I Haven’t Watched “Toy Story 5” Yet

“Let us all resolve on this great day to go forward together and see ‘Toy Story 5’ in theaters everywhere, June 19th,” comedian Conan O’Brien ’85 quipped as he concluded his commencement speech for the Harvard Class of 2026. O’Brien joins the cast of the movie as the voice of Smarty Pants, a potty-training toy.

The story follows familiar core characters Sheriff Woody and Buzz Lightyear, but hands the reins to Sheriff Jessie as the gang’s new leader, as they band together against obsolescence amid the rise of tech toys in Bonnie’s life. As the title of this article makes clear, I haven’t watched it. However, from all the advertisements I’ve received on Instagram, I think I get the gist.

There’s no need for me to explain the cultural phenomenon that was the original “Toy Story”—the first feature-length film created entirely out of CGI (computer-generated imagery). But when it comes to the sequels, everyone has their own opinion. Personally, I only vaguely remember “Toy Story 2” and “Toy Story 3.” That one freakily detailed Woody repair scene and the bear with eyebrows are decently memorable, but I’d never considered watching the fourth movie because a plastic spork doesn’t feel very compelling.

Still, I’ll admit the new sequel piqued my interest—not because of its shift toward a woman-driven story, which is a discussion for another day, but because it mashed together the long-loved characters of my childhood with another relic that shaped it just as early.

The thing is, I remember having some sort of LeapFrog device—what Lilypad, the movie’s main antagonist, seems to be modeled after—as a kid. Yet when I searched for the device of my childhood, every result looked so much more boring than I remember; not nearly as captivating as Lilypad.

“Toy Story 5” seems to try to appeal to as wide a range of audiences as possible by taking a shoddy toy from the 2000s and giving it more advanced features so Gen Alpha iPad kids can relate. Not to mention how everyone is dying to see where Disney, as a media empire, lands on AI, as debate over AI in animation becomes the film world’s latest obsession. The Big D’s strategy here is clear: sell to everyone by manufacturing as many avenues for intrigue as possible. Even I almost fell into the trap, but then I bought a ticket for “Leviticus” instead, and now I have opinions about that instead of the film that I’m writing about. Take that, Big D.

Most of us are familiar with the popular accusations of sequels being “cashgrabs.” As for “Toy Story 5,” voice actor Tim Allen, who plays Buzz Lightyear, pushed back on that view. “Had they not come up with a brilliant script, they wouldn’t have done it, and they wouldn’t have called me and Tom [Hanks],” Allen said. Even I can’t deny that “Toy Story 5” creates a compelling case when talking about the new generation’s relationship to technology, pointing specifically to the importance of balance.

Although technology has advanced education, making learning more accessible and efficient in many ways, overuse has become a huge problem. Many of us are familiar with the classic “iPad kid”—face two inches from the screen, grubby fingers tapping away at the Roblox controls while they watch YouTube Shorts.

But amid these declarations about modern technology, Disney released a real Lilypad tablet—albeit without all the cool stuff—through LeapFrog. I guess technology is okay, as long as you buy it from Disney. And even though addictive content and instant gratification are frowned upon in the movie, pouring millions of dollars into advertising on Instagram Reels and TikTok to capitalize on those audiences is just peachy.

It seems that whether the storyline and messaging are compelling or not, the need to sell underlines it all. I personally find it hard to enjoy a film for its thematic merits when the company behind it has its own goals.

Compare the budgets—$250 million for “Toy Story 5” and $175 million for “Wish” (a 2023 Disney film with an original story)—with their box office returns: over $950 million for “Toy Story 5” in under a month versus $275 million (embarrassing) for “Wish.” It’s clear why sequels are so appealing. “Toy Story 5” had the highest budget of a Pixar film and the third-highest of all animated feature films, but as the box office numbers reveal, it was worth it. The guaranteed nostalgic audience and the continuous revival of old characters with increasingly stacked casts make good arguments against a riskier original project. And in the world we live in, a sure shot often seems like the only shot worth taking.

If we look at the Walt Disney Studios release schedule from 2026 to 2029, the majority are sequels and live-action remakes (or sequels of live-action remakes): “Ready or Not 2,” “The Devil Wears Prada 2,” “Ice Age: Boiling Point,” “Star Wars: Starfighter,” “The Simpsons Movie 2,” “Frozen III,” “Lilo & Stitch 2,” and “The Incredibles 3.” Are we hyped, or what?!

I don’t know about you, but this opened my eyes to how many franchises Disney really owns. So I guess when you’re in the theater and deciding between watching “Ice Age” and “Star Wars,” it really doesn’t matter.

At the end of the day, if all Disney and other major conglomerates want to do is multiply their hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s easy to give in. Might as well run to the theater and tell our friends, family, and internet strangers to do the same.

But the only reason that huge companies like Disney funnel so much money into sequels and remakes is because we keep watching them. If we want to see more original ideas and creativity, it’s our job as consumers to support smaller productions instead.

Take, for example, the adult cartoon comedy “Smiling Friends.” In a world where it’s so easy to churn out the same tired content, the creators recently announced that, despite the show’s renewal and widespread success, even with a low budget, it would not continue after season three. Feeling burnt out, the creators did not want the quality of the show to decline just for the sake of guaranteed success. This presents a striking contrast to the constant scramble to be renewed, to create the next season, the next sequel, the next spinoff, in which integrity is often sacrificed.

Can we take a second to appreciate that? It’s a breath of fresh air when a creator or a company doesn’t reek of desperation.

This is all to say that I encourage you not to let nostalgia or FOMO control you, and instead critically assess whether the content you’re paying for or spending your time on is worth it. There’s no harm in enjoying sequels, in the same way that there’s no harm in using the Google AI overview when you’re trying to find out what the plot of “Toy Story 5” is without actually watching it.

Sam Park ’29 (shpark@college.harvard.edu) frowns upon mega-corporations.