I don't think you watched Inside Out
Inside Out still has the same premise as Toy Story but also stars personifications. You don't need to watch a movie to already do enough research to know what it's about. It's the same base concept, it just has more to it.
This is a case where you should be careful when wording a post
Continuing to blame a movie for canning others when it's not true is always worth calling out. Same with people who keep accuse it of copying other movies when it did nothing of the sort anyway. The reality is, there was no other way to make a different story anyway due to the key premise. You could call it a rip-off of Toy Story, but that's kind of silly since it only shares the key basic concept anyway. Sharing the same message does not make something a rip-off. About the only one that's even remotely true is that one character is influenced by Wyldstyle. And that's about the only legitimate rip-off one can call them out for, since it's the only one actually within truth of development. We know the facts. He entirely wanted a movie based around the idea of Toy Story, the message "Be Yourself", and using Emojis due to a text he got before development started. We also know that SPA gave out trailers with odd messages that the Director never actually said were meant to be part of the movie. We should go by the facts, not made-up bull**** excuses use to hate in a petty manner. The movie does not and never will deserve any flak for "copying a movie" when it didn't even copy it. It's a coincidence in reality. Unless you have actual proof SPA intentionally tried to copy Wreck-It Ralph and Inside Out(we know the director did use the same idea as Wyldstyle, but that's the only actual copying cited). Please cite it. Go ahead. I'll wait. But if you can't, maybe you could just realize it was a made-up excuse and call the movie out for what it actually did wrong, same with what SPA actually did.
Let's note the Director for a moment. His goal was to send a message to people to Be Yourself. He got inspired by Toy Story and his own life experiences to do the movie in general. He got a text with Emojis in it that determined the material used to create the world it's in. Where in this does the idea to "appeal to teenagers" come from? Or the lowest form of comedy? They don't exist. SPA created the trailers. It's almost like they're the ones clearly responsible for some of what the movie is. But this is all we actually know. We don't know how much they interfered. But as I also said, trying to turn Emojis into multi-faceted characters couldn't work anyway. They're intentionally one-note. That's how they exist. Meanwhile, the characters in movies like Wreck-It Ralph and Toy Story have two sets of personalities. One the creators gave them, and their own. This matters and why the movies worked. Inside Out created fictional personifications of emotions, and unlike Emojis, didn't outright exist as a key concept beforehand. They weren't already toys. Or video game characters. It was just seeing inside the head, namely, the idea of fictional characters that we cannot see because we're humans. At best, it's a little different from Toy Story's premise, but not much anyway.
...That said, you are actually properly aware of what a personification is, right? It's not "a personality for a fictional character". It's taking a specific concept and turning them into a human. The only other variant is taking a non-humanoid and turning them into a humanoid. Emojis actually are personifications, of course. Toy Story literally has none. Nor does Wreck-It Ralph. Or The Lego Movie. Inside Out does. You have a vast misunderstanding of what Toy Story is about if you think it's about personifications(which don't even exist in the movie whatsoever).
Did you know that if many similar events happen, it's usually because they have the same cause? That's known as "cause and effect"
Did you know that calling a pattern that happens a fact doesn't make it a fact? Embargoes for movies doesn't not mean they will all factually fail. It means the pattern is consistent. People are justified in being weary. But it isn't a fact no matter how much you keep crying it is. Facts don't work that way. Never have, never will. Now obviously I didn't clarify well with the issue with Embargoes are. I already talked to Gwen in private about it. We agree on the same point, that they're overall patterns that sadly happen too often, and it's very reasonable to treat the pattern as super likely to happen.
That said, even though she was referring to Post-Release Embargoes, those aren't bad either anyway. Not the concept. The context of why they're make can make it bad. A good way to put it is this; Movies with post-release embargoes tend to be bad because the company didn't do the job of making a good movie. Why they actually put up the embargo is entirely context-based. The example earlier mentioned that they intentionally didn't allow people to point out that there was a game-breaking bug. This is abuse of the Embargo. However, just doing it to let people judge the movie for themselves is healthy entirely. That said, Embargoes are easy to ignore anyway(that is, they don't really matter). What does is who is making the work, and why they put it up. We don't even know why SPA put up a post-release embargo. We just know it existed. There's two very good explanations for it; The director has tons of passion for the movie and wanted people to experience it properly(that is, completely unbiased and uninformed, thus, can judge for themselves) and/or SPA needed the sales to justify the company staying afloat. Neither of these are bad reasons, and are in fact really healthy and reasonable. Refusing to let bias heavily sway consumers is kind of a good thing. Of course, it is a bad thing to intentionally not let them know about severe issues(like game-breaking bugs). Post-Release Embargoes are not bad at all. They just sadly get abused by some companies.
-------------
Anyway, it's clear we won't see eye to eye on this. Let's just drop it and move on. This feels too heated on both our parts now at best, and isn't worth creating drama over. Apologies if it felt like I was being unfair.
