|
ImpAtom posted:So let's start with a fun one: 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. JfishPirate fucked around with this message at 21:28 on May 3, 2019 |
#
¿
May 3, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
General Dog posted:So in the Toy Story Universe, can a human corpse be a toy? And if so, will it have the same personality that the person had in life, or is it whatever personality that's projected onto it by the child? This raises an interesting point. The toys generally have the 'personality' of their form, as the army men act appropriately despite not being 'actual' soldiers and Ken/Barbie fit their 'brand' quite well. The life force reanimates the dead matter, but does not give it personality beyond what the toy creator desired. My general guess is that the necromantic binding shapes the personality to the form of the toy, but does not directly invoke personalities of those gone by (toys don't have memories from past lives). If a human corpse was crafted into a toy by this force, I would assume it would have the 'personality' of a skeleton toy rather than the direct memories and personality that human had before death. In concrete terms, the plastic toys are corpses given life once more; just of ancient plants and animals rather than humans. From what we have seen, particularly the animation sequence from Toy Story 4's trailer, I think it is very reasonable to conclude that a human corpse would be a suitable medium for toy creation. If you want to research a real world example, look up Anatoly Moskvin.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:The new trailer has a scene where a cat disembowels a toy and it made me think of this post. I believe the first is correct. If a human creates a toy for a pet (handmade/factory), that human has imbued it with life. The toy may be intended for pets only, but the toy is still alive by the virtue of the human-derived energy. It is apparent in the scene from the trailer that the toy attacked by the cat is 'dead', which indicates damage can be severe enough to a toy to release the captured lifeforce. I would definitely agree that toys do not seek to serve animal masters, as they seem to place a special status on the attention given by a human (even in a museum setting, like Stinky Pete). However, it is odd to contemplate the 'zealous gladiator' interpretation of pet toys, as pets are far more harsh than even humans in their infancy, and the toys in TS3 did not greatly appreciate being played with by the careless toddlers. Fundamentally, toys do not know their purpose until they are first played with or are told by another toy. Pet toy society seems to be far less developed than human toy society, and it may be that pet toys are simply never given the opportunity to experience the rapturous joy of the Creator, or even learn that this is their supposed purpose. An important piece of this puzzle is the short film Toy Story that Time Forgot. The Battlesaurs are very militaristic, and the wizard dinosaur calls the child's name on the bottom of Trixie's foot "the mark of obedience" with disdain. The main dinosaur, Reptillius, eventually cedes to Trixie's thinking that toys are bound to play with their masters, with his epiphany being that he must 'surrender' to be true to his nature as a toy. The short ends with Reptillius in post-playtime glow, proclaiming the playtime he once eschewed as 'glorious'. There is a heavy religious undertone to the way Trixie proselytizes to Reptillius, as most of her dialogue is her spreading the good word of submission to the Creator. The message of the film is that to be played with is to literally touch God, and that all those who defy this order are simply wrong. It may be, then, that the power is not necromantic, but divine. Humans are created in the image of God, and their primary purpose on Earth is to serve His will. Toys are just simulacra of the same process at a smaller scale. God does not recognize individual humans, and neither do humans recognize the sentience of toys. The scene from the newest trailer that is most interesting to me is not the disemboweling one, however. Towards the end of the trailer, two toys from the carnival games attack an elderly woman, yelling at her to surrender a set of keys. This is a far more blatant display of anima and extremely aggressive behavior than anything we have seen from a toy in the previous films. Sid was threatened, but not really assaulted. Even for a cruel Creator like Sid, Woody's message was ultimately for him to 'play nice'. He respected his status as Creator even when it was a life-or-death situation. The two carnival game toys have gone rogue in a way that was unthinkable to even Stinky Pete, and seem to represent a sea change in the way some toys interact with their overlords. The Battlesaur wizard was anti-play and anti-obedience, but not necessarily anti-Creator, similar but not identical to Stinky Pete. The two carnival game toys, in contrast, have desires that are so strong they are willing to attack the Creators to accomplish them. I believe we have seen the first true radicals in the toy world. To strike against God is to commit the most grievous sin, and I hope we get to see how this Creator, elderly and feeble as she is, react to this desperate act.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2019 16:51
|
|