Toy Story Zero: The True Story Of Andy’s Dad & Woody’s Origin (ft. Mike Mozart) - General

holy shit thats cool i'd love a toy story 0 of this

On one hand, there are a lot of parts of this that I like. The ideas that Andy and his mom live in his dad's childhood home, that Woody was a gift from his dad shortly before he died, and that his dad received Woody from a cereal promotion. (I'll even accept him receiving a Woody doll as a result of a heartfelt letter. Gotta have some of that Disney optimism and magic.) On the other hand, there are quite a few unnecessary details and coincidences. Andy's grandfather worked for Al's father? Why did any part of this need to be related to Al? Also, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I find it odd that Andy would give up Slinky and Potato Head without much fuss, if they were also toys his father gave him. And finally, I find it a bit strange that there was literally only one Woody doll ever produced. Al and the toy repair guy both seemed to know a bit about what an ideal Woody doll would come with (hat, string, holster, maybe?), which would be odd if there was never a single one in circulation. To prevent a long post from getting longer, I'll just note that there are some bits that are entirely plausible and enjoyable and others that seem really weird.

I bet this guy was based off Mike Mozart: [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuX5vUMUIAADZl0.jpg[/IMG]

For me, the entire thing fell apart when it culminated in "they think this Andy is the same old Andy!" Bullshit. Woody and the other toys are smart enough to know how aging and growing up works. They would remember living in the 60s with Andy's dad. So they finally reawaken in the 90s and don't question why Andy hasn't grown at all?

[QUOTE=Shugo;52402098]For me, the entire thing fell apart when it culminated in "they think this Andy is the same old Andy!" Bullshit. Woody and the other toys are smart enough to know how aging and growing up works. They would remember living in the 60s with Andy's dad. So they finally reawaken in the 90s and don't question why Andy hasn't grown at all?[/QUOTE] And while Andy doesn't wear glasses in the film, he does in the concept art and storyboard. [T]http://i.imgur.com/JdRrMA8.png[/T] [T]http://i.imgur.com/XkTEk6q.png[/T][t]http://i.imgur.com/iBqVa94.png[/t] That photo on the wall was probably just a leftover the animators used, tbh.

[QUOTE=Shugo;52402098]For me, the entire thing fell apart when it culminated in "they think this Andy is the same old Andy!" Bullshit. Woody and the other toys are smart enough to know how aging and growing up works. They would remember living in the 60s with Andy's dad. So they finally reawaken in the 90s and don't question why Andy hasn't grown at all?[/QUOTE] From what it sounds like, they weren't played with long enough to see Andy's dad actually grow up at all, and the video said that they were "asleep in the chest the whole time," so they likely didn't realize time had passed at all, and probably didn't begin to understand/learn the concept of aging. But I agree it breaks apart at that point- since maybe they wouldn't instantly realize it's a different Andy, but they should be able to realize that everything else is different. Andy's mother probably wouldn't look like his paternal grandmother, and there's no father around (they'd remember Andy's grandfather), but there was suddenly a dog and baby sister their Andy didn't have before they were in the box. I forget some of the details from the video already, but wasn't their last memory of Andy's dad (before being put in the box) was of him being too sick to walk, crawling all the way outside to save them from being destroyed? They'd probably also be suspicious at how deathly ill he was then, but completely fine and on two feet the next time they played when they woke up from their sleep.

Its a nice story, I would just prefer it to be something we'd learn in the movies. Being told the story by a youtuber kinda ruins the magic of it.

if joe ranft hadn't died, we probably would have had a toy story the prequel

My biggest beef with some of these theories is that they take every little potentially unintentional detail as 100% intended and try to fit the lore to it. The Andy-with-glasses concept art recycling above is an example of what I mean by this

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;52404117]My biggest beef with some of these theories is that they take every little potentially unintentional detail as 100% intended and try to fit the lore to it. The Andy-with-glasses concept art recycling above is an example of what I mean by this[/QUOTE] it could be that there's some truth to the story, but it was never anything more than a little thing ranft made up for himself, rather than a proper guideline. like how actors will sometimes make up longer backstories than what they're given - and usually keep it to themselves - more as a tool to better understand the role/story than a real, strict framework

It still doesn't answer why he would be happy at his first b day without his dad. Unless I missed it in the video somehow I'm going to guess it's in the full interview?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52404267]it could be that there's some truth to the story, but it was never anything more than a little thing ranft made up for himself, rather than a proper guideline. like how actors will sometimes make up longer backstories than what they're given - and usually keep it to themselves - more as a tool to better understand the role/story than a real, strict framework[/QUOTE] I agree with this. IF there's any truth, Joe probably thought it up to help himself make the story mean more. I know whenever I'm writing anything, the quality feels a lot higher if I make myself care about my characters.

Yeah, I don't doubt Mike on his story, he's always seemed like a very genuine guy, and if he valued his friendship with Ranft at all, there's no way he'd make shit up just for viral news sake. The likely thing is that this is something Joe himself came up with on his own time and never discussed it with the other writers, and the truth is the actual backstory was either mundane, or was never even truly defined even after the second movie.