Was it good?

I remember it but I can't recall if I liked it or hated it? All i remember is the air conditioner was an asshole

Attached: 511vfOdtxnL._SY445_.jpg (312x445, 46K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Bl5it-eT81U
youtube.com/watch?v=-UfsEj7AOGI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Pictures
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_Boom_Crew
youtube.com/watch?v=mI_OIrtBB-k
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's a solid film. Not brilliant but competent.

It was good. Nightmarish in all the best ways.

TLDR: It's fucking awesome. It takes a totally strange and unintuitive premise (appliances are alive) and manages to make something that interrogates the premise in an interesting way, without veering into the uncanny valley. This is combined with solid characterization, great voice acting, memorable moments, tremendous ambience, beautiful art, and fantastic tunes. It was one of my favourite movies as a kid and Lampy was my first true husbando.

The premise of TBLT is an easy one to fuck up. The movie could have gone the easy route and not really elaborated on its world building or it could have become completely unhinged. They did neither. Look at Beauty and the Beast. The first film doesn't really get into the nitty gritty of the Beast's curse outside the ticking clock. We aren't specifically told whether every object is a person or not, for example. This is fine, since the story is about Belle and the Beast, not the servants-turned-furniture.

Conversely, in the redeux live action version of Beauty and the Beast, the authors attempt to remedy the lack of detail in the worldbuilding but instead make something so meticulously and obnoxiously involved that it actively hinders the plot. Another example of this is midichlorians.

By contrast, TBLT explores the "life" of an appliance in fascinating, fun ways that improve the characters and the story. One of the big emotional struggles for the characters is the overwhelming fear that "master's" love is ephemeral. Air Conditioner represents an appliance who does not receive any love from his masters, and is so angry and enbittered he literally collapses in on himself. Later, Toaster and company meet master's new, shiny, digital appliances and feel inadequate. At the garbage dump, they once more see what becomes of appliances that aren't loved.

This is interesting world building (what happens to the appliances as technology changes?) but makes the story better.

Cont'd...

Attached: DE23A344-301C-4D32-A095-CBCDBF86EDFD.png (1280x1592, 986K)

I'm interested user please continue.

2

Toaster and friends are not just risking their lives to be with master, they're risking their lives for the chance to be with master. They travel all the way knowing full well that his acceptance is not a gurantee - only Toaster's faith is unshakeable. This comparison is a tad melodramatic, but it's like the Odyssey. It's one think to haul ass knowing you'll get your family and life back at the end of the day. It's quite another to risk your life not knowing if it'll matter.

Thus, the world building (the perpetual threat of obsolescence) improves the characterization (Toaster as faithful) and the story (increases the dramatic tension of the character's journey).

The worldbuilding is used to create a series of challenges for the characters. It would have worked as a film to just have the cast face natural hazards in their cross country journey. Instead, we get some of the creepiest scenes imaginable - the pawn shop. A simple used parts guy is transmuted into Leatherface-for-kids as we realise that he'll literally gut, mutilate, and deform our adorable group of appliances. Another example is the aforementioned garbage dump.

Which leads me to another point - this film doesn't fucking pull punches. A lot of kids' films shy away from frightening kids, but this film fucking didn't.
>pawn shop
>garbage dump
>toaster's clown dream
>Lampy's lightening stunt
>AC's death
>the waterfall crossing
I am not pointing this out in some embarassing "wow this is so edgy it's actually so adult" way, either. I think scaring kids is great. I think Don Bluth said that kids can handle anything if you add a happy ending, and it's true. Kids can not only handle being scared, they fucking love it.

Think about how many "horror" things are aimed at kids. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, Goosebumps, Mystery Hunters, Moville Mysteries, Freaky Tales, etc. Kids fucking love slime, grime, monsters, and terror.

Cont'd

Attached: E1D91E17-D666-41D8-907F-8BF21C91F61C.jpg (264x191, 8K)

The first film is really solid with some really good performances by a great cast.

The other two films... not so much.

3

This is true for several reasons. Kids like scary stuff for it's own sake. They like it for the same reasons adults do (misattribution of arousal, for instance). But for kids, scary stuff is especially beloved because it makes them feel "grown up" ("See mom! I'm not scared! I don't need that baby stuff!"). It makes kids feel like they're transgressing (and kids love breaking rules). If you want a kid to like you, just say you don't normally do this, but you think they're big enough to "handle" a scary story.

TBLT is a story about cute little cartoon appliances who are nice to each other trying to find their owner, who they're slavishly devoted to. In the wrong hands, this movie could have been another Care Bears. Something fine for really little kids, but that older children would find condescending (see the "babystuff" comment). The inclusion of horror elements makes kids like this movie more. I can attest one of the most visceral experiences I had as a girl was watching (1) the clown scene in this movie and (2) the Horned King's monologue in the Black Cauldron. Thai shit fucking terrified me, but it also made me want to rewind over and over again.

And from a story telling standpoint, horror is necessary. Kids movies suffer in that a happy ending is sort of guranteed, so the stakes in the film are already crippled. Older kids know this. Adults know this. Therefore, the only way to make a kids movie have stakes is to say, "yeah, they'll have a happy ending, but they're gonna earn it". This is why Secret of NIHM resonates. It's why this film works. Toaster and company make it, but they suffer some real losses. AC straight up dies in the first ten minutes.

So let's discuss the characterization, because this movie has it. All the cast has definitive personalities that can past the "Red Letter Media" character test.

Cont'd

Oh God, thank you for slogging through this highly concentrated autism.

Attached: 15C5E915-BAEC-45A8-BE7D-D8D67799BA55.jpg (1172x440, 44K)

4

Are they super complex? Nah. But they don't need to be. It's an adventure story, not a character study. Toaster's a responsible, hopeful, cheerful leader. Radio's a melodramatic loudmouth. Kirby's a grouchy dick who's actually a nice guy.

However, as I said before, the worldbuilding further elaborates upon the characters. Take Lampy aka my preadolescent obsession.

Lampy's whole bag is that he, like Kirby, is kind of a dick. Unlike Kirby, however, he can pull his (and everyone else's) weight, Lampy is kind of a useless dolt. Frustrated about this, he continually shits on the only member of the troupe less competent than himself - Blankey. Toaster frequently has to intervene and stop Lampy from bullying Blankey. As I already mentioned, the stakes are high on their quest - they have no gurantee that they'll be accepted by the master when they get there, and much it depends on their utility (the AC, "Worthless"). Lampy confides to Toaster that when his bulb went out he was terrified his life was over and he'd be thrown away ("...but then the master would put in a new bulb"). Despite his anxiety about being useless (and thus unloveable) and his own history of being a jerk, Lampy sacrifices himself and uses his own body as a conduit to recharge the battery.

Now, getting struck by lightning would be terrible for anyone. However, for someone like Lampy, whose life and ability to be loved rests on his functionality (as established by the worldbuilding) this sacrifice is heart breaking, and direcrtly prompted by Toaster's own claim that being good to others (Blankey) feels just as good as being used ("a warm toasty feeling", "a glow"), which for an appliance is existentially fulfilling.

The film has some really neat moments which stuck in my memory years later. The scary stuff, obviously, but also things like the little flower feeling sad after being captivated by its reflection in Toaster.

Cont'd

Attached: D0983C3C-7916-4404-AC5F-46EA598ACB30.gif (625x375, 931K)

5

This is less analysis and more vague praise, but I really love the lush nature scenes, dramatic lighting, cute cartoony style, etc. The film looks nice. The songs are not really singalongs the way most Disney songs are, but they're still really fun and sometimes genuinely pretty. "It's a B Movie" is totally off the wall goofy, whereas "City of Light" is sincerely lovely.

Anyway, . I think this film did something really cool and original. It told it's own offbeat story while still following traditional storybook requirements of a structured plot, defined but simple characters with clear arcs, and real stakes. It was affectionate and sincere without being saccharine (that is, the characters haul ass for each other and clearly care for each other as friends but are not immune to the stresses of the road). It never talked down to its target audience of children and thus it is still likeable for adults. I feel its themes of wanting to be useful are relevant to anyone in a capitalist society and thus are articulated perfectly through literal personified consumer goods. It's an awesome film that often gets buried because it came out right before the Disney Renaissance but wasn't a Bluth production.

My baby niece turned a year old like a week ago, and this whole thread has me genuinely excited to watch this movie with her.

Attached: 96894748-3401-4B06-94B1-3656ACAFDD8F.png (627x602, 166K)

Toaster is a dick head and unlikable.

I like the balloon song from the Mars one
youtube.com/watch?v=Bl5it-eT81U

I remember feeling sadness during the movie but I was like 5 so I don't really know if the movie was a downer or not. Never cared enough to rewatch it.

>not Oh, What a Day to Remember
This movie is why I like Herman's Hermits

Attached: 11667792688243984.jpg (700x500, 53K)

>There ain't nothin' you can do about it.
>Pardon me while I panic!
youtube.com/watch?v=-UfsEj7AOGI
>Just casually slip an existential murder montage where all of the victims have a few lines to humanize themselves before you see them literally crushed to death
>some cars run and some willingly drive onto the crusher while lamenting how their owners abandoned them
Dark shit, otherwise very cute and terrifically animated. Beats toy story in every way imo.

>I feel its themes of wanting to be useful are relevant to anyone in a capitalist society and thus are articulated perfectly through literal personified consumer goods
This, for me, is what makes the movie truly great. On a surface level it acts as a caution about disposable consumer culture, but really it's about what effect that culture has on PEOPLE feeling equally disposable and searching for meaning and self-worth.

Want things to get even darker? The writer of the original story, Tom Disch, fell into depression after his partner died and lost his will to write and eventually, to live. A couple of months before he shot himself he posted pic related on his blog. Seems the themes of the story were ideas he was very familiar with in his life.

Attached: fuckinghell.png (725x793, 50K)

Well fuck user, I didn't really want it to get darker but there it is.

Attached: rip.gif (370x277, 2.63M)

>how people feel under consumer culture
So true! Like, the story of the appliances is that they want to serve this utility because that's what they're made to do. However, the story itself critiques this notion that happiness only comes from serving a "function" (job, utility, production of profit) rather than within.

Lampy asks Toaster why he is kind to Blankey, and Toaster says that being kind makes him feel nice. The way Toaster attempts to convey this nice feeling is through his function ("a warm toasty feeling"), which Lampy only understands when it is put in terms of his function ("a glow!"). It's clear that doing their task (toasting, lighting) makes them feel very good, but they are also starting to learn that they can get this good feeling not through doing but being. They are not serving a utility to master when they are kind to Blankey, but they do it and receive pleasure nonetheless. Ultimately, the latter takes precedence - Lampy sacrifices himself for his friends at the expense of his utility.

Rather than being "worthless" because he cannot light up anymore (he is fixed, but they don't know that at the time) his friends still treat him as if his life has value - a revolutionary idea for an appliance. There's even an equation between Lampy-post-lightning-shock and a war vet (Radio speaks of medals and lamps across the nation going dim). The comparison between the disposable nature of consumer products and people is deliberate.

Although the first sequel was not written by the book's authors, there are similar themes. Instead of sentient, feeling appliances being reduced to their utility, animals are treated as such. The conceit of the film revolves around the master's struggles to rescue his pets, whom he loves for themselves, from a laboratory where they are disposable test subjects. Essentially meat machines with which to develop more consumer goods (makeup, shampoo, etc.).

Cont'd...

....cont'd....

I think that as the human body becomes increasingly mechanized, these issues of "sentient machines" become more pressing.

I'm currently a university student, and my friend deals adderal to Asian kids. We're living in an era where people are using medical supplements to increase their utility. Soon, this will progress into gene editting technology, designer babies, implants, etc. In a world where everyone becomes robotic, and capitalism requires competition, it is a genuine fear of mine that eventually people will have no choice but to start altering their bodies and minds simply to compete in the marketplace. Which, of course, going back to TBLT, necessitates another question - if we are becoming machines defined by out utility, then to what function are we being made to serve?

>Tom's biography
I never knew about that. God, that's horrific. You're making me want to read the book. Thank you, user.

>hippie balloons

they must've been high while making this movie

Attached: carlos.png (350x350, 138K)

and the people that made this never made another animated movie again

>putting already buttered toast in a toaster
That's a good way to start a fire.

>Beats toy story in every way imo
I don't think it's a co-incidence that Lasseter wanted to make CGI Brave little Toaster (an idea Disney hated so much they fired him) and later went on to make Toy Story. While it's by no means a bad film, Toy Story is basically a more dumbed-down, merch friendly (the irony) riff on the premise of Toaster, so I'm kinda glad Lasseter didn't get make it at Disney. I don't think they would have allowed much of the darker or more thoughtful stuff if they'd been releasing it under their own brand.

Wut?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Pictures
Not only did they make other movies, they made two sequels to Toaster ten years later. They haven't produced anything in over ten years though.

Strong Christian overtones in a movie about the bleakness of life.

Oops, I meant to say never made another GOOD movie.

I mean look at their resume there. A fucking cartoon that got cancelld after 4 episodes and doesn't even have a pic on wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_Boom_Crew

The screenwriter also died in a car accident while working on Pixar's Cars.

Attached: PANIC.jpg (474x360, 27K)

It's basically Pilgrim's Progress with appliances.

So relieved someone else out there was in love with the lamp as a kid.

Yeah, Iunno man, kids are weird. They're innocent in a way that means they don't really develop infatuations based on sexual attributes the way adults do and yet that can also lead to them thinking an anthropomorphic desk lamp is boyfriend material. I've sort of embraced the fact that six year old me was a weirdo.

It could be worse, all weird Yea Forums nonsense considered.

What did 6-year-old you find attractive about Lampy? I am curious.

Iunno. I guess the voice, the fact that he was sort of a jerk but did something really nice for his friends. Why do kids do anything?

This is a good read, thank you for sharing your autism. I loved this movie at 7-8 and I still do.

Thanks user, I was a tad worried no one read "blog posts" anymore on this site.

It's one of the few animated films that wanted to be a good movie rather than a quick cash in.

This. Apparently several casts members refused to see the sequels as a result.

>tfw any longform post is now considered blogposting
I'm tired. I remember when detailed posts were appreciated.

guess you could say he's now worthless

>spoilers
Kirby was one of my first, for whatever reason. Probably his voice. RIP Thurl.

Attached: 10pm.jpg (309x429, 27K)

>kirby
Different user, but I was also a Lampyfag. I think it set the stage for my continued love of whiny lanklets with nasally voices. You still like bass voices?

It's interesting, this movie has a very niche but very passionate fandom and any time husbandos come up Lampy is always the most popular. But yes, I've been weak for nice/unusual voices my whole life, especially deep ones. Old cartoons used to have so many great male VAs... Thurl, Christopher Lee, Vincent Price, George Sanders. I'm probably forgetting a bunch. Also, he's an outlier, but props to Sterling Holloway for managing to make his goofy voice sinister and hot.

Attached: cutting edge.gif (245x181, 292K)

It isn't like an amazing film. But it's good, A film I'm probably let my kids watch

Thanks for posting all this. I haven't seen TBLT since I was a kid - to be honest I've avoided it as so many 80s cartoons I've gone back to as an adult turned out to be awful - but you've given me motivation to watch it again with a fresh perspective. The absurdity of rampant consumerism, ever increasing disposability of human labour, difficulty in finding meaning through work in a modern society and their relationship with psychology/mental illness and social cohesion is something I've been thinking about a lot recently; it's interesting to see someone relating some of those themes to a childhood film.

youtube.com/watch?v=mI_OIrtBB-k

Attached: 20-Knxwledge.jpg (1200x665, 835K)

>Worthless
Man that scene is just crushing but it's so good. The way the industrial sounds form the beat that leads into the song, the way the music continues over the cuts, it's fucking great.

As an /o/ fag from an early age, not only was it kinda heartbreaking but it also made me never want to send a car to scrap that could be fixed and remain useful. My current car is from 1971 and I intend to keep it running forever.

Are you a grill

>I think Don Bluth said that kids can handle anything if you add a happy ending, and it's true.

Yeah, he is right about it definitively, but there is a limit about what a kid can see in the middle of "beginning and a happy ending". Balance is an important thing.

>"yeah, they'll have a happy ending, but they're gonna earn it"

This user understands.

Carlos!

At least from the point of view of a narrative

I still cant watch the scene with the lonely flower.