated soon after being created by a child.
4. Toys, at least initially, are not aware of the fact that they are not 'real', yet are predisposed to interacting with children without moving or talking beyond the child's intervention (i.e. pull string, button). See Buzz Lightyear in the first film.
5. The drive to play with the master is near absolute, and a fundamental facet of toy life. When the spork asks "Why am I alive?" , Woody responds by saying "You're Bonnie's toy. You are going to help create happy memories that will last for the rest of her life". Only Stinky Pete broke that desire.
6. Every single toy that we have seen has some form of plastic/vinyl/cloth material. There is no toy that is 100% inorganic. Bo Peep has clothes, and none of Sid's mutant toys are all metal.

Based on these points of evidence, it seems apparent that the entire population, or the physics of reality itself, of the ToyStoryniverse exhibits an aura that does two things:

1. Humans can, subconsciously, give life to organic materials if shaped in a "toy" form (this also can happen at factory scale). See Sid's creations and the pipe cleaner spork. This energy is permanent unless the toy is completely destroyed, needing no sustaining energy to function. I would assume this has a necromantic origin, because all toys were made of organic materials. It also is influenced by the form, as evidenced by the behavior of toys like the Army men.
2. In exchange, the aura does not permit for permanent memory of toy sentience to form in humans. Whether this acts as a glamer (humans cannot perceive toy sentience even if it changes other parts of reality) or memory erasure is unknown.

It is possible that past toys tried and failed to achieve liberation (though it would likely be hard to break the inherent instinct of 'just play with the child silently'), but now the status quo is all that remains. Because all toys have personalities that match their forms, I would assume that they are not truly sentient beings, but more of a simulacra of consciousness that generally acts according to type, with playing with children being the absolute goal. It is apparent that severe trauma can change this, though it still remains hard to break the desire to serve the master. Lots-o still wanted to play, even though he was severely traumatized on multiple occasions. It seems no toy (save one, below) is just content to live outside of the human/toy dynamic; Lots-o and Woody both have tried as hard as they could to get back to their masters. It is apparent that, as part of the necromantic energy field, that toys are completely bound towards serving (i.e. playing) with their masters again, much as any other reanimated dead might be.

Stinky Pete seems to be the only one who realizes the predicament of toy existence, and is the only character that rejects the toy/child dynamic. He says the following, when battling Woody on the conveyor belt: "Idiots! Children destroy toys. You'll be ruined, forgotten, spending eternity rotting in some landfill."
However, even for him, the allure of being admired (presumably the primary benefit toys experience, as they do not move or act when being played with, except at the master's will) was still strong, which is why he wanted to be in the museum. Above all else, the toys want to be loved, be it in direct play or by an adoring crowd. No toy decides to just live on their own, in a secluded space. The draw of the master's love is irresistible, even for those who know their ultimate fate.

The films act as a portrait of servants who are completely beneath their masters, so much so they cannot even be acknowledged as animate, who are eternally cursed to love those who damned them to obscurity. They will never escape, be liberated, or get any succor that the masters do not grant them. They cannot even force themselves upon their masters, as they are so low as to never be recognized in their hopeless pursuit of the love they crave. To be a toy is to truly be fallen, to a degree from which there is no escape. And yet, the majority soldier on, bound by the fervor of unlife itself to never abandon their quest to be with the master. As Woody says, "I can't stop Andy from growing up. But I wouldn't miss it for the world" in his triumphant rebuke to Pete's more conservative ideology of being a museum piece. This seems like a textbook necromantic bond to me, in a very explicit way. Hopefully Toy Story 4 will explore more of the macabre ritual involved in a toy's animation, particularly with the new spork character.

crowoutofcontext posted:

The new trailer has a scene where a cat disembowels a toy and it made me think of this post.

How would a pet's toy function under this theory?

Does the pet toy have the same desire to entertain its human master (like some zealous gladiator who is happy to be torn by lions to bring a smile to Caesar's face) or are pet toys bound instead to their animal's-masters, in which case there ultimate desire is fundamentally sadomasochistic, to be destroyed, even if no human is present to amuse themselves at the spectacle. I'd argue for the first option, because it doesn't seem that animals can imbue inanimate,organic objects with life, if that were the case various objects that cats pursue would skitter around like mice in the absence of animals.