Skip to main content

Fan Theory: Rules of Toy Story

Some people may be wondering about the more intricate parts of the rules of Toy Story. Here's what I can gather. This is not canon, this is just what I can logically deduce. Please do not take this as official or as the actual rules of Toy Story.

How do toys become sentient? How do they leave their delusions?
In TS1, see only 1 fully-delusional toy: Buzz.
In TS3, we only see one character experience Buzz's delusional state: Buzz, but only because he gets turned to Demo mode (that will become important).
TS2 gives us plenty of material to learn about delusional toys:
All of the new toys - Zurg, New Buzz, even Tour Guide Barbie - are completely "in character".
We can assume that New Buzz and Zurg are still on Demo mode since they just got out of their boxes. With that fact and the fact that Buzz completely forgot about his Demo Mode time and his Spanish Mode time once he got set back to Play (TS3), we can assume that all toys that have a Demo mode are delusional until their owners put them on Play mode.
What of toys that don't have a switch from Demo to Play? We don't see Tour Guide Barbie leave her Tour Guide delusion, but the Toy Soldiers and the LGMs are still in their delusions to one degree or another, while other toys like Weezy, Hamm, and Trixie have already left their delusions, but are able to enter fantasylands in order to please their owners.
We don't have any confirmation of what causes a toy without a switch to leave their delusions, but we can draw a vague correlation: Toys that their owners put in fantasy scenarios in which the toy is an active character who has willpower generally become more sentient. The LGMs and Tour Guide Barbie have never been played with, so it makes sense that they wouldn't understand the Toy Story universe and would still live in their delusions. And the Toy Soldiers have only been treated as passive characters in Andy's fantasies.
We do know that simply existing in the Toy Story universe doesn't gradually cause a toy that has a Play-Demo switch to stop being delusional, since Buzz doesn't learn his nature as a toy, no matter how much wandering around the Tri-City area he does.
I'm not saying that's how it is. I'm saying that might be how it is.


What makes a toy forget their delusional period? After all, Buzz remembers being delusional, but nobody else seems to remember.
When Buzz learns the hard way that he's a toy, he remembers everything before learning the hard way. (We know this because he knows that New Buzz will act like he's suffocating if he loses his helmet in TS2.)
But when Buzz gets switched to Play mode, he loses his memory of being in Demo mode or Spanish mode (TS3).
If other toys learned some way other than the hard way (through gradual play, through a "Play" switch, etc.), they might forget completely about their delusional periods.
Also, we only know the age of a toy if we know when it first leaves its box. We know generally how old Buzz, Mrs. Potato Head, New Buzz, Tour Guide Barbie, and others are, but for all we know, Woody was probably alive and owned before Sputnik (1957, assuming the same history applies to their universe as ours). We see a computer that has an Instant Messenger program in TS3, so we can guess Woody has been alive for at least 45 years. He may have forgotten his delusional stage from having so many memories in his head. In fact, any toy may be so old, it may have forgotten its delusional stage from simply having so many memories that it had to jettison the earliest ones.
We know nothing about toy psychology or toy neurology, so please don't take this as fact.

While a toy is still delusional, what kind of family* structures are available for that toy?
There is only one piece of evidence in the 3 films** of families for delusional toys: Zurg telling New Buzz "I am your father" (TS2).
This doesn't say anything about families structures for toys in the Toy Story universe, but it is safe to say that there is a concept of fatherhood and children in the Star Command universe (like the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command movie and TV show).
What we don't know is: Is New Buzz actually Zurg's son, or is New Buzz's character in his delusion the son of Zurg's character in his delusion? And are all Buzz's the sons of all Zurgs?

Once a toy stops being delusional, what kind of family structures are available for that toy? Mr. Potato Head reminds himself "I'm a married spud" (TS2) and gets jealous when Mrs. Potato Head flirts with a male toy with large muscles (TS3), so there is definitely a concept of marriage for non-delusional toys.
We don't see how they got married or when, nor do we know if any non-delusional toys ever have children.
It may be safe to assume that Mrs. Potato Head and Mr. Potato Head were married as soon as they were both open and owned by the same person simply because of their kind of toys. For non-delusional toys, marriage may be simply a social concept taken from the humans, since there's no evidence of a legal or biological concept of "family". Ironically, the toys humans play with may be "playing human" or "playing house" when they get married - playing the roles of a married couple without having a way to legally get married or even knowing that marriage needs to be legally binding.

Perhaps you have ideas on the rules of the Toy Story universe. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

-----

*For the purposes of answering this question, let's use Dictionary.com's 4th definition: "any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins". I recognize families can be more complicated like having step-siblings, half-siblings, and divorces, but the purpose of this definition is to distinguish a legally-binding family from a group of close-knit people like the "family" on Fast & Furious so that we can answer questions like "Do they have kids?" and "Do they get married?"

**I don't know whether any of the tie-in shorts, films, or TV shows are canon, so for now, let's stick with just the 3 films being canon.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Age of Ultron as a Hawkeye Movie

We sometimes say that Tony is the ultimate antagonist of the MCU. We sometimes say that Avengers: Age of Ultron is a movie more about Hawkeye than any other character. But it turns out: You could rewrite Age of Ultron in a way that takes out Cap, Thor, Hulk, and Nat and you would have effectively the same movie. The plot of Avengers: Age of Ultron  is pretty simple: When Tony Stark gets manipulated into creating a robot to protect the planet that goes awry, the rest of the Avengers try to stop the robot from destroying the earth. Cap, Thor, Hulk, and Nat don't actually help  Ultron or the Avengers to succeed in their goals. So let's re-imagine Age of Ultron  as a solo Hawkeye movie. In this version, Hawkeye becomes the main character, and b ecause of their traumatic experiences involving Stark, Wanda and Lame Quicksilver are still villains. Tony is rewritten as an obvious villain, giving us 4 major villains:  Tony, Wanda, Lame Quicksilver, and Ultron, ...

I Don't Want The Current X-Men Multiverse To Fit In The MCU

Why don't I want the current X-Men multiverse in the MCU? I don't want the X-Men of the current X-Men multiverse to be fit into the MCU. The MCU has had seamless continuity the whole time (except for that one time). The X-Men multiverse has had such bad continuity that they created an entire movie to fix the continuity, and they STILL managed to throw in more continuity snags. The MCU has had more good films than bad films. The X-Men multiverse has had more bad films than good films. Avengers: Infinity War already has too many characters. X-Men: The Last Stand had too many characters. An Avengers/X-Men crossover is just BEGGING to have no emphasis on any given character. And frankly, I'm ready for the X-Men movies to be done. X-Men: Days of Future Past - The Rogue Cut  was both an excellent movie and an excellent resolution to the series. I'm emotionally resolved enough that I want the series to be done there. Not because the series is bad - but because The Rogue Cu...

Thoughts and Prayers Aren't What You Think

We each occasionally hear people giving other people a hard time for sending thoughts and prayers to the people involved in a tragedy. Sitting around feeling sorry for someone else won't do any good any more than sitting around feeling sorry for yourself. And when someone says that they're sending "thoughts and prayers" when they're really just sitting around feeling sorry for someone, they're not actually sending thoughts and prayers. When they're just going abou t their normal lives and not thinking about or praying for the victims of tragedy, that is obviously not sending thoughts and prayers. But when someone is actually sending thoughts and prayers, that is a wonderful and essential part of helping people overcome both personal and public tragedy. Prophets and Apostles have clarified for decades that true prayer requires acting on our prayers, not just wishing that God would do it all for us (Sources may include David A. Bednar's April 2006 Confer...