Technically, it is, but you're acting like personifying unliving things is some kind of specific concept that Toy Story created.
It's the same as saying Sonic copied Mario because it's a game where you go from left to right, jump in enemies to destroy them and collect golden coins/rings.
Personification is one of the oldest writing techniques in existence, like when people looked at the sky and made gods out of the planets and stuff.
If personifying something is that specific of a concept that these three movies "share the same premise", then so do Fullmetal Alchemist, Beauty and the Beast, The Amazing World of Gumball, Steven Universe and literally any movie or show with talking animals.
You literally said that in the above quote.
At this point it just seems like you're trying to defend this movie for the sake of being a contrarian.
Nothing about the Emoji Movie deserves to be defended, it has no passion put in it whatsoever, made only for a cashgrab, between the laughable "inspiration" that created this thing between the copied plot structure, if Sony really is banking their movie department on this, they deserve to fail.
Yes, all of those share the same basic core concept. There's no point in denying that fact. Newsflash; tons of fiction isn't entirely original. Time to get over that. What is original is how they take and shape the concept to make something unique. The problem with Emoji is it didn't really try to be unique(despite what the director wanted). It was solely inspired as a movie itself by Toy Story. He also liked some ideas from other movies(hence why one character is similar to Wyldstyle). But the main inspiration to create it is different. He was not copying any actual movie whatsoever anyway. Now what executive meddling did is another story. Considering the ridiculous rumor that SPA actually canned two movies for it, it's already easy to believe they messed with many parts of the movie. Of course, that isn't provable either. But we do know for a fact SPA loves to mess with stuff.
Also, the core concept isn't "just" personification either. That's way too simple. The core concept was very specifically taking characters who actually have a physical form and treating them like their own person. Toy Story isn't even personification. Hell, only Emoji Movie and Inside Out even take the personification route. Wreck-It Ralph specifically is about actual characters having their own thoughts(just like Toy Story does). Emoji was inspired by one movie, as noted, and was trying to take what are basically still characters in some form and making them come to life. Inside Out is the only one that doesn't have actual characters coming to life, being solely based upon personification. But it's also clear that it has similarities to Toy Story's main concept of "what would happen if you people being themselves when the humans aren't looking?" That, fyi, is the concept behind Toy Story and all 3 of the other movies(same with the Lego Movie). All 5 movies all share this extremely specific concept(not personification). They almost all share the "Be yourself" message too. Lego Movie has a different one, though; Everyone is special and that's cool too.
Buddy, it has more passion than half the **** that is out there. The director was nothing more than passionate. You know what wasn't? SPA. Blame them, since of course they would mess with the movie. They stopped the production of one movie for literally no given reason and stopped another as well(that was due to creative differences, which is more reasonable). It was inevitable the movie couldn't be executed well due to the source of it, emojis themselves. They do not have a proper capability for characterization. Personifications can in general because many of them aren't extremely specific things.
I'm sick of people hating on it for reasons that don't make any logical sense. Calling it a rip-off when it did no such thing. Blaming it for canning two movies when it was not involved at all. I have every right to defend bull**** opinions. The movie not being liked because of how it was executed is actually a legit point. But want to know how many actually bother to watch it and judge it on its own merits instead of using bull**** non-factual reasons to hate it? Few. Anybody who saw it and still didn't like it? Kudos. You at least took the time to make sure it was as bad as you thought it was.
And yes, it deserves defending because it has a great Director who had nothing but passion and frankly? I'm very proud they wanted to see their dream movie come to fruition. That person deserves a medal for following their dream. SPA deserves a swift kick in the ass for ruining it with bull**** trailers. It's also very likely they meddled with the movie, which would explain the issues it has. It's pretty hard to execute a good movie under SPA as is. Can't blame the Director for at least trying. And honestly, anybody who did the research knows he was very passionate about it. When you consider the fact it's not solely him there, with things like SPA controlling it, a crew that easily can affect it, you get issues. It's kind of the natural problem that always happens when one makes a movie with a crew. Not everybody sees things the same way.
Preach my dude, preach
And I like the fact people are acting like thos one bad move is the end of the world, seeing the reactions
Well, anyone trying to force that opinion can be safely ignored anyway. That particular post/opinion, anyway. They're not worth replying to, because they're just hyperbolic and have no constructive criticism.
-------------
And yes, Embargoes absolutely mean nothing. They aren't an indicator of jack-all. All it is is a coincidental pattern. There is no fact that an Embargo = Bad Movie/Game. It's a pattern people see and try to dictate as real. There is no conspiracy to be had. The only thing worth looking at is the company behind the Embargo, not the fact it's an Embargo. Forest for the trees and all.
Now companies intentionally creating Embargoes to avoid letting people know there's game-breaking bugs is not really an issue with an Embargo(it's them actually abusing the law instead). It's the issue with the company refusing to playtest their crap and intentionally releasing a broken game. Sonic 06 is a beautiful example of this(not that it isn't playable, and it's actually more full of annoying bugs and glitches with almost nothing properly game-breaking. It's just hard to play due to some bugs. They fired the playtesters. Nuff said).