To the Critics of My Critique of Toy [Tea Party] Story 3


It's "bloopers", not "bloppers".
It's "bloppers" now, dammit. I love "bloppers"!
Chuck is a blopper.
@1, at least i was consistent.
@4 True that, Sir Charles.
I think those toys were actually much older than Andy and probably received more than 20 years of use. In TS2, the children's show that the toys are based on is in black & white – looks like from the 50’s.
How much would it cost - either as a direct payment to Mr. Mudede or to The Stranger - to have him stop posting such drivel?
I havn't seen any of the Toy Story movies but I enjoyed the review. Keep up the good work.
I came to this blog for Dan but stayed because of Charles. Charles, could you please explain what it feels like to have a congested prostate? I have never experienced this. Kind regards.
@7 for the Freedom-hating President Obama Sellout Win!
9) its also called blue balls...
In re: Walter Benjamin, I would just like to say that this is why I love The Stranger. Where else can you read a review of both a new translation of the work of a long-dead german intellectual and a recently released children's movie in the same paper? Let alone ones penned by the same critic.
Mudede speaks truth to power. Long may he rave.
Your definition of "low art" and "high art" is about what I expect from Hipster Trash with a constant need to fly in the face of popular culture. How about you look a little more intelligent and stop claiming to have the knowledge of what makes art "high" or "low," please?

So fantastic job making yourself sound like a self-fellating douche there.

Also your rebuttal about the credits presumes an awful lot there. A lot based on your very personal and narrow view of what is supposed to transpire during that time.
Originally, the credits occurred at the beginning of the film.

Anything between the bug and the studio logo is fair game - including those segments.
@11: That I understand. You are appreciated.
@15 - Because I'm feeling nitpicky: titles are at the beginning of a film, credits are at the end.
I understand now why Mao killed so many Marxist intellectuals.
"Now, does that say something about me or the reader?"

It says so many, many things. None of them particularly complimentary.

Low art or not, you still wrote a half-assed piece of film criticism and then threw a temper tantrum when people called you on it. Stick to high art. You get the satisfaction of a job well done, and we don't have to read it.
"On the matter of trolling, it is sad that my review of this work of low art has received 44 comments, and my review (in the very same paper) of a new translation of Walter Benjamin's Berlin Childhood Circa 1900, a work of high art, has only received one comment. Now, does that say something about me or the reader? "

Charles at this point it's says you're at best an unconcious troll with interesting side hobbies and a reasonable vocabulary.

It's not like the Toy Story franchise was crying out for analysis or anything. For fuck sake TS3 was released in June! Six months ago. Wow. What a scoop!

Wading into such obvious fan-boy territory with your patented and trademarked Marx-o-rizer was bound to inflame. It may be possible you don't realize the predictable leftist cliche your writing has become recently. I wonder if the rest of the Stranger editorial staff knows, I suspect they do. Otherwise why would they keeping feeding the flame threads?

And it was a pathetic article, regardless. Not every piece of art, media or culture needs to fit perfectly into, or be filtered by, ones special snowflake world view. It's as tiresome when YOU do it as when mouth-breathing, but infinitely more exposed hacks, like Jonah Goldberg or Anne Coulter do.

Also, and this cannot be understated, it's BORING.
Charles, you accuse Ken & Barbie of being royalists but you forget that they don't have Lotso's thugs to back them up. They are in no position to rule by force and can only rely on the consent of the governed. As Barbie spelled out clearly.

And Pixar should be lauded for abandoning lame Shrek-like bloopers for more intelligent content in the credits.
Sweet Christ Charles, getting laid is not supposed to be this hard!

(I am trolling. As I pray to the God I don't believe in that you are too. Keep bringing the giggles.)
Low art? High art? How reactionary.
@21 And Pixar should be lauded for abandoning lame Shrek-like bloopers for more intelligent content in the credits.

I completely agree. Also, while I haven't seen TS3, I'm assuming that, like the previous films, the story is mostly told from the point of view of Andy's toys. I don't recall any significant action being presented when the main toys weren't present, save for some small instances of dramatic irony, or for the characterization of "bad guy" characters. And it sounds like the utopia scenes in the credits took place without Andy's toys present, right? And with no bearing on their outcome in the main plot? Which would mean that there was no way those scenes logically had a place in the storyline...right? Which is why it makes perfect sense to save them for the credits? Kind of like a, "By the way, kids, all those toys at the daycare are ok now, so don't worry about them!" Makes sense to me, anyway. And I bet that, as a child, that would've been my favorite part of the film. A surprise happy ending for secondary characters? Awesome!
I got to the end of the post, saw the link that said "Continue Reading", and thought, "Why would anyone?" Charles, you have a fixation on class struggle which rivals that of a Catholic priest for a young boy.
I don't get why there are so many posts about this. The article is a fail because it is incomplete, the resolution after the credits was pivotal to the review and story.

So just do another review. Why are we talking about the talking regarding an incomplete review of a movie? Seems like we are in childish territory.
"High art"? "Low art" C'mon Charles, you're not helping us reach a classless socialist utopia here.