Category Movies

Nov 22 2025

Toy Story: The Animated Masterpiece That Changed Animated Films

Thirty years ago, Toy Story was released in theaters by Pixar, which at that time was its own independent company owned by Steve Jobs. The animated masterpiece instantly caught everyone’s attention with its revolutionary 3D animation that changed animated films forever.

3D or computer animation existed before Toy Story, of course, but the film about toys that come to life whenever their owners are not around, was the first feature-length film to exclusively use this kind of animation. The use of computers in animated films had been going on for years since the 1980s and 1990s. Disney used computers on a wider scale with its traditional animated classics like Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast, but those films were still two-dimensional and by the mid-90s that kind of animation had reached its peak in what could be done with it as an art form. The world of animation was ripe for new approaches.

Enter John Lasseter, the creative genius behind Pixar. Working with a team of innovative artists and computer technicians, Lasseter experimented with 3D animated film shorts that caught the eyes of many film studios, especially Disney. Some of the films like Tin Toy, Knick Knack and Luxo, Jr. stood out with the pioneering use of 3D animation. In fact, Tin Toy won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, the first 3D-animated film to do so. As Pixar created and released these shorts, they prepared themselves to produce a full-length animated film, which turned out to be Toy Story. At this time, Disney was eager to work with Lasseter and proposed that he create a feature-length film that Disney would distribute, to which Pixar agreed.

At first, Pixar’s first animated film was supposed to be a sequel to Tin Toy and would have featured the title character and his dummy companiion trying to find their way into the hands of children. But Disney was not happy with the script and after much retooling, the Tin Toy characters were replaced with the original creations Woody the cowboy doll and Buzz Lightyear the high-tech electronic doll. They had clashing personalities which generated genuine laughs, but had to work together to find their way to their child owner.

Turning Toy Story into an animated buddy film with two completely different characters sparring with each other then becoming great friends was an inspired decision. This development injected a lot of heart and humor into the script and gave the two lead characters distinct personalities that most viewers could relate to. For instance, Woody was the leader of the toys owned by the child, Andy. His status is threatened with the arrival of Buzz Lightyear, the new hot toy on the block that quickly becomes Andy’s favorite toy. Woody is jealous and resentful towards Buzz as he lost his status and his actions cause both he and Buzz to be lost and the two have to find a way back to Andy’s home. What also helped tremendously was the casting of vocal actors Tom Hanks and Tim Allen to play Woody and Buzz. Both actors had great vocal chemistry with each other and comedic timing that rivaled many classic comedy duos.

The film featured many other memorable characters voiced by great actors that embedded the toys with a lot of personalities. Take for instance the legendary comedian Don Rickles who played Mr. Potato Head or R. Lee Ermey as Sargeant, the no-nonsense military leader of the tiny green plastic army men. Seeing many classic and real-world toys appearing in the film was a hysterical and brought back many memories for adults and joy to children. A large part of the film’s appeal was that both adults and children could equally enjoy it, and this became one of Pixar’s strongest selling points with their future films.

Toy Story was an instant hit and a bonafide classic when it was released in theaters on November 22, 1995 as it caught the imagination of viewers. While the computer animation was a distinct selling point, what made the film so beloved was its script, direction and characters who are still relevant to this day. There is even a Toy Story 5 that will be released next year. That is fortunate because while the 3D animation was revolutionary for its time, some of the animation does look a bit dated, especially when it came to depictions of humans.

Of course, the success of Toy Story inspired many film studios to rush out with their own computer animated films to varying degrees of success. Some like Dreamworks and Illumination produced their own classic films but few could capture the magic and whimsy of Toy Story. Still, regardless of quality, the early computer animated films crowded out traditional 2D-animated films and even Disney jumped on the bandwagon with their own 3D-animated films. But it would take Disney some time to create their own films that rivaled Pixar’s in terms of quality. Unfortunately, the success of Toy Story spelled the end of traditional 2D-animated films, at least with American films. The last traditional animated film that Disney released was The Princes and the Frog in 2009. It’s true that there are many advantages with 3D animation, but it is a mistake to completely discard two-dimensional animation. What these studios have failed to realized is that the success of Toy Story and other quality Pixar films, including the Toy Story sequels, was not solely due to its animated technique but because of the story and characters. Hopefully one day, a visionary creator at a major studio will be able to produce a quality two-dimensional animated feature length film that will be successful.

Much like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was revolutionary in its day and changed films by introducing the concept of full-length animated films, so did Toy Story. It is not an exaggeration to say that Toy Story revolutionized animated films when it premiered 30 years ago as we are still feeling the impact of the classic film that is just as enjoyable as when it was released 30 years ago.

Oct 31 2025

Making The Perfect Stephen King Adaptation

One would think that adapting any of acclaimed author Stephen King’s literary works into a top-tier film or television production would be fairly simple. But it’s not. So, why is it so difficult to successfully adapt a Stephen King work? There are a few that can be considered, but it basically boils down to these two reasons.

Translation to Screen

While King is the master of prose when it comes to horror, fantasy, sci-fi, and non-genre subjects like crime, it is not easy to translate what he writes into a visual medium. Sometimes the dialogue which flows like water on page can come off as stilted and clumsy, especially if a character goes off on a rant. A narrative tool that King uses a lot is internal dialogue and narration to convey the characters’ thoughts. This technique is hard to pull off in visual medium where showing is prefered to telling.

Other times the prose is let’s just say a bit too much for a visual story. IOW, given the amount of screen time available in a film, putting TV aside, there is only so much material that can be adapted. Many of King’s best known works like It, The Stand or the Dark Tower books run over thousands of pages. Turning epic novels like those into two-hour plus films is nearly impossible. It is one of the main reasons why attempts to turn his classic novels like The Stand failed to make it out of the gate as a film despite many attempts because there was so much material to cut out that the result would be a poor adaptation of the source material. Just look at The Dark Tower film that came and went a few years ago. To most, the film was an ill-conceived attempt to adapt the multi-book epic about the Gunslinger Roland and his mythic quest across worlds and realities. What The Dark Tower did was give viewers a truncated sprinkling of Roland’s quest that left many feeling dissatisfied with an unfinished story.

The more successful adaptations like The Shining, Carrie, The Dead Zone, Cujo, Stand By Me (adapted from The Body), The Shawshank Redemption and The Mist were based on more typical novels that were just a few hundred pages. Also, in the case of The Mist, Stand By Me and The Shawshank Redemption, those were based on novellas which seem to be the perfect amount of story to translate into screen.

One viable option is to adapt mammoth epic novels into two-part films as was done with It. While the film versions of It differed in structure, the adaptations more or less captured the essence of the novel with the first film focusing exclusively on the main characters when they were children while the second film picked up the characters as adults when they confronted the evil entity Pennywise. This approach would work best for The Dark Tower Saga or any of King’s narrative which can be quite long and involving.

The other obvious option, which has been done to some success, is to adapt his works into television mini-series or shows. Some of the best examples include ‘Salem’s Lot, The Stand, 11/22/63, The Outsider and Nightmares & Dreamscapes. Adapting The Dark Tower Saga into this format is honestly the only viable way to present the expansive storyline and do it well.

The Skill of the Translators

One important reason as to why it is so hard to adapt Stephen King works is due to the quality and skill of the filmmakers and showrunners and scriptwriters. While many gifted behind-the-scenes creators successfully adapted King’s works like Stanley Kubrick, John Carpenter, Frank Darabont, Rob Reiner and Andy Muschietti, far too many inferior creators took a hand into mangling and ruining King’s classics. It is lamentable that someone like Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan or Scott Derrickson never helmed a Stephen King film (there were reports that years ago, Spielberg was involved in an adaptation of The Talisman, but that never came to be). Just think of how something like Under the Dome, Cell, and The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon would have turned out if James Wan or Robert Eggers or Ari Aster were at the director’s chair with the projects.

But sadly as we know all to well, it is very difficult to line up the best writer, director, producer or actor to fit in with a King work of art. Reasons for this are all over the place and tend to be due to timing and budget. These days it is not likely that a studio can afford to hire Spielberg to take on a King book. There is also the possibility of dueling visions. A more high-profile director can and will take liberties with the source material much to King’s detriment. The most famous example was Kubrick’s version of The Shining, which King detested even though it is considered not only one of the best King adaptations but a classic horror film.

The same goes for television productions. All too often King’s works whether they’re long-form epics or short stories wind up becoming inferior TV shows or limited series. During the ’90s, the heyday of King TV adaptations, many of his more famous stories became big event TV mini-series with mixed results, but hardly any of them stood out as masterpieces. The best adaptations were for The Stand, although that limited series had its issues, ‘Salem’s Lot, which came out in the ’70s, It, and original productions like Storm of the Century. Other works like the more faithful adaptation of The Shining and The Langoliers failed to impress viewers. If only someone like Vince Gilligan or Terry Matalas could spearhead a proper TV adaptation of The Stand or The Dark Tower Saga.

Despite many failed attempts, the versatility and durability of Stephen King’s stories guarantee that eventually the right team will come along and created the best version of his works. This happened with the It films which were immediately better than the original TV mini-series and may happen later this fall when the second film version of The Running Man is released (being that is directed by Edgar Wright, there’s a decent chance it will outshine the original film). It has been possible to get cinematic masterpieces based on King’s works and it has happened, so it will continue to happen.

José Soto

Oct 19 2025

Zombies Refuse To Die!

It is all too easy to write off the zombie sub-genre as being dead and buried. After all, zombies have fallen out of favor with the public ever since The Walking Dead TV show was cancelled years ago. Before its cancellation, The Walking Dead and zombies in general were at their zenith in the 2010s. There were zombie TV shows, films, comics, novels, etc. all over the place. But inevitably the popularity of zombies declined as too much product was put out and the quality and uniqueness of the zombies faded. Casual critics were ready to write off the zombie sub-genre and move on to their next target, but somehow, the zombies refused to die.

Yes, The Walking Dead TV show and the comic book series that inspired it are both long gone, but there are many TV spinoffs of The Walking Dead like The Walking Dead: Daryl Dixon and The Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live that are still around and slowly gathering buzz about their quality. These shows wisely chose to focus on popular characters like Daryl Dixon and Rick Grimes and even the villainous Negan, which partly explains why the shows have done well. Of course, these TV shows have not reached the numbers and heights of popularity as The Walking Dead did in its heyday, but they have their devoted followers and are doing well enough.

Other zombie-related TV shows, films, comics and more are still coming out strong and many are very popular. Just take a look at the slate of current and upcoming projects that are related to zombies. The most recent examples were The Last of Us (technically not about zombies but the infected humans behave just like zombies) and the animated TV show Marvel Zombies, which was based on the Marvel Comics mini-series (and currently has a new mini-series Marvel Zombies: Red Band out in stores and digital platforms) and was a spinoff from the animated What If…? TV show.

The Marvel Zombies comics are still going strong with its many limited series and the TV show was well received with talks of a new season underway; hopefully that will happen given how the last episode left us with a cliffhanger. Not to be outdone, DC came out with its own comic books starring undead versions of its DC heroes and villains, DCeased. No word yet if DC Studios will make an animated version of DCeased but they should consider it. Also even though the comic book series ended years ago, The Walking Dead are still in comic form with the color reprints The Walking Dead: Deluxe.

Meanwhile, there are many high-profile zombie films and TV shows on the horizon, such as 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (a direct sequel to this years’ 28 Years Later), We Bury the Dead, Twilight of the Dead, which will conclude the George Romero zombie film saga, Return of the Living Dead, and an American remake of the classic Korean zombie film, Train to Busan. How well received they will be is anyone’s guess, but they demonstrate how popular the zombie genre is.

So, why does the zombie sub-genre refuse to die? There are many reasons. For one, many zombie properties go hand-in-hand with our fascination with post-apocalyptic/survival stories, which fit in well with zombies. These zombie stories also engage us as we face our fear of death and decay and more recently with infection. We like to watch and read these zombie yarns and wonder how we would behave in a zombie apocalypse. Most of us would probably be zombie food minutes into the apocalypse, but its still fun imagining ourselves turning into stoic and heroic warriors like Daryl Dixon, who in his life before the zombie apocalypse was a nobody.

The sub-genre also helps engage with unexpected human dramas that test our notion of family and friendship. Examples of this include the films Maggie, Cargo and Warm Bodies. While the latter film was an offbeat romance with a zombie twist, the first two films dealt with the main characters facing the inevitable. Maggie featured a father coping with the fact that his teenage daughter would soon turn into a zombie and his agony about having to kill her. Cargo was an agonizing film about a doomed father who was desperately trying to find someone to care for his infant before he turned into a zombie.

It can be said that on the surface the zombie sub-genre appears to be limited in story, but can be quite versatile. As long as the zombie story whether on film, video game or on print, is presented well, the quality will stand out and keep us engaged. That is why the zombies refuse to die.

Oct 7 2025

Good Boy and Other Pets In Horror Films and TV Shows

Indy, the canine star of the horror film Good Boy, brings attention to the presence of beloved pets in various horror films and TV shows. It can be said their inclusion is way to raise the stakes of the terror faced by the film’s main characters, as with Good Boy. But these animals can have more complex roles in horror films and TV shows.

Other times, the animals wind up playing a pivotal or even a heroic role as with Nanook, the malamute that helps his owner fight off the title vampires in The Lost Boys. In Nanook’s case, his crow-pleasing moment came when he pushed a vampire into a tub full of holy water and garlic. Another example is the dog Thor in Bad Moon. It’s another horror film told from the POV of a dog, in this case, Thor faces off against a werewolf, who tragically was his owner when in human form. Then there is the title character in Frankenweenie, a dead dog who was revived by his grieving owner. Also, let’s not forget Kojak (formerly “Big Steve”), a retriever featured in The Stand who wound up playing an important role late in the TV mini-series when he helped care for the main character Stu Redman after he was badly injured.

These pets are often imperiled by the supernatural forces that threaten the main characters, and sadly these beloved animals wind up becoming victims. There are too many to go into here, but some standouts include Tank, the terrier, from V/H/S 2, Churchill, the cat in Pet Semetary, and Samantha, the German shepherd in I Am Legend, who gave her life defending her owner against mutants before she had to be put down when she began to mutate.

On the other hand, there are many horror films and TV shows where the beloved family pet becomes a source of danger to humans. The best example of this is with Cujo, where a docile St. Bernard becomes a vicious killer that threatens his owner and her child. Other examples include several dogs in Day of the Animals, various pets in the TV show Zoo, and the title dog in Man’s Best Friend.

We get very alarmed and feel uneasy whenever beloved pets put themselves at risk to defend their human families. It is second nature for dogs to act as guardians for us even though they are at risk whenever tackling the supernatural. This was very prevalent in Good Boy as Indy tries his best to protect his owner Todd from a malevolent spiritual force that haunts Todd. It must be mentioned that the animals’ ability to sense the supernatural before the humans could make them more vulnerable to looming threats.  What was even more distressing in Good Boy was that only Indy was aware of this evil force and was unable to communicate this danger to Todd unlike another human.

The inability to adequately communicate with humans is part of what makes the animals’ dilemma so engaging. Another example of this was in the film Cat’s Eye, where a stray cat is involved in three separate stories, and becomes the hero in the last segment. In that story, the cat (now named “General”) defends a young girl from an evil troll trying to steal her soul. What made General’s job more difficult was that he was the only one who sensed the troll’s presence, and he could not communicate to the girl’s parents about her imperilment.  

What made Good Boy such a standout from your standard haunted house story was that the film was told from the POV of Indy. We are able to empathize with Indy not just because he was a loveable dog but because of how his worldview was presented. We never fully see the faces of the human characters or hear their dialogue clearly; Indy is also able to get into the dark corners of his owner’s home to get more details about the otherworldly threat, which a person could never do. Essentially, through Indy’s eyes, we get a better sense of the ghostly presence haunting Indy’s owner.

Also, the stakes of danger are raised since Indy is more vulnerable to the supernatural presence. Unlike a human who could find out how to combat the supernatural threat and use tools, Indy and other animals only have their own instinct and natural abilities to combat the threat. Sometimes that is not enough. That is why films and TV shows featuring pets like Good Boy are so captivating.

Sep 8 2025

Star Trek As It Approaches Its 60th Anniversary

As Star Trek celebrate Star Trek Day and commemorate the 59th anniversary of the famous sci-fi TV show, it is important to reflect on the state of the Star Trek franchise and where it is going as it soon approaches its 60th anniversary.

Star Trek has had its highs and lows throughout the decades in terms of popularity, cultural relevance and quality with its glory years arguably being during the 1990s. After the franchise took a forced hiatus in the mid 2000s, a comeback was attempted with the reboot film Star Trek (2009). The film did well and was popular but a significant number of fans did not appreciate director J.J. Abrams attempt to turn the franchise about space explorers, noted for its thought-provoking plots, into a more simplistic shoot-em-up space adventure that emphasized action and explosions over nifty plots and character developments.

The reboot film franchise came to an end nine years ago with Star Trek Beyond, which did not perform well in theaters, though its tone was more of a throwback to the original TV shows and films. Since then, there have been many failed attempts to produce a fourth film featuring the cast of the reboot films, but none have succeeded and that franchise is now essentially dead. Or is it?

Meanwhile, Star Trek returned to its TV roots in 2017 with the debut of Star Trek: Discovery, a prequel series to the original show that streamed on the app CBS All Access (later renamed Paramount+). Now, while the TV show ran a respectable five seasons and spawned another prequel spinoff, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, as well as additional Star Trek TV shows, Star Trek: Discovery wound up being divisive among fans. Many complained about the storylines and the characters, with more conservative fans being outright hostile to the show’s featuring of non-heterosexual characters. It did not matter. In this day and age of toxic fandom where cynical content creators are more interested in clicks and views, any iteration of Star Trek would have received scorn.

Right now, Star Trek is at a bit of a crossroads. Its parent company, Paramount Pictures, is undergoing a merger and the fate of the franchise is unknown with many rumors flying around as to its final fate. But there are many reports that the bigwigs at Paramount are bullish on Star Trek and want to continue with the franchise. The question remains is how will it continue? As of now, the only currently streaming Star Trek TV show (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) will come to a conclusion after its fifth season (the fourth season is currently filming while the third season will complete streaming new episodes this week). After that, a new TV show Star Trek: Starfleet Academy will stream in early 2026, while a sitcom set in the world of Star Trek is in development. Who knows if that comedy will ever see the light of day or even generate any laughs if it comes to fruition.

There are other pitches for Star Trek TV shows, including a prequel series based on a young James T. Kirk, which will be a sequel to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and would star Paul Wesley reprising the role of Kirk. The show has been tentatively titled Star Trek: Year One and would be about Kirk’s early days as the starship Enterprise captain. Meanwhile, Scott Bakula, the star of Star Trek: Enterprise is involved in a pitch for a show that would take place years after Bakula’s show and feature his character as the president of the United Federation of Planets. Unlike other Star Trek shows, this one would not be a show about exploring worlds but have a political slant more akin to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Then there is the fan-favorite idea of Star Trek: Legacy, which would be a sequel to Star Trek: Picard, specifically its popular third season and be about the adventures of the crew of the Enterprise-G. It has been pitched in the past, but so far, Paramount has not shown interest in pursuing Star Trek: Legacy.

Regarding films, there are still plans to produce a fourth film set in the Abrams reboot universe with directors and writers coming and leaving the project. Then Paramount recently announced another film will be produced that will feature all-new characters and situations. That actually sounds interesting but as of now, we have no definite information.

Given all that, there are not any concrete plans for Star Trek TV shows or films aside from the Academy show, which is a bit concerning given that the 60th anniversary is under a year away. You would think Paramount would have something concrete in production. Some of the ideas noted above are interesting and even if they don’t end up as TV shows they can at least become limited series or TV films, just better executed than the hot garbage Star Trek: Section 31. One thing to consider is that 2026 will be a celebration of the original Star Trek, not its sequels and films, and there are three remaining cast members from the original show. Aside from a standard documentary/retrospective, maybe Paramount can find some way to involve William Shatner, George Takei and Walter Koenig in some kind of new Star Trek production. The only limits are time, money and more importantly, imagination. Here’s to boldy going 59 years strong.