Another thought: Lilypad is always out to "help" Bonnie. That is what she sees as her purpose, even when she does it in ways that the other toys disagree with. This is also why she attempts to donate herself (she comes to believe she's bad for Bonnie) before she becomes the hero.
Thing is, Jessie and the other old-fashioned toys have agency, but real toys don't. But Lilypad and her real-life counterparts both actually do have agency. And yet Lilypad's agency -- that she makes decisions based on trying to help Bonnie and what she believes is good for Bonnie -- is *very* different from how algorithms, AI bots, etc. behave in real life. Their agendas are market-driven.
So here we have a tablet that is portrayed as morally oriented toward Bonnie's good. But in real life, this sort of tech is market-driven, oriented toward making money.
If I were a kid, the message I would get is that the tablet has my best interests at heart.
I was also disappointed by the redemption storyline but kiiiinda saw it coming 🙃 I think overall it's a smart movie that's helping parents and kids see personal devices in a new light and sparking those family conversations.
This is an indictment of storytelling in Hollywood in the 21st century as much, if not more, than any actual attempt at a realistic analysis of digital usage by children (which was not the filmmakers' intention by any means).
The studio producing it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company which is backed by the same sort of financial interests as digital device producers, so it was not going to be in the studio's best interests to produce something that would fully demonize digital content. We can see this clearly in the redemption arc, which is based on reassurance to the shareholders rather than narrative logic.
Lilypad is meant to be an antagonist and an inabler, but not an outright villain, because that would cast the blame exclusively on the people who made her, and not her users.
Also, notice the Arabic numeral in the film's name. This is a franchise that has gone too often to the same well, and it's showing.
Satire has never been a very popular genre in Hollywood, and this shows why. You can satirize something much better if you are not entirely financially dependent on who you are satirizing, or who is financially backing them. Pixar is not and will never be in this position.
You can be as pro-analog as you want in the majority of the story, but you cannot outright condemn digital culture in Hollywood, not because of the audience, but because of who is giving you your backing. So if anyone is best set on truly satirizing the digital addiction of children, it would be far better suited to the Judy Blumes and Lois Lowrys of the children's book world.
I’m so disappointed to hear that the tablet is redeemed (and seen as something that has Bonnie’s best interest at heart) at the end of the movie. What a cop out.
I feel like movies do this too often. I remember watching movies, then finding out the American version had a different ending than the international, because the US demands a happy or reaffirming ending. I would prefer if the tablet goes to e-waste recycling and then the parents spend 3 weeks figuring out how to cancel the plan and subscription services.
Yep. It’s not surprising to me anymore but I think this particular case shows how much adults want/need to believe that tech use like this is just fine for kids. We as a culture can’t handle the truth.,
So true. I read an article yesterday in the Guardian about a social media ban sceptic who kept saying the case against social media was correlation not causation and if she just got 15minutes she could bring nuance to the conversation. I read the whole article. It was thin, but did make a case for more research. But the take away at the end, "They [parents] can make all the decisions they want to about how tech-free or tech-full they want to be, based on their values and what they want for their family – but they don’t have to make it with this threat that it’s going to lead to horrible outcomes for their children." It was baffling. Basically claiming the current narrative is correlation not causation. Then making the case that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so parents do what you want. (Just to be clear the adage is absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.)
hi Katherine, thank you for a great article, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Agreed on almost everything here, especially the read on those hand-drawn imaginative sequences ; they're doing more developmental work than the plot gives them credit for.
But here's what I keep wondering: what if Lilypad's redemption isn't the flaw it seems? If she'd been thrown in the fire, the film becomes a simple "screens bad" story - and those don't travel far past people who already agree. Her survival is what lets parents watch without feeling accused. And that's exactly when they're most likely to actually notice something afterward. Not "I must ban the tablet," but "when did my kid stop building worlds like that?"
I wrote about this same film from a different angle; less "did the film get it right," more "why is a Pixar movie doing what sixty years of research couldn't." But we land in the same place; the danger was never the screen. It's the absence left behind when nothing replaces what it filled. That's the quieter, slower kind of change; but it's the one that survives the car ride home. I would be happy to get your feedback on this!
Lol welp, you beat me to it… I’m drafting a more longwinded post of essentially all/most of this. Still gonna post, but just saying here in case anyone sees a similar thread pop out from a nobody on Substack :’)
Glad someone else was thinking along similar lines!
This is great, Katherine. My kids and I saw the movie in the theater last week. I thought it was really inconsistent, and that the conclusions didn't make sense.
I agree with what Dixie wrote. A lot of this technology (smartphones, AI) is neither neutral nor for our good. I've been reading through 'Empire of AI' by Karen Hao and it's fascinating to see Open AI's shift from altruistic transparent nonprofit to a $852 billion dollar company. While initially they wanted to solve issues of climate, poverty and the health crisis in America with AI, much of this is caused by the sin of greed... and it's greed that is greasing the wheels of technocapitalism.
In the film, I was uncomfortable that meddling with technology meant Lilypad and the toys were sending messages as Bonnie and Blaze.
Remember, this is Toy STORY 5. The toys are anthropomorphised and teach valuable life lessons, but when all is said and done, remember this is fiction, not non-fiction.
Another thought: Lilypad is always out to "help" Bonnie. That is what she sees as her purpose, even when she does it in ways that the other toys disagree with. This is also why she attempts to donate herself (she comes to believe she's bad for Bonnie) before she becomes the hero.
Thing is, Jessie and the other old-fashioned toys have agency, but real toys don't. But Lilypad and her real-life counterparts both actually do have agency. And yet Lilypad's agency -- that she makes decisions based on trying to help Bonnie and what she believes is good for Bonnie -- is *very* different from how algorithms, AI bots, etc. behave in real life. Their agendas are market-driven.
So here we have a tablet that is portrayed as morally oriented toward Bonnie's good. But in real life, this sort of tech is market-driven, oriented toward making money.
If I were a kid, the message I would get is that the tablet has my best interests at heart.
That's a great observation. You're definitely right that Lilypad is not consistent with how tablets operate in the real world. I'll keep that in mind!
Thanks. Once again you have given content worth forwarding to others.
I was also disappointed by the redemption storyline but kiiiinda saw it coming 🙃 I think overall it's a smart movie that's helping parents and kids see personal devices in a new light and sparking those family conversations.
This is an indictment of storytelling in Hollywood in the 21st century as much, if not more, than any actual attempt at a realistic analysis of digital usage by children (which was not the filmmakers' intention by any means).
The studio producing it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company which is backed by the same sort of financial interests as digital device producers, so it was not going to be in the studio's best interests to produce something that would fully demonize digital content. We can see this clearly in the redemption arc, which is based on reassurance to the shareholders rather than narrative logic.
Lilypad is meant to be an antagonist and an inabler, but not an outright villain, because that would cast the blame exclusively on the people who made her, and not her users.
Also, notice the Arabic numeral in the film's name. This is a franchise that has gone too often to the same well, and it's showing.
Satire has never been a very popular genre in Hollywood, and this shows why. You can satirize something much better if you are not entirely financially dependent on who you are satirizing, or who is financially backing them. Pixar is not and will never be in this position.
You can be as pro-analog as you want in the majority of the story, but you cannot outright condemn digital culture in Hollywood, not because of the audience, but because of who is giving you your backing. So if anyone is best set on truly satirizing the digital addiction of children, it would be far better suited to the Judy Blumes and Lois Lowrys of the children's book world.
I’m so disappointed to hear that the tablet is redeemed (and seen as something that has Bonnie’s best interest at heart) at the end of the movie. What a cop out.
I feel like movies do this too often. I remember watching movies, then finding out the American version had a different ending than the international, because the US demands a happy or reaffirming ending. I would prefer if the tablet goes to e-waste recycling and then the parents spend 3 weeks figuring out how to cancel the plan and subscription services.
That would make such a hilarious alternative ending! They could rate it R for all the colorful language.
Yep. It’s not surprising to me anymore but I think this particular case shows how much adults want/need to believe that tech use like this is just fine for kids. We as a culture can’t handle the truth.,
So true. I read an article yesterday in the Guardian about a social media ban sceptic who kept saying the case against social media was correlation not causation and if she just got 15minutes she could bring nuance to the conversation. I read the whole article. It was thin, but did make a case for more research. But the take away at the end, "They [parents] can make all the decisions they want to about how tech-free or tech-full they want to be, based on their values and what they want for their family – but they don’t have to make it with this threat that it’s going to lead to horrible outcomes for their children." It was baffling. Basically claiming the current narrative is correlation not causation. Then making the case that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so parents do what you want. (Just to be clear the adage is absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.)
hi Katherine, thank you for a great article, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Agreed on almost everything here, especially the read on those hand-drawn imaginative sequences ; they're doing more developmental work than the plot gives them credit for.
But here's what I keep wondering: what if Lilypad's redemption isn't the flaw it seems? If she'd been thrown in the fire, the film becomes a simple "screens bad" story - and those don't travel far past people who already agree. Her survival is what lets parents watch without feeling accused. And that's exactly when they're most likely to actually notice something afterward. Not "I must ban the tablet," but "when did my kid stop building worlds like that?"
I wrote about this same film from a different angle; less "did the film get it right," more "why is a Pixar movie doing what sixty years of research couldn't." But we land in the same place; the danger was never the screen. It's the absence left behind when nothing replaces what it filled. That's the quieter, slower kind of change; but it's the one that survives the car ride home. I would be happy to get your feedback on this!
https://dramysee.substack.com/p/what-if-toy-story-5-does-what-years
Lol welp, you beat me to it… I’m drafting a more longwinded post of essentially all/most of this. Still gonna post, but just saying here in case anyone sees a similar thread pop out from a nobody on Substack :’)
Glad someone else was thinking along similar lines!
I completely agree about the end of the movie! Making Lilypad the hero was not the solution. You’ve made excellent points in this article. Thanks!
This is great, Katherine. My kids and I saw the movie in the theater last week. I thought it was really inconsistent, and that the conclusions didn't make sense.
Is it ironic that reading this review is making me want to break my parental rule of "no movies except on planes or with grandparents"?
I agree with what Dixie wrote. A lot of this technology (smartphones, AI) is neither neutral nor for our good. I've been reading through 'Empire of AI' by Karen Hao and it's fascinating to see Open AI's shift from altruistic transparent nonprofit to a $852 billion dollar company. While initially they wanted to solve issues of climate, poverty and the health crisis in America with AI, much of this is caused by the sin of greed... and it's greed that is greasing the wheels of technocapitalism.
In the film, I was uncomfortable that meddling with technology meant Lilypad and the toys were sending messages as Bonnie and Blaze.
Fantastic review and gives me some solid points to discuss with my kiddos. Thank you!
Remember, this is Toy STORY 5. The toys are anthropomorphised and teach valuable life lessons, but when all is said and done, remember this is fiction, not non-fiction.