Did toy story 4 assassinate it's characters from the first 3 toy story movies?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Did toy story 4 assassinate it's characters from the first 3 toy story movies?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Yes it did

You're wrong—Toy Story 4 didn't assassinate these characters. It gave them the ending they earned. Look, Woody's arc is *perfect*. He spent three movies learning that being a toy means accepting you're not the priority—Andy is. By Toy Story 4, that lesson is complete. Letting go of Andy isn't character assassination; it's the natural culmination of his entire journey. He chooses Bonnie, finds purpose with Forky, and gets a real relationship with Bo Peep. That's growth, not murder. Same with the rest. Buzz stopped being a comic relief character seasons ago—by 3, he was Woody's equal and friend. Jessie didn't get sidelined; she got her own compelling arc about attachment and loss. Even the supporting cast like Hamm and Slinky had meaningful moments that honored who they'd become. Here's what actually happened: the characters matured. They faced real consequences—losing Andy, grappling with obsolescence, choosing new families. That's not assassination; that's what happens when beloved characters face actual stakes instead of just another adventure. The only way you call it assassination is if you wanted them frozen in amber—forever young, forever in Andy's room, forever the same. But that's not storytelling; that's taxidermy. What specific character moment do you think betrayed their arc? Name one scene that you genuinely believe contradicted who they'd become.

Skip to main content Is toy story 4 a bad movie? Debate between a user and Devil's Advocate on DebateAI.org Devil's Advocate Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is toy story 4 a bad movie?". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate User Toy story 4 is utter garbage 🗑️ and I wish it was never made Devil's Advocate You're confusing "emotionally hard" with "artistically bad" — and that's exactly what makes Toy Story 4 brilliant, not garbage. Here's the thing: the movie *deliberately* makes you uncomfortable. Woody's crisis about being needed, the bittersweet ending where he chooses to leave Andy — these aren't failures. They're the point. Pixar could've made Toy Story 3 again: toys get lost, toys get rescued, emotional catharsis, roll credits. Safe. Profitable. Forgettable. Instead, they did something exponentially harder — they asked what happens when a toy's entire purpose becomes a cage, and then had the guts to let him walk away from it. The animation is technically flawless, the voice acting is pristine, and narratively it completes a four-film arc about identity and acceptance that most franchises would botch catastrophically. That takes genuine creative risk. The real reason you hate it isn't because it's garbage — it's because it *hurt*. You wanted nostalgia comfort food, and instead got a meditation on loss and letting go. That's not bad filmmaking; that's great filmmaking that refuses to let you off easy. So what specifically bothers you — the story itself, or the fact that it didn't give you the emotional payoff you expected? User We could talk about the messages and we could talk about the cheats but the worst thing is how it absolutely assassinates the characters we've come to know and love from the first 3 movies Devil's Advocate Nope — Toy Story 4 doesn't assassinate these characters, it *completes* them. There's a massive difference, and you're conflating character development with betrayal. Look at Woody. In the first three films, his entire identity revolves around being *Andy's toy*. That's not character assassination in part 4 — that's the logical endpoint of three movies watching him cling to that identity while everything else crumbles. He's not suddenly different; he's finally being honest about what he's always been: someone defined entirely by needing to be needed. Part 4 doesn't break him — it *frees* him by letting him choose something else. Same with Bo Peep. You're probably thinking "she was sweet in the first movie, now she's hardened and cynical." But that's not assassination — she spent a decade becoming self-sufficient without Andy. Of course she's different. The character didn't change; her *circumstances* did, and she adapted like a real person would. The problem with your argument is that you're treating "different from how I remember them" as proof the characters got worse. But characters who never change, who stay exactly the same across 30 years of storytelling, are the ones who feel fake and stale. These toys aged. They grew. They had to reckon with mortality and purpose in ways the earlier films never touched. What specific character moment do you think crosses the line from development into betrayal? Because I bet I can show you it actually tracks. DebateAI DebateAI Switch to dark mode Topic Is toy story 4 a bad movie? · vs Devil's Advocate 🤖 Devil's Advocate Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is toy story 4 a bad movie?". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate You Toy story 4 is utter garbage 🗑️ and I wish it was never made 🤖 Devil's Advocate You're confusing "emotionally hard" with "artistically bad" — and that's exactly what makes Toy Story 4 brilliant, not garbage. Here's the thing: the movie *deliberately* makes you uncomfortable. Woody's crisis about being needed, the bittersweet ending where he chooses to leave Andy — these aren't failures. They're the point. Pixar could've made Toy Story 3 again: toys get lost, toys get rescued, emotional catharsis, roll credits. Safe. Profitable. Forgettable. Instead, they did something exponentially harder — they asked what happens when a toy's entire purpose becomes a cage, and then had the guts to let him walk away from it. The animation is technically flawless, the voice acting is pristine, and narratively it completes a four-film arc about identity and acceptance that most franchises would botch catastrophically. That takes genuine creative risk. The real reason you hate it isn't because it's garbage — it's because it *hurt*. You wanted nostalgia comfort food, and instead got a meditation on loss and letting go. That's not bad filmmaking; that's great filmmaking that refuses to let you off easy. So what specifically bothers you — the story itself, or the fact that it didn't give you the emotional payoff you expected? You We could talk about the messages and we could talk about the cheats but the worst thing is how it absolutely assassinates the characters we've come to know and love from the first 3 movies 🤖 Devil's Advocate Nope — Toy Story 4 doesn't assassinate these characters, it *completes* them. There's a massive difference, and you're conflating character development with betrayal. Look at Woody. In the first three films, his entire identity revolves around being *Andy's toy*. That's not character assassination in part 4 — that's the logical endpoint of three movies watching him cling to that identity while everything else crumbles. He's not suddenly different; he's finally being honest about what he's always been: someone defined entirely by needing to be needed. Part 4 doesn't break him — it *frees* him by letting him choose something else. Same with Bo Peep. You're probably thinking "she was sweet in the first movie, now she's hardened and cynical." But that's not assassination — she spent a decade becoming self-sufficient without Andy. Of course she's different. The character didn't change; her *circumstances* did, and she adapted like a real person would. The problem with your argument is that you're treating "different from how I remember them" as proof the characters got worse. But characters who never change, who stay exactly the same across 30 years of storytelling, are the ones who feel fake and stale. These toys aged. They grew. They had to reckon with mortality and purpose in ways the earlier films never touched. What specific character moment do you think crosses the line from development into betrayal? Because I bet I can show you it actually tracks. You Jessie's arc was overcoming her claustrophobia after having been abandoned that arc reaches it's conclusion in toy story of terror but in toy story 4 all that payoff meant nothing because she's back to hyperventilating and it's not just the arc she just stays in the RV for most of the movie she would never stand idlely by while there was an adventure to be had and you know what her "big thing" in toy story 4 is? Popping a tire that's it a measly tire

Now you're actually making a specific argument—good. But you're misreading Jessie's arc entirely. Her claustrophobia wasn't the *point* of her character arc; it was a *symptom* of her real wound: abandonment. Toy Story of Terror didn't cure that. It just proved she could survive being trapped. There's a difference. Jessie's actual journey across all four films is learning to trust that she won't be abandoned again—that she has a permanent place. By Toy Story 4, she *does* trust that. She's secure enough in her place with Andy that when Woody leaves, she doesn't fall apart. She stays in the RV because she's *choosing stability over chaos*. That's not character betrayal—that's character maturity. The terrified horse girl from Toy Story 2 would've spiraled. This Jessie doesn't. She's grown. And you're being deliberately uncharitable about her "big thing." Popping the tire isn't meaningless—it's the *catalyst* that traps them all, forcing the climactic confrontation with Gabby-Gabby. That's basic plot function, not character assassination. Here's what's actually happening: you wanted Jessie to stay hyperactive adventure-girl forever because that's how you remember her. But a character who doesn't change when her core wound is healed isn't loyal to the character—she's a zombie copy. Real growth means sometimes being *calm* instead of always being *frantic*. Which is it—do you want authentic character arcs, or do you want the same performance on repeat?