Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2012 1:52:09 GMT -7
As the title says: Was Teddy Ruxpin ever considered for an appearance in the Toy Story movies? It's not that I have any reason to believe that he was - it's just something that I always wondered about, since a toy whose primary function involves the appearance of coming to life always struck me as an ideal candidate for a brief appearance in those films.  |
|
|
|
Post by TRO Admin on Jan 7, 2012 1:29:55 GMT -7
That would have been great and good exposure for Teddy - but way too many legalities would have had to have been conquered. Characters with their own established back-stories and voices don't really fit the mold of the Toy Story series. Mr. Potato Head and GI Joe were real toys but they didn't have any intellectual property associated with them. I'm not sure how you merge Grundo and the world Andy, Buzz and Woody reside in... and I'm not so sure I want Grundo thrown out of the mix in order to make Teddy marketable as a toy story tie in... which is exactly what would have happened. If a writer could come up with a happy medium though it would have been an awesome addition!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2012 0:37:55 GMT -7
Admittedly, the only way I can see it working would have been as a cameo of some sort. Perhaps in an advertisement or background appearance in the first Toy Story (although CGI fur and hair generation wasn't as good then as it was by the time of Toy Story 2, as evidenced by the marvellously ugly bear seen in Andy's room during the "staff meeting" in the first movie), in an aisle in Al's Toy Barn in Toy Story 2, or in a silent-but-noticeable cameo appearance such as that of the Totoro plush in Toy Story 3. The way I see the above ideas, it's not so much throwing Grundo out of the mix, as showing Teddy as a toy that people have and buy. Removing the backstory element is, I guess, one of the reasons that Hasbro wouldn't license G.I. Joe for the first film, though - aside from the fact that the purpose of his appearance would have been for Sid to blow one up instead of a "Combat Carl". ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2012 15:15:22 GMT -7
I could see those ideas working.
CG hair has come SO far in the last decade! Anyone who saw the wonderfully charming "Puss in Boots" movie this past summer should have noticed the difference in hair generation as opposed to the early "Toy Story" and "Shrek" movies, though the hair in "Monsters, Inc." probably laid much of the groundwork.
One of the reasons I love those toys is because it acknowledges the kind of connection I feel to my Teddy Ruxpin: that he is more than just a product; he's my friend. Teddy Ruxpin was, for me, the first toy to come to life, and it was a miraculous thing.
It's also one of the few franchises whose quality did not degrade with every sequel. While "Toy Story 2" is probably my least favorite of the bunch, "Toy Story 3" is, in my opinion, one of the greatest movies of all time, animated or otherwise.
It just reaffirms my notion that if Teddy were to come back in CG form, I would have faith only in Pixar as the studio to handle it.
|
|
