'Lightyear' Coming Summer 2022

[LittleBuford]

I hadn't really thought about this previously but apparently the ban on this film theatrically in various countries is also extending to banning it from Disney+ in the same places:

Disney+ Middle East to Align With Local Censorship Rules, ‘Lightyear’ Won’t Appear on Streamer

While the platform in the region won't show kid-focused content with LGBTQ references, it will include films such as 'Doctor Strange and the Multitude of Madness,' which was banned from theatrical release in some Gulf countries.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

It's a terrible shame.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Just finished watching it. It was pretty boring, I have to say, and the opening text—“In 1995, Andy got a toy from his favourite movie. This is that movie”—totally clashed with the very contemporary feel of the film. I’d give it a B at most.

That text was odd. Was it in the theatrical version? I thought this was supposed to be a movie about the "real" Buzz.

Making this just a movie in the Toy Story universe was weird. The toy looks to be based off of a cartoon. Why wouldn't a Buzz movie within the Toy Story universe be closer to the toy and be the same voice?

I was expecting this movie to explain why the Buzz toy is different. It would have made more sense knowing the real Buzz went away on this mission and became a heroic figure, and wouldn't be able to voice a toy back home. It would have made sense if Buzz died in the line of duty or didn't think voicing a toy would be appropriate for an astronaut.

As is it didn't make a lot of sense to me.

As for the movie. The first portion was good. I liked the story of Buzz being committed to his job even though he knew it would result in him outliving those he loved. Losing his best friend was a sad story, even though it was pretty much the same emotional manipulation via loss present in just about every Disney and/or Pixar movie.

After that the movie felt like a generic sci-fi action film and didn't hold my interest. The twist felt kind of been-there-done-that and the characterization didn't make a lot of sense.

Overall, a moderately entertaining movie that didn't quite know what its' purpose should be in the Toy Story universe.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That text was odd. Was it in the theatrical version? I thought this was supposed to be a movie about the "real" Buzz.

Making this just a movie in the Toy Story universe was weird. The toy looks to be based off of a cartoon. Why wouldn't a Buzz movie within the Toy Story universe be closer to the toy and be the same voice?

I was expecting this movie to explain why the Buzz toy is different. It would have made more sense knowing the real Buzz went away on this mission and became a heroic figure, and wouldn't be able to voice a toy back home. It would have made sense if Buzz died in the line of duty or didn't think voicing a toy would be appropriate for an astronaut.

It was always an in universe movie. Andy’s toy is based on the character design from the animated series based on this movie.

 

[MisterPenguin]

 

[danlb_2000]

I finally got to see this and really enjoyed it. It's a shame it didn't do better because I would watch more movies about these characters. Of course the idea that this is the movie Andy saw brings up lots of questions..

- Was this movie computer animated in the Toy Story universe, or is it live action and everything in that universe just looks like this?
- If it was computer animated, does it imply that Chris Evans, Taika Waititi, etc exist in that universe?
- It was made by Disney/Pixar so does that imply that Disney and Pixar exist in the Toy Story Universe? If they do, then did Toy Story universe Pixar also make Toy Story movies?
- Who ever did the merchandising for Lightyear in the Toy Story universe didn't do a good job. We only see Buzz and Zurg toys, a Socks toy would have been a huge seller.

I need answers!

 

[Ghost93]

I finally got to see this and really enjoyed it. It's a shame it didn't do better because I would watch more movies about these characters. Of course the idea that this is the movie Andy saw brings up lots of questions..

- Was this movie computer animated in the Toy Story universe, or is it live action and everything in that universe just looks like this?
- If it was computer animated, does it imply that Chris Evans, Taika Waititi, etc exist in that universe?
- It was made by Disney/Pixar so does that imply that Disney and Pixar exist in the Toy Story Universe? If they do, then did Toy Story universe Pixar also make Toy Story movies?
- Who ever did the merchandising for Lightyear in the Toy Story universe didn't do a good job. We only see Buzz and Zurg toys, a Socks toy would have been a huge seller.

I need answers!

I wish they never included that opening about Andy seeing the movie in 1995 as it's all people seem to talk about (other than the kiss) and it just isn't a big deal. I thought the fact that this was a movie about Buzz Lightyear, the character the toy was based on was obvious. But a bunch of people whined and gave bad faith criticisms about the movie long before release ("the premise is SO CONFUSING!?!" ) that I feel Pixar added that in at the last minute to try to shut people up.

But the movie we got feels nothing at all like a 1995 movie.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But the movie we got feels nothing at all like a 1995 movie.

It’s not supposed to be, it’s supposed to be an 80s movie.

 

[doctornick]

I wish they never included that opening about Andy seeing the movie in 1995 as it's all people seem to talk about (other than the kiss) and it just isn't a big deal. I thought the fact that this was a movie about Buzz Lightyear, the character the toy was based on was obvious. But a bunch of people whined and gave bad faith criticisms about the movie long before release ("the premise is SO CONFUSING!?!" ) that I feel Pixar added that in at the last minute to try to shut people up.

But the movie we got feels nothing at all like a 1995 movie.

My problem in that regard is that it doesn’t feel at all like a movie that a young kid would watch and love and result in a vigorous toy line. For the premise - which I actually thought was interesting idea - this should have been a more straightforward good vs evil movie. And Buzz as a archetypal action hero.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

My problem in that regard is that it doesn’t feel at all like a movie that a young kid would watch and love and result in a vigorous toy line. For the premise - which I actually thought was interesting idea - this should have been a more straightforward good vs evil movie. And Buzz as a archetypal action hero.

I hadn’t even thought of this, in my review I said I liked it but I couldn’t imagine my nephews sitting through it… the idea this movie would inspire a ton of kids to go buy toys is pretty far fetched.

This movie is similar to Tomorrowland… good concept, poor execution. Both had a ton of potential but they just didn’t quite work. They almost feel like they couldn’t nail down the right “story” but the idea was so good they made it anyway and hoped it would work.

In the original Toy Story extras they talk about how they started making the film and realized it didn’t work so they rewrote some parts, changed some character traits, and started over, this movie probably could have benefited from the same treatment. I liked it but it feels like it could have been a lot better.

 

[Ghost93]

Lightyear feels more like a dark and more modern/mature reboot of a 90s movie than a 90s movie itself. I think if they got rid of the title card there would be less complaints about the movie not adhering to the Buzz Lightyear canon as we knew it from the Toy Story movies.

 

[doctornick]

Lightyear feels more like a dark and more modern/mature reboot of a 90s movie than a 90s movie itself. I think if they got rid of the title card there would be less complaints about the movie not adhering to the Buzz Lightyear canon as we knew it from the Toy Story movies.

Eh. If they got rid of the title card, you still get those complaints but there just about why the movie features Buzz and not other different unrelated character.

 

[MarvelCharacterNerd]

I hadn’t even thought of this, in my review I said I liked it but I couldn’t imagine my nephews sitting through it… the idea this movie would inspire a ton of kids to go buy toys is pretty far fetched.

There's something so very meta in this.

They created this movie (as with many other animated films) to inspire a ton of kids to go buy toys.

The people who created this movie previously created a movie about a character who saw a movie that inspired that movie character to go buy toys.

They then created this movie TO BE the movie that the movie character in another movie was inspired to go buy toys.

But is this movie actually inspiring a ton of kids to go buy toys if it inspires the question whether seeing it would have inspired the movie character to buy the toys from this film in the first place except THAT film's toys ACTUALLY inspired kids to want the toys for it???

I just can't even...

That said, I've been re-watching the not-as-successful-or-beloved Hobbit movies which were made years after the super-successful-and-beloved Lord of the Rings movies and are a prequel to that story, but if these less successful prequel films had actually been made first in chronological order, the far superior more successful "sequel" films would probably never have been made so... I guess the moral is: if you're going to make less-appealing prequels/origin films only do them after you've made successful films in the same universe first to create the franchise in the first place?! Does Black Widow qualify for this rule, too?

My brain hurts.

 

[Ghost93]

That said, I've been re-watching the not-as-successful-or-beloved Hobbit movies which were made years after the super-successful-and-beloved Lord of the Rings movies and are a prequel to that story, but if these less successful prequel films had actually been made first in chronological order, the far superior more successful "sequel" films would probably never have been made so... I guess the moral is: if you're going to make less-appealing prequels/origin films only do them after you've made successful films in the same universe first to create the franchise in the first place?! Does Black Widow qualify for this rule, too?

My brain hurts.

I actually think the overall reception to Black Widow would have been more positive if the movie — made exactly the same way it already is — came out in 2016-2018 when it chronologically took place. As is, much of the tension of the movie was missing because we already knew what would happen to Natasha. Furthermore, there was nothing about the movie that made it feel like it benefitted from being a prequel. If you are doing an MCU marathon, Black Widow works better if you watch it when it chronologically takes place (after Civil War and before Infinity War) rather than when it was released.

 

[oogie boogie man]

Just an O.K. movie, I probably won't ever see it again. It seems to focus on Buzz's mission too much and we don't see enough of a Zurg storyline.

Plus I don't like what they did with Zurg either. They poop on the character with this version. I don't want to spoil it for anyone so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

As there has been some talk on this thread about the viability of movies in the streaming age, I figured this observation from Matt Damon popped up on my Twitter stream today might be worth sharing regarding the effect of the disappearance of the home video market as a source of revenue. I'm not sure entirely how this fits into the streaming revenue model, but interesting to consider how streaming changes this going forward in either direction:

 

[MisterPenguin]

As there has been some talk on this thread about the viability of movies in the streaming age, I figured this observation from Matt Damon popped up on my Twitter stream today might be worth sharing regarding the effect of the disappearance of the home video market as a source of revenue. I'm not sure entirely how this fits into the streaming revenue model, but interesting to consider how streaming changes this going forward in either direction:

Uhh... two notes:

1. The questioner lays out the process of someone at home cycling through the streamers trying to find something to watch and saying to themselves "they're not making movies for me anymore."

In reality, there is more new content landing on streamers than anyone can watch. Add to that, the vast, vast library of content of almost every movie ever made and every popular TV show ever made at a home viewers' fingertips. So, what's there *not* to watch? Baffling question.​

2. Then Matt answers about profit margins, which wasn't what the guy asked.

Then Matt explains how films no longer have much of a VHS/DVD/BR window of physical media sales any more to help with profitability.​

​

Well, that window only started to exist with the invention of DHS. So, there was a time when cinema was chugging along without that extra Pay Window.​

​

And now that that Pay Window is dwindling with the rise of streaming, the real issue is paying residuals for content on streaming platforms. Such residuals were clearly defined for the physical media and broadcast/cable, but not fully settled for streamers.​

​

So, Matt's indie film should be getting a second Pay Window from the streamer.​

​

And Matt's kidding himself if he thinks an indie film was really going to pull in that much from physical media. Studios bankroll indie films knowing many won't be profitable hoping for the occasional surprise hit that covers all the other financial losses, and for the awards prestige.​

​

The more mainstream films of the studio turn a profit in the Theatrical Window. And it is they that keep the lights on.​

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Uhh... two notes:

1. The questioner lays out the process of someone at home cycling through the streamers trying to find something to watch and saying to themselves "they're not making movies for me anymore."

In reality, there is more new content landing on streamers than anyone can watch. Add to that, the vast, vast library of content of almost every movie ever made and every popular TV show ever made at a home viewers' fingertips. So, what's there *not* to watch? Baffling question.​

2. Then Matt answers about profit margins, which wasn't what the guy asked.

Then Matt explains how films no longer have much of a VHS/DVD/BR window of physical media sales any more to help with profitability.​

​

Well, that window only started to exist with the invention of DHS. So, there was a time when cinema was chugging along without that extra Pay Window.​

​

And now that that Pay Window is dwindling with the rise of streaming, the real issue is paying residuals for content on streaming platforms. Such residuals were clearly defined for the physical media and broadcast/cable, but not fully settled for streamers.​

​

So, Matt's indie film should be getting a second Pay Window from the streamer.​

​

And Matt's kidding himself if he thinks an indie film was really going to pull in that much from physical media. Studios bankroll indie films knowing many won't be profitable hoping for the occasional surprise hit that covers all the other financial losses, and for the awards prestige.​

​

The more mainstream films of the studio turn a profit in the Theatrical Window. And it is they that keep the lights on.​

Yes, this is where I was kind of curious about what the transition to streaming really meant about the diversity of options and long-term profitability.

At least at the present, I would have thought there were more options than ever in terms of entertainment. The issue of profit may be a little fuzzier as perhaps a window in theatres + streaming makes it as or more easy to fund less-sure bets than when you had VHS, DVDs, & Blu-Rays as an additional revenue stream. The Behind the Candelabra example also seems to suggest funding smaller projects back in the DVD/Blu-Ray era was difficult anyway as that was made before streaming really hit.

I think it is reasonable to be puzzled about how they're going to make money on films in the streaming era, though, as box office declines and more weight is placed on streaming revenue. That this video got so much traction (last I saw it was creeping up to 9 million views) it's hitting some nerve which may be that question of how films are going to make money in the streaming era.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Yes, this is where I was kind of curious about what the transition to streaming really meant about the diversity of options and long-term profitability.

At least at the present, I would have thought there were more options than ever in terms of entertainment. The issue of profit may be a little fuzzier as perhaps a window in theatres + streaming makes it as or more easy to fund less-sure bets than when you had VHS, DVDs, & Blu-Rays as an additional revenue stream. The Behind the Candelabra example also seems to suggest funding smaller projects back in the DVD/Blu-Ray era was difficult anyway as that was made before streaming really hit.

I think it is reasonable to puzzling through how they're going to make money on films in the streaming era, though, as box office declines and more weight is placed on streaming revenue. That this video got so much traction (last I saw it was creeping up to 9 million views) it's hitting some nerve which may be that question of how films are going to make money in the streaming era.

Well, first, streamers need to be profitable. Netflix was getting there and then backtracked. Most other streamers predict for themselves that they'll be profitable by the end of fiscal 2024.

Wall Street is starting to switch their attention from flashy number of subs to actual profit/loss bottom line. This is especially needed for when streamers add and ad-supported tier. If the ad revenue is good, then number of subs statistic looses its critical importance.

If the Indie Film is good, a streamer should be happy to have it and to pay residuals based on the number of views... if they have the money to do so.

Check out this thread...

All Things Streaming (VOD, OTT)

This thread will be for all things streaming: video on demand, over the top (TV), Netflix, Roku, Chromecast, AppleTV, Amazon Video, etc... To kick things off... https://deadline.com/2018/12/netflix-originals-more-in-demand-than-licensed-titles-2019-friends-1202519465/...

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[TP2000]

Lightyear is not doing well on Disney+ as well. Even for "free!".

Last weekend, my stroll through the big toy department at the massive two-story Target in Mission Valley, California found absolutely zero Lightyear merchandise for sale there. None. Zilch.

Lightyear is just not going to be a thing. Even for free on Disney+.

Lightyear's Disney+ Performance Is Its Ultimate Rejection

Lightyear's theatrical failure has been followed by similarly disappointing numbers on Disney+, with audiences making their disinterest clear.

www.cbr.com

 

[Minthorne]

Lightyear | Rotten Tomatoes

Legendary space ranger Buzz Lightyear embarks on an intergalactic adventure alongside ambitious recruits Izzy, Mo, Darby, and his robot companion, Sox. As this motley crew tackles their toughest mission yet, they must learn to work together as a team to escape the evil Zurg and his dutiful robot...

www.rottentomatoes.com

It’s not a smash hit- but it’s a movie it seems a lot of people enjoyed.