Toy Story: the perfect 'accidental' trilogy?

Last week, I had the pleasure of revisiting the three Toy Story films on Blu-Ray. The first two I had seen countless times, the third was only my second viewing. Of course, these are extremely enjoyable as standalone films. I wouldn't hesitate to say they're amongst the greatest animated films, or dare I even suggest films full stop, of all time. Each one is a joyful experience, but taken together as a group they emerge as something much more than that.

I'm going to loosely define two types of trilogies here. There is the planned trilogy, of which I'd use Lord of the Rings as a perfect example. This is one narrative, each film one part of an overall story, and it is this way by design. There are a few of these - the Star Wars films and thematic trilogies like the Three Colours films spring to mind. Then, you have the far more common 'accidental' trilogy, which is when a film through commercial success spawns two sequels. Sometimes the two sequels are made together - Back to the Future and The Matrix - other times the three are separated by quite some time, Toy Story being a perfect example. The first gap was four years, the second a whopping ten. These 'accidental' trilogies tend to be defined by a fairly self contained original film, where strictly speaking there is no need for a sequel (you could argue Back to the Future's 'cliffhanger' ending negates it from this status).

The problem with trilogies is that they often fall apart at the last hurdle. Back to the Future is a fantastic series, and I quite like BttF3, but the story is so radically removed from the previous film that it almost feels like a standalone afterthought. The main plots left dangling from the second film are resolved, but at the same time the vast majority of the film is occupied with Western hijinks as opposed to anything else, so it feels different. Does it really have much to add to the the ideas of the first film? Very little IMO. Likewise, the Matrix answers many of the questions you may or may not have cared about from the first film, but the films - especially the disaster that is Revolutions - outright ignore what fans liked about the original in favour of all that Zion nonsense and over CGIed fight scenes. Even Star Wars (original films, not the awful prequels) has a third film that tends to divide fans: I think most would agree the peak was reached with Empire Strikes Back.

*SPOILERS AHEAD FOR ALL TOY STORY FILMS! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!*

Back to Toy Story. Watching the first film with the benefit of hindsight, the quality level is still extremely high. But - compared to the sequels that followed - its a very simple film, an introduction if you will to the world of Andy's toys. This is vital - we need to get to know these characters. At the time, this was just to invest in the 70 minute or so story (it surprises me these days how short and speedy Toy Story actually is). And there are some moments of emotional drama - Buzz's sad fall from the stairs to Randy Newman's Sailing No More will probably ring bells. Overall, its not overwhelming emotional though, just hints of it. Mainly, the film is a jolly good time, full of good natured humour, situations and characters. The main themes would probably be ideas of friendship and belonging, explored through Woody coming to terms with being 'replaced' by Buzz, and Buzz slowly realising his place in the world. It's a story about toys, basically, a growing up story told through the toys that are ultimately going to be grown out of. It's about being a kid: Andy happy to just play, Cid more determined to blow stuff up. Those are the 'major' strengths of Toy Story 1: you could argue it feels 'slighter' than the two films that follows it, but its important that it introduced us to the characters.

Moving on: Toy Story 2. Perhaps the pivotal scene in this is Jessie's flashback scene, a tear-jerking sequence in which in a flash her owner grows up and abandons her. In many ways, this scene is not only the foundation for the entirety of Toy Story 3, but also the crushing opening montage of Up, but that's another tangent. The flashback is used to remind Woody of reality: the likelihood is this will happen to him to. The film indeed starts with Woody being placed on the 'broken' shelf in Andy's room after a minor stitch rip. While Andy is not much older in this film, it begins to 'imagine' the cruel future the toys reflected on momentarily in the first film. There's a sense of trying to hold up the inevitable, staying grounded in childhood for as long as possible. Everyone's growing up here, and Jessie's flashback is a reminder of what might go down. A sense of sadness is certainly more prevalent in Toy Story 2, but luckily it's also great fun. There are a tonne of fun setpieces: the toy barn sequence, the introduction of another Buzz and his arch enemy Zurg, the airport climax (an epic concluding action scene being a pivotal part of a Toy Story film) and many, many others. Its very funny too, retaining the innocent energy of the first. But the key advancement in Toy Story 2 is bringing the darker themes of the series to a more prevalent position, while not allowing them to dominate.

It's a careful balancing act, and one which Toy Story 3 succeeds in achieving too. During the opening act, there are moments of great fun but also moments of sadness. Throwaway references to long discarded toys and Andy's inevitable move to college exist alongside very Toy Story set pieces, like the big budget 'Western' opening (directly referencing the first film's opening with lines of dialogue and characters such as 'One Eyed Bart') or Woody trying to save the other toys from being accidentally thrown away (almost the same scene played out in reverse in part two). But the opening also makes it clear: we're in darker territory now, literally. The film jumps from the opening to a montage (again bringing to mind 'Up) of Andy's childhood, but then suddenly years later, the toys are desperately trying to get attention from their owner, in their dark and lonely toy box.

The second act is slightly jauntier territory. The 'Sunnyside' sequences have some moments of emotion (Lotso's flashback), but the 'rescue' mission is what drives it forward, featuring plenty of inventive and amusing action that recalls the first two films - from a Tortilla Mr Potato Head to a Spanish Buzz. Hell, the whole second film was basically an extended rescue sequence, so Woody trying to rescue the others in the middle stretch fits well what has come before. LotsO'Huggin Bear is the most important character of the newbies - of which there are a lot, but mostly ones with small and amusing roles as opposed to vital players (comic relief characters such as Ken, Pricklepants and Chatter Telephone are welcome though). But Lotso is very similar to Stinky Pete in TS2 - a bitter, resentful toy who has had a bad experience with his owner. Again, the sequels are directly influencing each other, similar themes being explored in different ways. If there's one lesson to learn from Lotso and Pete, it's that bad owners make bitter toys :pac:

But once they've 'escaped' Sunnyside, **** gets real. Remember Buzz falling, or Jessie being abandoned? Tame compared to what goes down here. The third act of Toy Story 3 is where this series becomes a perfect trilogy. All of the themes, characters, ideas of the previous two films come full circle in what I can only describe as an emotionally exhausting half an hour. The reality of losing Andy becomes all too real, and not only that the groups one dream of a future together is threatened as they are heading towards a giant incinerator. They - in what might be one of cinema's most heartbreaking moments - are resigned to their fate, holding hands one last time. A central theme of the trilogy is fear of growing old and redundant - and here it is, all their fears coming true. It's resolved by a deus ex machina, thank ****. It may be a cheap way to save them, but the point has been made. And it doesn't end there. Instead, we get a more literal goodbye from Andy, one filled with sadness though. Andy passing on the toys is the perfect ending to the story - what had to happen has happened, the ideas hinted at in the first film fully realised. And what really impresses is that the writers resolved it in a way that stays true to the happy endings of the first films. The themes dealt with in Toy Story 3 - and 1 and 2 by extent - are heavy: growing up, moving on and - ultimately - death. That the final scene of the trilogy wraps it up so well without feeling cheap (barring the alien deus ex machina!) is nothing shy of remarkable.

TL; DR: A lot has and will be written about these films over the years. But the above is why I think as a trilogy that Toy Story will be a hard one to beat. Each film has effectively built itself upon the foundations and ideas laid down by its predecessors, while refusing to compromise the tone or flow of the series. All these films are fun, and yet also emotionally involving. The characters rarely change - they pretty much can't, they are toys after all - but they do silently grow up as the films progress, learning to deal with everything that comes their way. Are the films individually perfect? I'd personally say they come close, bar a few minor, nitpicky gripes with each. But that's a futile argument. What I would argue, though, is that it's the perfect example of a trilogy: three self-contained stories that ultimately build up to a far more rewarding whole when viewed together.

So: do you agree, or anyone care to put forward an argument for their trilogy of choice?