erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
We all know Disney has lost most of its creative juices. So now have a live action remake inside of your animated movie. It seems like a very Disney thing for sure. Lol
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
'Lightyear' Coming Summer 2022
- Thread starter NateD1226
- Start date
JAB
Well-Known Member
Eventually, they'll follow the pattern of "Maleficent" and "Cruella" and we'll get "Zurg" - a similarly "live action"-style film about how Emperor Zurg isn't really evil, he's just misunderstood.
champdisney
Well-Known Member
Disney Irish
Premium Member
JAB
Well-Known Member
There seems to be some disconnect as we all appear to agree that "Lightyear" is supposed to portray a "human" version of Buzz.
Regardless of whether "Lightyear" pre-dates "Toy Story" and is the basis for the toy design, or "Lightyear" stars an "actor" who looks like the toy, in either case "Lightyear" would have to exist in the Toy Story universe, so it would essentially be a "live action" movie to them because Buzz is being portrayed by a "human" actor (It's made pretty clear that, in the Toy Story universe, Buzz Lightyear is a fictional character, so there is no "real" Buzz).
Of course it's entirely possible that "Lightyear" doesn't exist in the Toy Story universe, and is just Pixar making a more realistic portrayal of Buzz Lightyear only for our enjoyment in this universe. My point was that IF it existed in the Toy Story universe, it would be "live action" to them. However, I do like to imagine that a college-age Andy is sitting in a theater nostalgically watching "Lightyear" (and then possibly going on the Internet afterwards to complain about how the movie "ruined his childhood"
).
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I don't know why you think there is a disconnect. Pete Docter has already answered this question during Disney Investor day in Dec 2020, Buzz is a toy based on a action film. Lightyear IS that action film. So Buzz was modeled after the "actor" within the Lightyear movie, and as with any toy based on a movie isn't going to be a 100% match. Its just like Woody is the toy from the kids tv series that Andy watched.There seems to be some disconnect as we all appear to agree that "Lightyear" is supposed to portray a "human" version of Buzz.
Regardless of whether "Lightyear" pre-dates "Toy Story" and is the basis for the toy design, or "Lightyear" stars an "actor" who looks like the toy, in either case "Lightyear" would have to exist in the Toy Story universe, so it would essentially be a "live action" movie to them because Buzz is being portrayed by a "human" actor (It's made pretty clear that, in the Toy Story universe, Buzz Lightyear is a fictional character, so there is no "real" Buzz).
Of course it's entirely possible that "Lightyear" doesn't exist in the Toy Story universe, and is just Pixar making a more realistic portrayal of Buzz Lightyear only for our enjoyment in this universe. My point was that IF it existed in the Toy Story universe, it would be "live action" to them. However, I do like to imagine that a college-age Andy is sitting in a theater nostalgically watching "Lightyear" (and then possibly going on the Internet afterwards to complain about how the movie "ruined his childhood"
Not sure why this is hard to understand.
So yes the Lightyear "film" exists in the Toy Story universe.
JAB
Well-Known Member
I haven't misunderstood anything. Please re-read my post. You seem to have completely missed what I was saying, since you just said the same thing - "Lightyear" is basically a live action movie in the universe of "Toy Story." If you read back a page, you'll see that I was replying to a poster who argued against my assertion that "Lightyear" is an in-universe "live action" movie, saying that they didn't think so because Buzz in "Lightyear" looked exactly like the toy. I never said the toy should 100% match. I was simply pointing out that "lightyear" Buzz seemed like he was meant to be viewed as "live action" because he looks more like Pixar "humans" than the toy, not that the toy should match or that the toy couldn't be based on "Lightyear." I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out that whether the toy was based on "Lightyear", or "Lightyear" was based on the toy didn't factor in to the argument I was making. That's why I said there was a disconnect; because you seem to be arguing against a point I didn't make by making the same points I am, and that there's a debate going on even though we all seems to agree that Buzz in "Lightyear" is "human."
Disney Irish
Premium Member
You said this -
And so my point is that the question of whether this is a "Transformers" type movie created from a toy line has already been answered by Pete Docter almost a year ago. Its ALWAYS been described as the origin story for Buzz. So how would it be a movie created from a toy line if its the origin of the toy line itself, that is where there is a misunderstanding.
And this question has already been answered as well, its not a direct sequel or prequel as a continuation of the Toy Story franchise, its meant to be its own thing. As such the director wanted a different voice, which was Chris Evans.
https://screenrant.com/buzz-lightyear-movie-tim-allen-recast-chris-evans/
In addition to the fact about the "look" question came up, to which I answered also, Buzz is meant to be the toy stylized version of THIS person in the film.
And so finally there shouldn't even be this question of whether its in-universe or not, IT IS. All this stuff has been answered, that is my ultimate point, this "speculation" isn't needed.
champdisney
Well-Known Member
Thank you! I remember watching Pete Docter's announcement about this, can't believe it's almost been a year. I was a bit thrown off when @Sir_Cliff referred to it as a movie based off the toy-line which was not what I heard. Then @JAB continued to throw me off the loop.
JAB, it's okay to admit when you are wrong. Its not that serious, lol... and yes, I do think both Buzz Lightyear's look exactly the same, one is just made out of plastic. Check out an Avengers action figure and compare it to the actor for reference. (Not trying to sound rude).
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
I thought Buzz was from a TV series that Andy watched? I can't find anything, without rewatching the movie, showing the genesis of why Andy wanted the toy.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Andy received Buzz as a birthday present from his mom, it wasn't specifically stated in the movie his actual origin. But as Pete Docter stated in the Disney Investor Day presentation, it was Pixar's backstory for him that he is an action figure from an action film, Lightyear IS that action film.
Brer Panther
Well-Known Member
Maybe the TV series was a cartoon spinoff of the film? In the 1980s and 1990s, there were a lot of cartoons like that.
I must be missing something. Still don't get it.
I feel like that's a massive cop out and isn't really justified unless the visuals reflect the same in-universe and time period of the original franchise. If it were to take place within the same Toy Story universe (being the action film that spawned an action figure) the visuals and dialog of the movie would be done as a spoof of the sci-fi action movie genre with rubber-maked space aliens and 1980s-90s lingo. This isn't. LIGHTYEAR looks like it takes place in a far futuristic "real" world.
Last edited:
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
The magic of Hollywood...
It's a movie within the ToyStory universe. It is not a "true story" as TS does not take place in the future where we travel through space.
I don't get the explanation.
Pete Docter simply saying LIGHTYEAR takes place in the Toy Story universe only works if the "magic of Hollywood" visuals and story back that statement up. Let's say for example that within the Toy Story universe the production company, Orbit Productions or whatever is developing the LIGHTYEAR movie. The year is 1986 and special effects at the time were still limited to practicals. The movie would reflect that. The actor's dialog would use pop culture references, decade appropriate lingo/slang, etc. LIGHTYEAR is an in-universe product of it's time and should in some way resemble that. PIXAR prides itself on story immersion and incredible visuals, those should be represented as being decade appropriate and actually in-universe. Else it's just a nice little fib.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
First why are you trying to put a specific "real world" year to the franchise?
Second why does it have to "make sense"?
The movies aren't suppose to be set in a specific year. If they did the timelines wouldn't work as the gaps between sequels wouldn't work.
Plus if you take cues from the movies themselves Toy Story itself takes place some time "after" 1994 as Hakuna Matata plays in the movie.
DCLcruiser
Well-Known Member
Toy Story 1 the movie, takes place in 1995 (our time).
Lightyear is an in-universe LIVE ACTION movie. To Andy, it is composed of real actors, not CGI. To US it is all CGI.
Lightyear, the movie, takes place in the future. It does not need to use 90s lingo or references.
Weird response but OK. The interwebs is trying to pinpoint where in the Toy Story timeline LIGHTYEAR resides. That's the reason for putting a "real world" year on it. To find the answer. Blame Disney/Pixar. They could have just as easily said it was a standalone movie and not in-universe. https://screenrant.com/toy-story-movie-short-timeline-explained/
The internet's good for that. Here's another: https://kotaku.com/buzz-lightyear-trailer-makes-no-sense-breaks-internets-1847947531