I love watching animated movies but have discovered that I don't enjoy reading the screenplays as much. I realize that animation is a different format that doesn't lend itself to change easily but the screenplays kind of feel like show homes, a little too neat and tidy. Still, it's a great story. The scene where all the toys grab hands, preparing for their fate, is such a wonderful, emotional scene that seems a little flat on paper. But I do think most of the jokes are just as funny and I even forgot these weren't "real" people while I was reading.

Reading simply the first three pages, we can determine that the writer was hired knowing it was a sequel, and not a spec script. We instantly know everything, simply because we know what we're getting with the franchise. I remember having seen this movie, and maybe a read of the entire script when I have time is in order, for the next few discussions.

This isn't just a family movie, but an animated one. And the question wandering in my head is the following: When writing a live-action script, we are told not to worry about the film-ability of a setting, or an action sequence since cities can be erected, and FX can be used to achieve movie magic... What about animation? Do writers of animation scripts think about the availability of technology needed to produce an animated sequence such as the traveling doors in Monsters Inc.? Or do they write it and then think how to translate it into satisfying visual imagery?

The script surprised me as it felt so much about structure. Finely crafted and everything worked really smoothly with a strong narrative drive propelling the story forward. But I recall when I saw the movie, I really enjoyed the lively nature of the characters. And of course, building toward the Final Struggle, and my very favorite part of the film (and script): The extended Denouement where Andy spends time playing with Bonnie. I guess this echoes what C.S. and more specifically Batman said: We're dealing with known entities in these characters, indeed, very well known figures. So while at times seeming to play more on the surface or 'up top,' how they translated onto the screen was more - ahem - animated. One thing that struck me this time I didn't pick up in the movie: How absolutely dogged Woody is in his commitment to Andy. Yes, he's always been that way, but now for a third time, he sticks to his guns. Even in the face of Andy's behavior, Andy going to college, the rumors the toys share about what happens to toys when kids go to college, even in the face of everyone - except him - believing Andy was sending them to trash heap, he refuses to bend in his focus on getting back to Andy. And you know what? That just makes me admire Woody even more. Plus it makes the Denouement that much more meaningful, when Andy literally hands over his beloved toys to Bonnie, it feels like Woody will transfer his allegiance to her just like he did with Andy.

My guess is it's probably easier in some ways to write however big scenes you want for animation because at the end of the day, it's just software and the artists who manipulate it, right? But I could be wrong. Anybody ever work on an animation project, please enlighten us per Anna's question.

The Denouement, Andy playing with Bonnie, that was an awesome scene, possibly my favorite of whole movie. Haven't read script yet, hope to today, quick note now. I am a huge Toy Story fan, and that Pixar achieves such beautiful and resolved work, stunning. I wish every movie out of Hollywood was as cohesive and singular in vision. Alright, you know the moment they give up and are about to be incinerated? My child's expression, horrific. We provided some comforting frame of reference and a reminder that good guys always win, and then the tide changed in movie, and all was well. That moment of giving up. I'd already read all the "making of" articles, including that it was a bit of a challenge resolving story, and that obsolescence was the theme they arrived at. But it wasn't until after I'd heard from one parent, and then another, about that moment being traumatic to their child, that I dawned upon me, was this an instant of theme trumping audience experience? In perspective drawing, you learn all about angles, and every line is calculated. Final step? Step back, look, and tweak so looks good to the eye. Taken to logical extremes, perspective drawings look forced and wrong, to get a natural look, you view the whole. Did the writers cleave too tight to their theoretical construct (in pleasure of thematic resolution) in that moment? For kids' films, I am now a firm believer that good guys should never give up. Like in Galaxy Quest, "Never give up, never surrender."