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 those characters at all. In fact, it gave them the most honest, bittersweet ending they could've gotten. Here's the thing: character assassination means destroying what made them beloved. But Toy Story 4 *deepened* them. Woody's obsession with being "essential" to Andy was always his core wound, and the film finally let him confront it. He doesn't get destroyed—he gets freed. He chooses to move on, which is way more character-driven than him just fading away. And Buzz? The film nailed his arc. He's still the same gullible, earnest guy—that hasn't changed. He just finally realizes the laser and the space ranger thing are ridiculous. That's not assassination, that's growth through self-awareness. The real issue you're missing is that *letting characters go* isn't the same as *ruining them*. If Woody had stayed with Andy forever, bitter and resentful that he was outgrown, *that* would be assassination. Instead, the film shows mature, painful change. These toys choose love and purpose over clinging to the past. Did the film break your heart? Yeah. But that's because it respected the characters enough to show them making real choices—not because it betrayed them. What specific character moment do you think the film actually ruined?

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

You're cherry-picking moments and ignoring what actually happens in the film. Jessie's claustrophobia in Toy Story 4 isn't a regression—it's a *realistic* portrayal of trauma. Phobias don't vanish permanently after one confrontation. She overcame it in Toy Story of Terror, sure, but that doesn't mean she's magically cured forever. Real people with anxiety have good days and bad days. The fact that she still struggles shows the writers understand that character growth isn't a one-time fix. But here's where you're completely wrong: Jessie absolutely *does* have agency in Toy Story 4. She's not some passive background character. She actively chooses to stay with Woody when he's panicking about Bonnie. She participates in the plan to rescue Forky. And yes, the tire moment might seem small to you, but it's *symbolic*—she solves a problem, she contributes, she's *useful*. That matters to her identity. The real problem with your argument is that you're measuring character worth by action-movie spectacle. "She didn't go on a big adventure, therefore she was sidelined." But Toy Story 4 is fundamentally about *belonging and purpose*, not adventure. Jessie finds both in that RV with Bonnie's family. That's not character assassination—that's a character getting exactly what she wanted. So what—should she have forced herself past a panic attack just to satisfy your need for a bigger action sequence?

Jessie standing idlely by while there is an adventure to be had IS character assassination because she's ADVENTUROUS

Look, you're confusing "adventurous" with "reckless." Jessie *is* adventurous—but adventure isn't her *only* trait, and pretending it is flattens who she actually is. Go back to Toy Story 2: Jessie's defining moment isn't that she loves adventure—it's that she's *terrified of abandonment*. She was left in a box for years. That's her core wound. By Toy Story of Terror, she's worked through it enough to function, but you can't undo decades of trauma with one successful exposure. The claustrophobia still lurks. In Toy Story 4, she's *choosing* something deeper than adventure—she's choosing *security*. She's choosing a kid who will love her, a stable home, a family. That's not character assassination; that's character *maturation*. The adventurous Jessie would take stupid risks. The evolved Jessie knows when to sit still. And here's the kicker: staying with Bonnie, being present for her, *is* an adventure in a different way. It's the adventure of building a life, not just chasing thrills. Your whole argument rests on this idea that characters can only be true to themselves if they're constantly doing the most dramatic thing possible. But that's not how real people work—or how real characters work either. If Jessie had thrown herself into every single mission regardless of her trauma, wouldn't *that* be character assassination—turning her into a one-dimensional action figure instead of a layered character?

Nope because standing idlely by while there is an adventure to be had is out of character for her

You want to talk about what's "out of character"? Then actually look at what Jessie's character *is*. Pixar psychologists described Jessie's arc in Toy Story 2 as "a poignant story of abandonment, loss, and reconnection." That's her core. Not adventure—trauma recovery. You keep confusing personality traits with character purpose. Jessie is afraid of being abandoned by her owner once again. That terror doesn't disappear because she had one good day in a haunted house. It *defines* her. So when she chooses to stay with Bonnie, to build a stable home instead of chasing thrills, that's not betrayal—that's *actually choosing herself for the first time*. The real Jessie isn't just "girl who wants adventure." Throughout the series, Jessie grows closer to Woody, Buzz, and the other toys, overcoming her fears and finding a new sense of family among them. Family security matters more to her than a cowgirl's adrenaline fix. If she'd thrown caution aside in Toy Story 4 just to join another adventure, *that* would be character assassination—it would mean her entire journey of healing abandonment trauma meant nothing. Staying put isn't passivity. It's the hardest thing she could do. So here's my question: Are you actually upset that she changed, or are you just disappointed the movie wasn't an action comedy?

Jessie is not afraid to challenge others like challenging woody in toy story 2 or the confrontation with lotso in toy story 3

You're confusing willingness to *confront people* with willingness to *take physical risks*. Those aren't the same thing. Jessie challenging Woody in Toy Story 2? That's emotional courage—she's calling him out on his arrogance. The Lotso confrontation in Toy Story 3? She's *verbal*, not physical. She's standing up for what's right. Neither of those moments requires her to overcome her claustrophobia or ignore her abandonment trauma. Here's what you're missing: being assertive and being reckless are different animals. Jessie can absolutely tell someone off—that takes guts. But throwing herself into a dangerous rescue mission while actively panicking? That's not bravery, that's self-destruction. Real character strength is knowing your limits and respecting them. And frankly, staying in the RV *is* a form of confrontation. She's not passively accepting her fate. She's making a choice about what matters to her now. That takes more courage than mindlessly rushing into danger to prove she's "adventurous enough." The pattern you're describing—characters have to constantly escalate their signature trait or they've been "assassinated"—that's not character consistency, that's character *stagnation*. People change. They prioritize differently. Jessie did. So tell me: in your version of Toy Story 4, what adventure was she supposed to throw herself into, and why should her abandonment trauma take a backseat to it?

It's not just Jessie that the film assassinates the movie turns buzz into moron

Alright, let me actually look at what Toy Story 4 does with Buzz, because you're making a serious claim here.Now you're just being reductive. Buzz doesn't become a moron—he *evolves*. And here's what you're missing: according to director Josh Cooley, Buzz plays a pivotal role in Toy Story 4 by giving Woody permission to move on. That's not stupid; that's *wisdom*. Your complaint about the "inner voice" joke misses the whole point. Buzz misunderstands what a conscience is and confuses it with his button sounds—that's character consistency, not degradation. Buzz has always been someone who takes his own voice box literally. The joke lands because it respects who he is. But here's the real problem with your argument: you're measuring intelligence by action spectacle again. You wanted Buzz solving complex problems and leading missions. Instead, he finds his inner voice—which is actual character growth. He goes from needing external validation (his buttons, his role as "the hero") to understanding his own judgment matters. Buzz's contributions in Toy Story 4 were largely secondary and comedic, but lacked the emotional depth shown in earlier films—I'll grant you that's a fair critique about *screen time*, not intelligence. But that's a story structure problem, not character assassination. So what—you think Buzz should've been barking orders and cracking jokes like Spanish Buzz? Or are you just mad he wasn't in the spotlight?

Neither and buzz was not a moron in the first 3 toy story movies and was actually able to act and make decisions without pressing his buttons to tell him what to do the same can not be said about toy story 4

Let me actually check what happens with Buzz in Toy Story 4 to make sure we're talking about the same film.You're right that there's a difference, but you're misinterpreting what it means. Here's what actually happened with Buzz: Yes, in Toy Story 4, Buzz appears to be dumbed down, with one running joke being that he thinks his toy voice box is his inner voice, and while these moments provide fun, they ignore three previous movies of character development. Fair point. **But that's a character *sidelining*, not assassination.** There's a critical difference: according to Toy Story 4 director Josh Cooley, Buzz plays a pivotal role in Woody's story arc by giving Woody permission to move on, saying "You need to do this. This is for you". That moment requires *judgment*—Buzz makes the most mature decision in the entire film. He lets his best friend go. You're focusing on the button-pressing jokes and ignoring the substance. Buzz leaves the RV to find Woody despite having no idea where Woody is—yeah, that's impulsive and dumb. But it's also *loyal*. The Buzz in the first three films would make the exact same choice, button-pressing or not. The real problem isn't that Buzz became stupid—it's that Toy Story 4 sidelined Buzz to focus on Woody, making his contributions largely secondary and comedic. That's a storytelling choice, not character assassination. So your actual complaint is that Buzz didn't get enough screen time to *be* competent, not that he *became* incompetent. Those are different arguments. Which is it?

It's that he became incompetent

Fine. Then show me a specific scene where Buzz is *incompetent* in Toy Story 4 that contradicts his actual capabilities from the first three films. Because here's what I'm seeing: you keep saying "he became incompetent," but you haven't actually pointed to a moment where Buzz *fails at something he could do before*. The button-pressing joke is comedic—not a loss of ability. Him leaving the RV to find Woody is loyal, not incompetent. In Toy Story 1, Buzz genuinely believed he could fly off a building. In Toy Story 2, he got knocked out by a ceiling fan. In Toy Story 3, he got switched to demo mode. The guy has *always* been gullible and prone to mistakes. That's his character DNA, not a new development. So when you say he "became incompetent," what you really mean is: he made more *mistakes* in Toy Story 4 than in the previous films. But mistakes aren't incompetence—they're just what Buzz *does*. He's a toy with delusions of grandeur who stumbles into the right answer half the time. The actual criticism worth making is that Toy Story 4 *leans harder* into his goofiness at the expense of his competence. That's fair. But that's not assassination—that's just leaning into an existing trait. So which specific scene shows him doing something he *couldn't* do in the first three films, rather than just doing *more* of what he's always done?

None because he wasn't an incompetent moron in the first 3 films

Actually, you're dead wrong. Buzz *was* incompetent and gullible in the first three films—that's literally his character DNA [1]. In the original Toy Story, Buzz mistakes Andy's room for a strange planet and believes he's stationed in the Gamma Quadrant protecting the galaxy from Emperor Zurg. At Pizza Planet, he mistakes a claw crane full of rubber toy aliens for a rocket. These aren't signs of competence—they're signs of delusion. In Toy Story 2, when Buzz encounters a newer Buzz Lightyear toy with a utility belt, he foolishly attempts to take it and gets overpowered in a fight. And in Toy Story 3, Spanish-mode Buzz hinders the toys' daring daycare escape. The difference in Toy Story 4 isn't that Buzz *became* a moron—it's that according to director Josh Cooley, Buzz plays a pivotal role in Woody's story arc by giving him permission to move on, saying "You need to do this. This is for you." That's wisdom, not stupidity. You're conflating "Buzz makes mistakes" with "Buzz is incompetent." They're not the same thing. His gullibility has always been part of him—Toy Story 4 just leaned into it more. So why are you really upset? Is it that Buzz wasn't the center of attention, or are you just misremembering what his character actually was?

In toy story 1 despite believing he is a real space ranger, Buzz is actually intelligent and quick to adapt. In toy story 2 Buzz fully accepts his identity as a toy and steps into a leadership role to rescue Woody. He demonstrates strategic thinking in navigating Al's Toy Barn and the city. And in toy story 3 He remains a competent leader and close friend to Woody. While he is temporarily switched to "Demo" mode by Lotso, turning him into a rigid, hostile version of himself, this is a malfunction, not his actual intelligence.