A Very Long Talk About Toy Story with Gaming Magic 13

I subscribed to the patreon just this year despite being a viewer for years. These comments and joel are way way too nice to this guy. Unwillingness to understand anything, and genuinely not very intelligent. Which isnt a crime, and hopefully he can learn and understand different perspectives. I was like this when I was 14 too. But for an adult this is bad. Interpretation, media literacy and english need to be taught more. Although the ending was wholesome and i do feel bad he feels bad, ridiculous as it is.

I know why you haven’t and why you wouldn’t. But god. I want nothing more (content wise obviously) than for you to continue at the very least commenting on the videos. But I think there is so much you could do with this stuff .

As an autistic person the gamer is giving me a lot of autism flags. I had a phase of being a terribly annoying nitpicker who missed the point of art too but I moved past it (and now interpreting art is one of my special interests) and I hope this guy is able to move past this phase too and enjoy art When you really strip it down the disagreement was “4 undid the happy ending of 3 by having woody change his priorities and that’s bad because I was attached to the ending of 3” vs “4 undid the happy end of 3 and that’s good because the themes of Toy Story are that nothing lasts forever so a happy ending like 3’s is disengenuous”

Joel’s point that the gamer is just not at the stage of maturity to get is that “yes 4 negated the happy ending of 3, but that’s actually better thematically”

The right question to ask about the driveway to own him with facts and logic (tone: semi jokey) would be “ok but would it actually change the plot of 2 or 3 if the driveway had been in the position where it is in 4 in those movies?” If the answer is no then the retcon is objectively minor because in those movies the garage placement was arbitrary Anyway this doesn’t really matter this is just what I thought repeatedly while watching this

The thing that’s frustrating for me about this is that, despite the amount of emotion GM13 brings to the conversation, he kind of refuses to engage with the emotions being presented in the movie. I feel like I see more and more of this lately, where art (particularly film) is treated not as vehicles for meaning and emotion, but as actions or sequences of actions that must adhere to strict logic. The problem is that the “logic” is completely subjective, but people want to act as though it isn’t.

I'm listening to this again after randomly thinking about it and I have to say that it certainly felt like I was going crazy. While this guy is definitely a debate bro cinema sins dinger and there's some things that legit make me uncomfortable about his takes, like the gaslighting bit, there's still a part of me that is extremely intrigued by his point of view and emotions towards a film. Clearly he loves these movies so much, so it will make him angry when they aren't perfect or when the movie's universe isn't as stable as he has built it up in his head. Plus being angry about the details to this extent allows him to consume more of what he loves. There is no way someone would do this just for the sake of a debate, he clearly loves these films and this is how he expresses it. And I only read into it like this because there's a weird relatable part of this guy for me, especially with my autism. Not saying he is autistic too, just that I can empathize- because there have been niche things that I have had a very loving special interest in and got obsessed with the very fine details of, but I'd also feel this intense anger or despair about these interests at the same time. I would fully immerse myself in a universe that I felt like I knew every detail of, even in places that I had to fill in the gaps myself, so when it was changed in any official way I would absolutely feel devastated and uncomfortable. These are the vibes I feel from this guy too, at least to a certain extent. Honestly I dunno how relevant this is but it made me think about it anyway. Even if this is a tough thing to listen to at times, it's still very thought provoking for me. Sorry I know the video is like 2 years old, but I felt like I wanted to add something to it still.

Hearing at the end the fact that he wanted to upload it to the channel actually changed how I saw the conversation. He thinks he needs to be right all the time because that's what he wants to portray to his audience. At least to a degree, he is performing. That gives me some relief.

This is just gold. A+ content. What a ride

OH, one other comment. Big Joel saying near the end "Toy Story 4 is about accepting reality" was just *chef's kiss* beautiful irony.

Just joined the patreon finally and am listening to this and WOW. I can not believe how calm Big Joel stays through this diatribe of nonsense. I would have noped out after about 15 minutes. It seems to me like GM13 is just unwilling to be wrong. He cannot let go of this damn driveway. Like, how does his mind not let him get past that? I can't. I'm going to try to soothe my mind by reading back through all the comments here.

Alright, I just rewatched the discussion and I'm super annoyed at how douchey and indignant GM13 was. However, it's VERY mature and VERY Big Joel to be the bigger person and recognize that some people are just immune to criticism. Yes, you could systematically destroy this guy point by point, but what would be the benefit? Great stuff.

This is wild

Wow, this whole thing was exhausting LOL. I watched the video on Nebula where there are no comments and had to subscribe here because I just needed to know someone else felt the same way. The "abuser" conversation was already tiresome because it dealt with a lot of irrelevant hypotheticals, but then the driveway conversation was even worse. Oh my gosh.

Ultimately, he just doesn’t understand that things change. Characters evolve, relationships evolve, circumstances evolve. Which is one of the most interesting things about the toy story franchise, the evolution of themes throughout each film. It’s frustrating to hear him constantly go on about the characters being inconsistent and the driveway not being there, because those things changed in service of the new plot and themes, and them changing doesn’t discount the previous films

Y'all are being way too charitable to the gamer guy. He fundamentally doesn't understand storytelling, he doesn't have some fascinating way of criticizing media, he's an awful pedant and insecure debate bro. I can't believe there's 35 minutes left on this. Edit: Also this guy shows classic nostalgia poisoning common with gamers. Capitalism really fucking up people's brains.

GamingMagic13 seems to be stuck on this notion that "if character feels X, then they will do Y concrete action". There's no understanding that emotions can express themselves in different ways, that a character could have multiple conflicting emotions pushing them in opposing directions, or that a character might do something that goes against their core identity in moments of pain or stress (like, for example, when their kid just gave them away). I doubt he thinks that people in real live act in such a predictable, algorithmic way, which would suggest that he doesn't really expect fictional characters to behave the way actual people would. I also think it's kind of wild that he would suggest that Toy Story 4 is placing the same amount of weight on the opening flashback action scene as Toy Story 3 did on the incinerator scene that serves as the climax of the entire film.

The sphere of YT media critique that this dude resembles is honestly super interesting. I've fallen off the chair with multiple Marvel Universe Expert readings of American Psycho, this seeming to have significant overlap in analytic approach, but in a way that betrays a far more sympathetic, earnest innocence over another kind of blind narcissism. But, yeah... as there's not much common ground that could be established in a two hour conversation on Toy Story(!), and he seemed to be a well-meaning, decent dude going hard at debating the big issues, then it's best to just try to be kind. I think you did well in this regard.

I'm just here signing up as a Patron because the whole "abuse is whatever makes me feel bad" bit was kinda chilling and you handled it really well. Kudos on both choosing to engage with him and deciding to walk away from covering him in future.

It really feels like his ideal movie is more of a simulation. Characters are concretely who they are and the best version of a film is the one that holds the most true to how they would behave in a given situation. He’s frustrated by change, conflict, and elasticity and really values expectations being maintained. That simulation thinking also clearly is the roadblock that gets him frustrated with emotional beats that make him feel like characters are wasting time or acting callus. Because he thinks it should be a straightforward, nearly accurate sequence of events he thinks tragedies and unfortunate circumstances can be avoided. He’s not seeing that those unfortunate circumstances are where the STORY IS. The writers outline things like “RC is in trouble > tense rescue mission with a near miss > sense of calm > Bo is taken away” and add details and visual broadcasting around that to make it interesting. No matter how long two characters quip for the point is for there to be tension so the rescue will always be a near-miss. But he sees these sequences so literally that he doesn’t seem to understand that the point of all of these scenes is to tell a story someone intended on telling, not just speculating what would happen in a given situation.

"I don't care about that." That sums up both sides of this interview. Big Joel doesn't care about small plot-enabling inconsistencies or the literal believability of the toy story universe, and GamingMagic13 doesn't care about these movies as a medium for creative expression and narrative vision. The way these two people are consuming this media is entirely different. I'm glad that this conversation is only being release to a limited audience. I think fans of either channel would watch this video and think the other side had made a fool of themselves. It felt like this dialog made Big Joel exhausted and GamingMagic13 frustrated. That being said, I enjoyed the video and found the conversation deeply engaging. I found myself drawing parallels between GamingMagic13's approach to Big Joel's previous video and his takes on Toy Story: he progressed through a big list of complaints, moving diligently from one to the next and failing to grasp the broader meaning of the work. This framework definitely loosened toward the end of the video, which I think was the highlight - it really emphasized the humanity on both sides. I think this is a great example of the sort of content that belongs on Patreon, but not YouTube.

I'm convinced he compiled his list of grievances and then prepared his retorts which he would parrot back to you no matter what you said. Like there was.very little room for meaningful discourse because he was of the mind that he is correct and this conversation was to make you see that, not to see your perspective.

Towards the end of the conversation where you were talking about how to distribute the interview and he *strongly* implied that you're video on nebula with 700 views cost him to lose 400 subs (a 57% conversion rate, with the assumption that every view was subscribed to both channel!). And then he refused to acknowledge the ridiculousness of that assertion, really makes me think that 13's whole "personality" is just a character, )similar to Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report). I refuse to believe someone who possess the intelligence and critical thinking to analyze media to the extent he does, would sincerely believe that is plausible.... I'm honestly kind of convinced that his whole channel is satire. Idk I'll put my tinfoil hat back in its box now lol.

Wow a hardcore toy story debate is not the content I thought I'd be listening to today. I was curious since he brought up Merriam Webster as a source (lol) for trying to claim the movie could be abusive and also check the definition of gaslight on there, and I don't see how a movie could be abusive based on the definition provided by Merriam Webster either. It was good of you to have a conversation with him, it's understandable how the original video could come off as mean, but there were definitely disclaimers that intellectually tearing down the video wasn't an attack on them personally.

I think not making another video is the right call and very gentlemanly of you. I'm sure this conversation was very frustrating for you, but as a listener it was the type of frustrating that had me laughing my ass off. 😂 Good show!

(The gobsmacking harm/abuse stuff would take way too many words to unpack. I thought you did well in that part of the conversation, trying to convey something of the complex regime of subordination that interpersonal abuse is ... but again: he was in debate mode, and he absolutely didn't hear any of it.)

I'm glad I got to hear this conversation, but I also think it's the right choice to not make any more stuff about this guy's content. The disparity in clout/followers already made it feel a bit uneasy, and you're right: it's just not worth stressing this guy out. It would be different if he were willing to actually hear you out and let his thinking be expanded, but he seemed pretty firmly in 'debate' mode, which doesn't help anyone. For what it's worth, one part I found really interesting is the curiously mechanistic quality of his in-universe analyses. Like, in one sense he's as Watsonian a critic as you'll ever find; he keeps asking "if supporting-detail X weren't the way it was, what would have happened", and is absolutely not prepared to accept "well, the filmmakers would have found another way to have their story happen" as an answer. But he also isn't plugged into the fictional universe imaginatively enough to think "well, the characters would have found a way around that", or "a slightly different story might have unfolded, converging on a similar arc because of the nature the characters and their world." Instead, he's got this curiously clockwork notion of their fictional universe: where if the small supporting detail were changed, then the larger story simply *couldn't* proceed without it. That's what he was trying to get you to admit, I think, all those times he repeated versions of that question. But what's interesting to me is that this isn't *just* a rejection of the Doylist frame of "what the filmmakers want to happen will happen", it's also a strangely impoverished view of the characters' agency inside their little fishbowl. If Buzz doesn't have his wings, I guess he just sits around Sid's house glumly and doesn't even try to escape. If the driveway isn't there, then none of the events of Toy Story 4 can find a way to happen, and Woody can't possibly leave. It's what imbues all his nitpicks with the emotional venom that they have: every supporting detail of the story is to blame for the deeper 'betrayal' they're supporting. But I'm also struck by how little faith it evinces in the agency of these characters he says he cares so much about. In his mode of cashing out these hypotheticals, the characters all seem a bit ... automaton-like. They move forward in a single cardinal direction, and whether they make it is entirely up to what blockages are put in front of them. Like battery-operated toys! If I were to irresponsibly speculate about the psychology of a dude I'll never meet, I'd guess that he's got some conflation going on between the characters in the movies and his real-life childhood toys (which could even have been movie tie-in toys of the characters, given that he mentions Toy Story was one of the first movies he ever saw). He doesn't want movie-Woody to ever move on from 'his kid', because he doesn't want *his* Woody to ever move on from *him*. He doesn't want the movie-toys to have room for doubt and contradictions and growth, because the role his own toys occupy for him is comfortingly static and evergreen, and for him there's no way to do the former without destabilizing the latter.

When you carefully explained what unfalsifiable means and he just ignored it… I realized you just shouldn't haven't taken up this “debate” with him in the first place. The both of you are just not operating on the same level of consciousness. I think the original issue is that his failures are a form of lack of empathy, and your original reaction video contained some lack of empathy as well. But it was an understandable temporary lack of empathy as you initially discovered his wild critique, while he just doesn't improve at all, even when he's confronted with it. It's interesting that you evolve from your usual spot of armchair critic to debater, it's a quite more difficult exercise. But it's a very different exercise, because usually you critique content and in the end your audience very largely (and asynchronously) agrees, where in this debate you have to interact with a human who's on the spot and emotionally cannot empathise with your arguments. Debating formally on such a subjective matter is painful. So yeah it's interesting but not as enjoyable to me. Lol somebody should film a response video where they explain how this debate is a bad sequel to your series of videos and they feel really gaslit about it.

This man seems to have no real respect or even inkling about what art is or how it functions. It’s really telling that he wants some universal standard which can be applied across movies to evaluate their merit, because it reveals an understanding of art as putting beeps and boops into a beep and boop machine so that it makes the beeps and boops. It’s a very transactional kind of understanding. And his weird insistence that people (because he understands the Toy Story characters as people in the world) never contradict their general personality says the same thing: the beeps go here and the boops go there and they keep getting beeped and booped. It’s odd. Genuinely big respect to you, BJ, for generating such an interesting conversation while keeping your composure.

Actually u kno what i have more silly things to add. I also resent the idea that Bo’s character is unrecognizable beyond belief in the transition from 1-2 to 4. Is there some extrapolation because she’s not a prominent character in the first 2? Sure. Do I agree that the change would maybe be more effective if she became more Action Bo after the timeskip? I mean I guess? But I don’t buy the argument about her not saying goodbye to the other toys. Bo has always come across as the toy who was the … pragmatic & levelheaded I guess? I think it’s in line with her character to have an acceptance over her situation. She’s realistic about it. Would she have wanted to say goodbye? Maybe but also I think prolonging the inevitable or indulging in an overly wrought goodbye with the other toys is just not her style. Maybe I’m wrong, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the movies but I feel like her being kinda detached and realistic about her goodbye falls in line with why she doesn’t want another kid. She’s self preserving. Being vulnerable and too attached just means she’s gonna get hurt. And she overcomes this fear in the movie. Idk, it’s this thing called a character arc

I do feel like there are instances a film can be a tool of gas-lighting or abuse, like biopics that severely downplay the harm done by their subject or like, What is a Woman type shit. But I recognize that's so far from the point being made that I don't why I'm trying to make room for a more nuanced interpretation of it.

A big part of his argument hinges on the idea that woody would never leave Andy but I mean. Michael Arndt the writer of Toy Story 3 has a great video on Vimeo about the drafting process of the movie (it’s called “toy story 3: mistakes made, lesson learned”) & he said himself that a philosophical question of the third movie is “what does the promise to ‘always be there’ for someone actually mean?” And the question in 3 is answered when Andy’s mother says “I wish I could be with you” & Andy says “you will be, mom”. Being there for someone shifts from something literal to metaphorical, & even tho you (and I too tbf) have problems w the 3rd film in that it does feel like a retread of old ground, there is still merit to its themes. Woody and Lotso feel beholden to their kids on an emotional and literal level forever, that’s why lotso felt betrayed by Daisy, she wasn’t there for him. She moved on. But that’s normal, kids grow up & therefore outgrow their toys. Lotso the. sees the loyalty of toys to be a bad thing that only causes pain bc of his refusal to accept change and loss are a part of relationships, but Woody’s arc is to realize that it’s ok for relationships to to ephemeral and transient and temporary as long as they meant something in the time you spend, bc then ppl will always cherish you in their heart. So not only do I appreciate that toy story 4 interrogates the imbalance and tragedy in that relationship, I fully believe it would be within woody’s character to leave Bonnie. Just like Andy, she’s moved on & it’s ok for Woody to move on as well. Like. In arndt’s video he explicitly shows the storyboards where woody’s original epiphany is not “oh, I will always be with Andy in his heart” it’s, “the job of a toy is to make a kid happy, and Andy is no longer a kid, so I must find a new kid” and arndt explicitly highlights that this version of the theme as the 1st draft, less effective version. I can’t help but notice the draft epiphany highlights the interchangeability of Andy and Bonnie in the same way this person also seems to believe that Bonnie and Andy’s relationships to Woody are interchangeable. Idk. I don’t want to be to meanspirited but it’s definitely strange to see someone simultaneously be so impassioned abt toy story but fail to ingest the main theme of 3. Sorry for the essay

I'm still so shaken by the part of the conversation where he was seriously asserting that it is possible to both be gaslit by a movie and also that it would be reasonable to be severely psychologically damaged by it. It's just such a wild overstatement of harm.

The idea that you should, or even can, establish a Universal Standard for how movies should be judged is so wrongheaded to me that I don't think I can ever engage with someone who thinks that way.

Oh my god when he tries to throw the incredibles 2 thing at you and you're just like.... what? I died

This is absolutely incredible. It is interesting how he almost seemed to try to cancel you for some comments, at least that's what the language he used reminded me of.

I watched about half of this and I just can't keep watching. It's too painful.

I like the honesty at the end and that Gaming Magic 13 was able to open up emotionally. I was surprised by that part and it was a nice moment after a strange, strange conversation.

Gaming Magic 13 has passion, I'll give him that. Got a lot more debate-y than I expected, the driveway was brutal, but still a super fun watch.

After finishing the convo I'm sad that there may not be a path for you to talk about the interesting subject of how some people consume media literally and how most people dont, maybe an alternative to analysing that attitude could be cinemasins? maybe nostalgiacritic? both pretty passé but maybe finding a more mainstream modern example of that literal analysis could be good, would love to see a vid from you on the topic for sure

Him vehemently insisting that this movie is gaslighting was so hard to listen to

I felt like I was going insane watching this

I don't really like this. The guy is clearly operating on a rudimentary level of film criticism but he's trying to explain himself. Your reading is more sophisticated but there's a lot of times where you just flatly shoot him down. It just feels kinda shitty. The video of you and Lily laughing at his video also felt mean spirited to me. I don't like this type of content

His description of all the other folks who were just as upset as him by the driveway has big “there are dozens of us! Dozens!” energy.

I fucking lost it when he said the 4 year old would be the abuser for calling the sweater goofy. Holy crap man lmao

This is astonishing. Thank you for sharing

(3rd :P) having an over the top reaction to something mildly hurtful said about you by someone can literally be a form of abuse. Like if you let your partner know they forgot to take the trash out, and that hurts them and causes a defensive reaction where they get extremely emotional, thereby preventing you from being able to speak to them about household tasks in the future, that can literally become a form of abuse very easily and i think is pretty common tbh

God this was frustrating to listen to. No, actually a movie can’t abuse or gaslight you dude… it’s not a responsible agent intending to harm you. It’s a movie. And even if he’s really taking aim at the writers here, does he really believe their goal in creating TS4 was to abuse the children and families who are it’s main audience?! Absolutely ridiculous.

I'm so weirded out about the idea that Andy could just give away Woody's love and loyalty like those things are transferable.

2nd comment but oh my god the thing about gaslighting is so insulting, "distorts your sense of reality" yeah, REALITY, aka. not a FICTIONAL story?????? how can reality be a factor when talking about a something made up, aka not of our reality

at 29:55 when he asks "why did he consider for even a second to go to the museum" shows his unwillingness to understand that characters can consider different options, the simple impossibly common experience of thinking about which paths to go down. Like if someone takes a bus to work everyday and one day they wake up and think "what if I rode my bike?" that would be an impossibility to him

pushing the elephant agenda with your visuals

im so happy that this is the bonus video

this is an absolutely amazing piece of media, this interview. Joel explaining the themes of the movie to a person addicted to cinema sins dings. that bit about immortality vs fear of being le go... crazy how much you can miss the actual meaning of a thing you love so vehemently.

Geeez this guy…..

Just to add another thing, I was wondering idly if this is some facet of toxic masculinity, where this dude is so unused to dealing with his feelings that any bad feeling about a thing ends up being aggrandized into something huge and awful instead of being put into any kind of reasonable perspective.

Something Gaming Magic 13 doesn’t seem to fully understand is that characters change. Yeah, Woody spent the first three movies desperately clinging to how things were because he was afraid of change. He chose Bonnie because he was afraid of what his life would be like without a kid to play with. His worldview is fundamentally narrow because he spent so many years loyal to kids, and it was only after truly realizing that he can’t do this forever that he takes that leap and chooses freedom. Good vid as always, Joel

Big Joel you're crazy for this one

I have been in the performing arts for two decades, and this dude’s assertion that a bunch of strangers busting their asses to make a work of art that has to also make millions to justify their jobs are gaslighting him, personally, is . . . inFURiating. When he tried to Merriam Webster you I was like, oh, well, this is not a good-faith interlocutor.

I’m only a few minutes into the video, but Gaming Magic 13 is coming in a little strong as a debate kind of “fight me bro” attitude and… Big Joel isn’t meeting that energy. I mean, he posted this to Nebula and isn’t even putting the response on YouTube, so its not even reaching the larger audience. Gaming Magic 13 sounds like he doesnt want to see response videos posted without him being included but that’s not really what Big Joel’s content is about, especially the Patreon-only content.

oh my god

this man is passionate about toy story

hu he wasnt joking about it being 2 hours...