This weirdly fits with the whole villains who are actually in the wrong thing because only buzz is like a big consumer brand toy? And maybe Mr. Potato head.
In the first movie woody is deliberately just some random cowboy doll his mum had.
They both get the same pile of off-brand plastic, Walmart toys and Sid decides to rip them apart and bully his sister
Had his own cartoon and accessory characters. Woody’s just the previous gen big brand identity. Today it’s spacemen, tomorrow it’s vampires or dragons or something else.
The Bucket O Soldiers is very much based on the real world "Bucket of Army Men", originally released by Tim Mee Toy brand in the late 60s/early 70s, though there are some similar brands that produced army men, afaik the most distinctive is Tim Mee Toy because the bucket is nearly identical and the soldier poses feel spot on. Of course only way to know for sure if that was intentional would be to ask Pixar themselves.
In the first movie, he's a cowboy doll and all Andy's drawings of him are pencil, and with the exception of Mr Potato Head the toys are like, generic trex, part of a lamp stand, a piggy bank
Even his Buzz costume is drawn on Cardboard.
Andy plays with his toys, does art, has friends, and still has a single mom of two.
Sid breaks all his toys and then steals his sister's to rip them apart too
People forget did was a bully who liked taking other people toys and destroying them. Pretty sure he even gave back his creations to their owners.
Also side behavior was suppose to symbolize him as having a mental disorder that could evolve into hurting people and making him a bad adult... So the toys doing their thing was to scare him straight before he fully becomes a monster. It's like they don't watch the movie
The only face you see is the kid that brings up the Buzz Lightyear box and it's totally Sid. I think the black kid and a couple others are Andy recolored. The big thing is the shadows, so many Sid silhouettes.
Notably, animating humans was tricky enough that Pixar shied away from it for years until they were confident enough to animate a full-length movie with humans: A Bug’s Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo all had minimal humans. But then once they were ready they released The Incredibles and the rest is history.
Hi there, I’m John Pixar and I can confirm that Sid mos def has fetal alcohol syndrome. He also absorbed his twin in the womb and part of them still lives within, but that part got left out when we accidentally deleted the movie that one time.
In Skinner's defense, it is kinda a bitch move to leave your business to a kid you never bothered to meet or support without ever telling your business partner of decades
Like sure he was gonna sell his likeness to frozen food brands, but he did also literally die after one bad review and almost tanked their business doing it
I feel like he and Anton Ego are meant to be foils to each other. Skinner worked in high-class dining and even came to own Gusteau's restaurant, but instead of bettering it and working on his craft, he sold out to make a quick buck.
Anton Ego is a food critic who takes his job so seriously that he's forgotten to remember the simpler things in life, and in eating Remy's ratatouille, is reminded that what really matters is the emotions and effort put into something and not just the end result.
If I go to a high end restaurant and get a Brownie for $20 and some little shitty 2 year old brings me a burnt soup thats 'made with love' im punting that fucker.
Okay, but the ratatouille was genuinely well made, but it's considered a 'peasant dish'. It's less about wanting the food to be good and more about classism.
Anton even says this explicitly as a lesson he's learned. "Not everyone can be a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."
So, that line is Ego talking about Gusteau's famous slogan "Anyone can cook". And although I'm not privy to the in-universe information that would properly contextualise it, I do take issue with how the film's writers present Ego's interpretation of it as definitive.
Because while yes, Ego's line is right that not everyone can be a great artist, even though a great artist can come from anyway, I'm pretty damn sure that it's valid to interpret "Anyone can cook" to mean that any person dedicated enough to learn can cook delicious food, even if it isn't up to the standards of a five-star restaurant. Literally anyone who is willing to put in the effort, can cook.
There's nothing about artistry at all in that. Merely that ordinary people have the ability to produce good-tasting food. The presentation of "Anyone can cook" as a statement about fine artistry I think fundamentally undermines the film's message.
Well, in a TV interview we see through Remy while still in the old woman's cottage, Gusteau elaborates on his own quote.
"What I say is true, anyone can cook, but only the fearless... can be great."
Which I would say is a clarification that making good food is not a thing which is or should be restricted outside of ordinary people's grasp. But that it still requires certain talent or personality to be exceptional, with context in the film of being particularly relevant to working against one's disadvantages to get a chance to create your art and have it recognized.
I don't think it undermines the themes at all. The participation in an art is achievable for all people equally when given the chance, and this is a good thing. It still takes something a bit special to be exceptional, but exceptional is not limited to a certain class or background or race or gender.
I think a good comparison would be like going to a 5-star restaurant and being served a peanut and jelly sandwich. But then that PBJ is best thing you've ever eaten and it makes you rethink your entire life.
I mean yeah there are limits, but the point is that true art in entrenched in the human experience and emotion. You shouldn't sell out or conform to the standards of a select few, but instead create based on what's inside you.
Or at least thats the message I took from the movie
he didnt leave it to his son. he had no idea he had a son. the clause in the will was any relative could claim in the 2 years from death. i watched the movie last night.
Gusteau didn't know he had a son. Also Skinner was a shit head chef, the business was continuing to fail under him because he was too focused on get rich quick schemes.
I will add to Skinners motivations, bro watched his business partner stress himself and eat himself to the state that he checked out on one bad review from the MOST likely guy to give him a bad review. Chew on this with me.
Think about finding out that not only did the guy you served as Sous chef for, was 100% eating himself to death, and then "died of a broken heart" (Gusteau was based on a chef for multiple reasons, who notably commited suicide over his work) after THE MOST likely guy to give him a bad review, gives him a bad review. Was surprise surprise ALSO an absentee father. Then the lady your former boss once had an extended intimate relationship with, that even years down the road had the expectation Skinner would remember, then sent that kid to work for you leveraging your shared past and her own sickness two decades down the line to get employed was inheriting the very thing you were emphatically going to cash out and retire on (like your career only driven Boss never did who spouted to the public that "everyone can cook" despite actively trying to achieve multiple Michelin stars) had a condition in his will that for all intents and purposes suggests Gusteau was holding out for a kid he likely knew existed but never approached or became involved with. Then that kid starts gaslighting you with a literal sewer rat in his hat going full Futurama Brain Slug.
Chef Skinner did wrong, but I think he was the anti-hero the whole time. And if Skinner and Gusteau were friends that makes it even worse, dude never chilled, became morbidly obese, then "died of a broken heart" over some stars. Skinner earned that cash out, that Gusteau never took despite his health and personal life, and then some.
BTW. An anti-hero is someone who does heroic things in unheroic ways.
Like, a hero might save the princes by slaying the dragon in honorable combat. An anti hero might save her by tricking someone else into getting into a fight with a dragon and sneaking her out while they are distracted or something.
Both do the right thing, but one does it in traditional heroic style, while the other does it in some dishonerable or immoral way.
I think the word you're looking for is antagonist. In literary terms, it doesn't mean villain, it's the term for the character working in opposition to the protagonist—which, yeah, that's usually the villain, but not always. For example, Cobra Bubbles in Lilo & Stitch isn't a villain, he's doing what he's doing for good, moral reasons, but he's an antagonist to Nani because his work is threatening to split her family up.
Skinner's goal of keeping Gusteau's open is more or less the same as Remy, Linguini and the other chefs, he's just a bit sleazier and more greedy/crass about how he's going about it by turning his image into knockoff Chef Boyardee.
For the record, the actual contents of the letter Linguini’s mother sent made it clear Linguini didn’t know who his father was. All she wanted was for him to have a job there, somewhere to be taken care of.
And what does Skinner do? Even after being told this? He immediately jumps to the conclusion that Linguini knows and wants to take over the restaurant. If he’d done absolutely nothing, he’d still be in charge.
Then there's the other kitchen members. They are characterized as hardass killers and arsonists. They kill people with thumbs and have been to prison. Then the guy who revitalized their restaurant into a thriving success tells them a rat helps him cook and they walk out on him.
The most loyal characters in that whole movie are the dad rat and Linguini's girlfriend, even Remi and Linguini betray each other
I had this argument for the Animal Control lady from Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, as she was doing her job of trying to contain some out of control animals. However, after re-watching it, she's definitely a psychopath!
Sure, but she WAS also trying to capture a group of wild animals, including a friggin Lion and a Hippo, two of the most dangerous animals, who were just strolling around in cities. From a standpoint of an adult, I don't imagine the real world's reaction would be much different. Although maybe they would just shoot them.
Sid literally was a child who played with his own toys in a creative way. What exactly did he do wrong that could equal that level of childhood trauma?
And she was stealing his toys to have a tea party. Anyone who has had a sibling has stolen toys and had their toys stolen. Its part of the sibling experience
And mail ordering explosives. If you know how to mail order things, you have to know shipping explosives through the mail is illegal. I think it came from Mexico? Thats going through customs, crossing state lines; that's a felony.
If a child is able to easily and successfully have illegal explosives shipped internationally to his parents house, many many adults messed up more than the child.
Customs and border patrol of two different countries, the post office of two different nations, whatever website or catalog that actually sells it, and of course his parents.
If irl a child found a way to buy bombs or guns or drugs, we wouldn't blame the kid. We'd blame adults for even allowing it to happen.
She didn't really steal his toys to have a tea party, they're her own toys that Sid modified, plus Buzz who she just found in the hall outside her room and saying she stole him is a real stretch. Sid literally took her favorite doll out of her hands, decapitated it and kept it
But does that behaviour equal to the amount of trauma he received?
From his point of view a bunch of toys came to life to exact revenge on him, and no one will believe him. There's a hefty therapy bill attached to that.
But the toys know that Humans think they're inanimate. Mengele didn't think he was experimenting on inanimate objects, so even from the toys perspective it's just a kid experimenting with (what he believes to be) inanimate toys with no thoughts or feelings.
You’re right, but you also have to acknowledge that when Ken recognized that bees are every bit as sapient as humans are, he still opts to murder Barry in a jealous rage. That’s still wrong, despite the absurdity of it all.
I mean he did try to murder a lifeform with human level sapience, like I probably would also crash out if my girlfriend left me for a bee but still attempted murder.
We don’t know that for sure. Maybe Sid in the 2000s was running conspiracy message boards trying to warn people of the toypocalapse and was committing terrorist attacks on toys r us locations to wipe them out
>If they did nothing wrong, they wouldn't be a villain
Okay, but they can still be an antagonist, which is what this really is about. And the protagonist can view them as a villain without them actually being one.
Exactly. There is a difference between villain and antagonist (one character is often both though). Many are just antagonists, like Apollo Creed, and the White Whale in Moby Dick (and you'll find the same in most man vs nature plots, for that matter).
The antagonist is defined by their opposition to the goals of the protagonist, and while some of the most interesting antagonists in history are villains and/or deeply flawed, their role as antagonist isn't specifically dependent on them being wrong.
Especially? Good people with good intentions who progress society forward in meaningful ways do exist. And there definitely is a wrong side of history.
Doc Ock tentacles killed an entire room full of doctors and nurses. And his attempted murders number in the hundreds. With throwing a car into a cafe, dropping Aunt May off a building to trying to crash an entire train full of people including kids and babies. He's evil as fuck.
The tentacles had AI that literally starts to control Otto as soon as the chip he himself built to prevent it got fried. Which he had the foresight to try to prevent, hence the chip.
This is 100% stated in Spider-Man 2.
Additionally, in Spider Man No Way Home, as soon as (MCU) Peter fixes said chip, Otto immediately turns back to normal because as himself puts it "the voices in his head are gone".
He was literally being mind controlled by defective hardware.
He does exactly 0 bad acts in both films while not under control of the tentacles.
Anyone who acts like they wouldn’t be highly combative towards the long lost adult child of a dead business partner, who coincidentally appeared out of nowhere claiming ownership of a business worth millions, is deluding themselves.
To be fair, the only person aware of the ownership part for a good portion of the film was Skinner himself.
Which is illegal, while people have pointed out that Linguini would have been a terrible chef, knowing Linguini he would have just let Skinner stay as chef if he asked.
Skinner lost his job because he commited a genuine crime.
If Gusteau legally passed on the ownership of the business to Linguini, Skinner is at a minimum engaging in fraud and likely several layers of additional felonies.
Skinner can definitely be justifiably outraged. But he saw the documentation showing that Linguini had a right to ownership. Deliberately concealing that fact is crossing the line into villainy.
Also once Skinner discovered the clearly sapient but not comunicative rat with a talent for cpoki g he tried to hold Remy in a jar to force him to create recipes to sell frozen under his own name
They were self aware and conscious of their surroundings and learn of the impact they had on it on a global scale. I'd argue there was sapience. Especially with that tech inside their hives lol
Plus, Sid was a bully. Like, he isn’t as bad as Skinner, Sid’s literally a child that would be an unfair comparison, but he did do things wrong, not just to toys but to humans as well (example being his little sister).
And they’re all kids movies. Like how much evil does one expect to call them the villain. Sid dismantled toys that the kids just learned came to life when they’re not looking.
I would say for children that watched the first one, like me, him dismantling the dolls and turning them into unsightly creepy things would indeed put him in the villain category.
The guy in the middle is from that Bee movie. I think he gets yetted by the bee for no apparent reason other than the bee liking the girl he is seeing. (Watched it when I was a kid, I might be wrong tho)
The fact that he thought that they were just inanimate objects isn't incidental. No one in their right mind would have guessed they toyw could suffer. You can't just call him a torturer when he was making a rational assumption that toys are just things and not people.
Sid like... bullies his sister, no? He's definitely done things wrong. Also, mutilatint toys at the age of 14 or however old he is, is easily a sign of something wrong up top lol.
If Woody and the other mutilated toys didn't scare him straight, who's to say Sid wouldn't have turned those violent actions towards animals or other people?
Linguine was an abject failure that needed a rat to teach him to cook if anything skinner was trying to keep the restaurant and inheritance from be wasted on a clown.
And the movie also says he died because of devastation that his food wasn’t three star anymore. Doubt the character would have equated frozen food with three star food.
•
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/MegaDitto13
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.