Toy Story 4: When Loyalty in Friendship is no Longer for Infinity and Beyond

Written by Kenneth Ting

The Downfall of the Toy Story Franchise

Despite the worldwide cries from fans to halt the production of a sequel post Toy Story 3, Disney betrayed their audience and insisted on its production for obvious commercial reasons. As expected, Toy Story 4 is a cinematic disaster, primarily due to its failure to retain the essence of its franchise, its inability to emotionally redirect audience’s nostalgia for Andy, and forcing Bo Beep, an intrinsically flawed character, as one of the main protagonists. While the failure of Toy Story 4 was anticipated, its negative consequences to the entire franchise are unexpectedly disastrous. Woody, who was the leading exemplar of unconditional loyalty in friendship, no longer exists. His transformation at the end of Toy Story 4 eradicated all the efforts that were invested in building this character for the past two decades, making Toy Story 4 the most underserved winners of the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature Film.

The Loss of Everlasting Loyalty in Friendship

The fundamental essence that seeds the Toy Story franchise is the eternal loyalty in platonic friendships, whether this is between Andy and Woody, or between Woody and Buzz. This is a virtue that we all inherently acquire as innocent children, then seemingly impossible to retain as we grow up, and eventually longing to search for as we become adults.

Similar to many Pixar movies such as Monsters, Inc., the Toy Story franchise uses a “buddy system”, in this case between Woody and Buzz, to form the basic structure of the story. However, if we compare the friendship portrayed in Monsters, Inc versus the one in the Toy Story franchise, one can easily identify that the latter is more effective in conveying the importance of eternal loyalty in friendship. This not only suggests that the “buddy system” here only plays a minor role in building this theme, but more importantly, it implicates that there is something very unique about the Toy Story franchise that allows it to achieve this accomplishment. This exclusive storytelling technique is known as the personification of toys, which serves as the design principle of the entire franchise. In general, personification refers to the process of attributing human nature to non-living objects. However, simply by personifying non-living objects, such as Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast, does not demonstrate this unending nature of loyalty in friendship. Therefore, this personification must be done to toys because toys are made to be played with humans by default, and therefore by personifying them, they instantly become our “friends”. In fact, these “friends” are our exclusive followers because toys can also be owned. Therefore, the nature of toys’ restricted ownership underlies the loyalty that our “friends” must have in their relationship with their owners.

Finally, the everlasting nature of this loyalty derives from the fact that toys do not transform physically overtime, which metaphorically implicates that toys, unlike their owners, do not grow up. Therefore together, the inherent purpose of toys, their restricted ownership, and their inability to grow up collectively constitute to the eternal nature of loyalty in friendship.

Understanding this principle and how its components are derived, one can now easily identify why Toy Story 4 fails to retain this essence. Near the end of the movie, Woody decides to stay with Bo Peep, a decision that goes against two of the three components of this principle: the everlasting nature of loyalty and loyalty itself. First of all, it goes against loyalty itself because Woody is still owned by Bonnie at the time when he makes this decision, therefore his decision to stay with Bo Peep is an abandonment to his owner. Secondly, it also goes against the everlasting aspect of loyalty because Woody has abandoned Buzz, breaking the promise that he once made in Toy Story 2, “When it all ends, I’ll have old Buzz Lightyear to keep me company for infinity and beyond” (Toy Story 2 1:25:17-1:25:24). The reason why he breaks this promise is because he has grown up, a transformation that in principle should not take place in toys. Specifically, during this coming-of-age process, he loses the innocence that platonic friendship is the most important affection as he realizes the significance of a romantic relationship. One might argue that Woody did not grow up, and he decides to stay with Bo Peep is solely due to his existential crisis, stemming from his unforgettable memories with Andy and his devalued importance under the ownership of Bonnie. This counterargument is contradictory because Woody knows that this existential crisis is inevitable as all toys will question their meaning of existence when they are abandoned by their owners. In fact, Woody already had a solution to resolve his existential crisis, as he says earlier in Toy Story, “It doesn’t matter how much we’re played with. What matters is that we’re here for Andy when he needs us. That’s what we’re made for, right?” (Toy Story 8:17-8:28) and supported later in Toy Story 3 by his initial determination to stay in Andy’s attic forever. Based on this, it is clear that Woody knows how to properly resolve this existential crisis, whether this is initiated from Andy or Bonnie. Therefore, his decision to stay with Bo Peep at the end is his deliberate decision due to his own maturation, instead of a solution to overcome his existential crisis.

It is important to understand that Woody is not only the main character of the movie, he serves as the representative example and vessel that demonstrates the essence of the Toy Story’s franchise. Therefore, Woody’s decision at the end not only betrayed who he was as a character, it unexpectedly cost the trust from the audience who believed in the existence of everlasting loyalty in friendship, the fundamental virtue that the Toy Story’s franchise has successfully built upon for the past two decades.

Failure to redirect audience’s nostalgia for Andy by the creation of Forky

The bittersweet memories that Andy left the audience when he gives his toys away at the end of Toy Story 3 is a double edge sword. While this sentiment underlies the significant success of Toy Story 3, this elicitation of fifteen years of emotion, setting up since the production of Toy Story in 1995 and paying off in Toy Story 3 in 2010, is so overwhelming that can emotionally entrap the audience. Therefore, the hardest obstacle that writers of Toy Story 4 needed to overcome was the redirection of the audience’s nostalgia. This is of particular importance because the success of a movie primarily derives from its ability to elicit emotions. Therefore, if the audience remains to be emotionally entrapped, in this case in the last scene of Toy Story 3, the writers will struggle to evoke any emotion in Toy Story 4 unless they can effectively redirect audience’s attention to something else that is more significant. To do this, the writers of Toy Story 4 have decided to establish a new character to the franchise – Forky. Specifically, the creation of Forky is a two-fold approach in an attempt to redirect audience’s nostalgia for Andy, one of which is providing a sense of humor. Since the beginning of Toy Story 4, it is surrounded by a subtle but significant sense of sadness in the background, solely attributed to both Woody’s and audience’s longing memories for Andy. In order to neutralize this saddening tone, the writers constructed Forky as a humorous character. Unfortunately, this humor is primarily based on Forky’s eccentric behaviors, such as his bizarre ways of returning back to the garbage bin, and therefore it is only temporary and fails to counteract with the depressing atmosphere in a sustainable manner.

Apart from this, the creation of Forky also attempts to redirect the audience’s longing affection for Andy by introducing a new concept to the franchise – transition of identity. Since the beginning of Toy Story, it is only portrayed that conventionally defined toys are personified. However, it is now made clear to the audience in Toy Story 4 that this personification does not derive from the societal definition of toys, but rather defined by a child’s imagination. If a child considers a non-living object is playful, then it is defined as a toy and hence “alive” regardless of its identity. This concept is novel and significant because it implicates that anything can be repurposed, utensils can be repurposed to toys, such as Forky, and most importantly, toys can also be repurposed, in this case Woody as an independent adventurer. In Toy Story 4, both Forky and Woody experience their existential crisis as their former identities are being removed. For Forky, his identity as a utensil is removed as Bonnie imposes him with a new identity as a toy. For Woody, his identity as Andy’s toy is also being removed as he is now owned by Bonnie. As their former identities are fading, they are both struggling to acquire it back. Forky’s desperation in reverting back as a utensil, demonstrated by his constant escapes in returning back to the garbage bin, is comparable to Woody’s desperation in becoming back as Andy’s toy, illustrated by his impulsive narration of his memories for Andy. However, at the end, both characters realize the possibility to redefine their purposes and reasonably accepted their repurposed life. While this concept of identity transition is indeed significant, it fails to effectively redirect the audience’s nostalgia for Andy because it violates the essence of the Toy Story’s franchise, specifically, the eternal nature of loyalty. As previously described, the eternal nature of loyalty metaphorically derives from the fact that toys do not transform and hence do not grow up. Therefore, toys in principle should not develop the consciousness to repurpose their lives beyond being a toy. They can experience an identity existential crisis when they are abandoned by their owners, such as Jessie in Toy Story 2 or Lotso in Toy Story 3, yet their resolution to this crisis should always be confined within the boundaries of the identity as a toy. For Jessie, she initially repurposes herself as a collector’s item in a Japanese museum and wishes to remain as a priceless toy. For Lotso, while he repurposes himself as a dictator at the Sunnyside’s Daycare Center, he still desires to be played with other kids as a toy. However, for Woody, his decision to stay with Bo Peep is independent of his identity as a toy. Similarly, for Forky, his decision to stay with Bonnie is also independent of his identity as a utensil. Hence, both characters have violated the principle of the Toy Story franchise. Since this violation is illogical in nature, it fails to overcome the audiences’ nostalgia for Andy, and they remain to be emotionally entrapped.

Forcing Bo Beep, an intrinsically flawed character, as one of the main protagonists

The Toy Story franchise began in the late 1990s, when feminism was relatively unacknowledged compared to now, which may be the reason why the characters of Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are mostly male based. It is not until Toy Story 3 then we begin to see a more balanced proportion of female and male characters. However, writers of Toy Story 4 take a step further and introduces Bo Peep as the first female protagonist in the franchise, a politically correct decision yet incompatible with the story structure.

Bo Peep, once portrayed to be a gentle and kindhearted character, as shown in Toy Story and Toy Story 2, has instantly transformed into a powerful heroine in Toy Story 4. Her reintroduction into Toy Story 4 has created two major problems, both contributing to the failure of this movie, one of which is the lack of explanation of her backstory. It is well known that a plausible character needs to have a compelling backstory, especially if this character behaves unexpectedly all in a sudden. In Toy Story 4, the writers only provide a vague explanation for the audience to what has happened to Bo Peep after she was given away. Although Disney has produced Lamp Life after the release of Toy Story 4 in an attempt to provide further details of her backstory, that information is still not persuasive enough to justify her significant transformation in personality since Toy Story. Therefore, this lack of comprehensive explanation gives audience the impression that Bo Peep is a strong and independent female character simply because the writers wants her to be, which significantly undermines her credibility as a character.

Although Bo Peep’s backstory is weak, it would not have become an issue if she only played a small role in this movie. Unfortunately, the writers have made her to replace the position of Buzz, an almost two-decade spanning character in the trilogy. This decision not only has changed the fundamental structure of the story from a “buddy system” to now a “love partner system”, it also shifts the traditional emphasis of platonic friendships to romantic relationships, an element that was intentionally minimized in the franchise to preserve the innocence among characters. In fact, the emphasis of the romantic relationship between Woody and Bo Peep is another implication that Woody has grown up, which again violates the essence of the franchise and constitutes to the second problem that arises from the Bo Peep character.

“The thing that makes Woody special is he’ll never give up on you. Ever. He’ll be there for you no matter what.” (Toy Story 3 1:31:52-1:32:02) These were the last words uttered by Andy when he gave Woody to Bonnie. Like Andy, we believed in Woody for decades, yet he has betrayed all of us in Toy Story 4. He is no longer special as his loyalty is now conditional. One might think that this is unfair for Woody. Why should he be loyal to someone who is not in return? This is true, but remember it is only through this unfairness that the significance of loyalty in friendship can then be highlighted. It is the guilt that we feel, which stems from this unfairness that reminds us of the friends that we have once abandoned in our lives. While Woody may not be a lost toy at the end of Toy Story 4, he most certainly abandoned his faithful followers to a lost world, leaving them to question the existence of unconditional loyalty in friendship, even if it only lives in their own fantasies.

Works Cited

Beauty and the Beast. Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, Walt Disney Feature Animation, 1991.

Lamp Life. Directed by Valerie LaPointe, Pixar Animation Studio, 2020.

Monsters, Inc. Directed by Pete Doctor, Pixar Animation Studio, 2001.

Toy Story. Directed by John Lasseter, Pixar Animation Studio, 1995.

Toy Story 2. Directed by John Lasseter, Pixar Animation Studio, 1999.

Toy Story 3. Directed by Lee Unkrich, Pixar Animation Studio, 2010.

Toy Story 4. Directed by Josh Cooley, Pixar Animation Studio, 2019.