>

That’s not canon
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

Meh, Mrs. Potato Head doesnt appear to be in pain when she is missing an eye in the third movie. >

Neither does Mr potato head when he repeatedly gets all his parts thrown everywhere. Or buzz when he loses an arm. Or woody when he loses an arm. Or Bo Peep when she loses an arm. Or cruger when he loses an arm. >

Everyone's losing arms. What is this, Star Wars? >

There are several Star Wars references in Toy Story 2.
Source:  I watched it last night with my kids.  And the night before that… and the night before that… and the night before that… >

I always laugh when Zurg tells the Other Buzz that he is Buzz's father, then at the end of the movie Other Buzz is like "I'm gonna go play catch with MY DAD!" >

Always liked that part as well. Makes me irrationally angry watching the new Lightyear movie with my son that they didn't respect Zurg being Buzz's father as canon. >

A lot of that movie didn’t make sense tbh >

It could just take place in a kids imagination.
Disclaimer: I have not seen the movie >

No, it's canonically the movie in the toy story universe Buzz Lightyear is the merchandise of.
They tried a twist in which >!Zurg turns out to be not Buzz father, but Buzz from the future!< but it fell kinda flat since a lot of the stuff in the movie didn't make much sense. >

Not buzz finds the armour, the robots already say Zurg instead of buzz (he mentions they just count say buzz). The armour comes back online in the post credit scene, not buzz isn’t the true Zurg.
Signed; a dad to a 3 year old obsessed with lightyear anything. >

I feel like Legos would be a hive mind creature. All acting individually but coming together to form one being. >

They address this in the Lego movie. >

Toy Story and Lego Movies are different franchises though >

But there is a Toy Story Lego set so they could cross over. >

Yeah, but these are the movies we're talking about. Merch doesn't really factor in that much imo >

I mean, the Lego movies are about the merch and make all the crossovers a part of the story. The only reason it didn't happen is because they didn't get the license for it. >

Did I really just read an argument about how sentient Legos function in fictional universes? >

This is literally the whole thread >

Yes but I'm talking to you. >

Sure, but I don't know what you are expecting several posts down in a topic that is all about overthinking sentient Legos.
I guess, yeah, you did read it. >

Or maybe the perfect way to be a troll. Just leave yourself lying around hallways and high traffic areas. >

An AI Lego set that teams up with Macaulay Culkin, trolling burglars and car jackers. A movie I might watch. >

Has to be macaulay as he is now though, just a random sorta awkward 40-something who goes on random youtubers' channel's. Could bring the brick experiment channel along for the ride to make all the gadgets. >

I'd think that's more like a sporky thing (was that his name?)  
When you assemble the set, it creates a new, live toy, what happens when you disassemble is my question... >

It "established" from toystory 1, what breaths life into toys is the imagination given to them.. In short If it's a toy, it's alive.
So if you pull the arm off buzz light year it's just an inanimate object with no life of its own since it's the arm of a toy but not normally a toy itself, but sid can stick doll legs on a toy fishing rod and now it's alive and sentient. Anything that can be called a "toy" is alive. Even a spork with a face on it or stinky Pete who wasn't ever directly played with. 
So a lego set has no life on its own in pieces, But once assembled can become alive. It's parts given form. Sure arguably a single piece could be alive.. But really it's just how the writers decide to handle it if we're being honest
Edit: since it keeps getting commented on.. The actual reason is the script calls for it. And nothing written in the script happens ever because it's just a movie. But that's sucking all the joy out of the post and conversation and I don't think you'd be fun at any parties to argue with fan speculation based on what the movies do show.. And how it could apply to what hasn't been shown. >

Yes, that's the premise
But what when you take them appart?
Does it cease to be what it is, no longer exist, until it's again put togheter in other form, and then it becomes something else, OR
Does it cease to be, then when put togheter again in another form, it retains what it was in the past, and recognizes being another form, but still the same toy, OR
Does it not cease to be at all, like a potato head that keeps being, just not assembled anymore
Or whatever else you can think of
Since a lego has no "main part" once you take it apart, what part of it will keep being what it was?
What if the set is assembled into a robot, then days after, taken apart, and assembled as two different robots?
Do they both retain a hive mind of the first toy, or do they become two different, new toys? Or does one of them retains the giant robot being, and the new one just becomes another toy?
I think I'm having a stroke. >

Wait till you start thinking about the Cars + Planes universe. >

Planes establishes that there was both a Cars WW2 and a Cars cold war >

The WW2 part has some implications I don't like >

All I'mma say is if Porsche exists then so must Volkswagen >

Imagine being in a toy collector's collection. And I'm not talking about Al here either.
You're just put on a shelf in a certain position and remain there for months at a time. Or just stuck in a box after finally being bought. No wonder the Prospector went nuts! >

Still better than having to live in a jar >

Them MLP figurines must be traumatized as fuck >

No >

Yes, Rainbow Dash... Oh yes. >

There is a Toy Story Tale of Horror or whatever it's called on Disney+ that has a lego set disassemble and reassemble at will. I think the key issue is whether or not it's been taken out of the package, so, all its parts can be together and use that assembly skill >

‘Toy Story of Terror!’ Came here to say this. >

The bigger question is: does the entire Lego set come to life or just the minifigures? Do we get an animated fire truck or animated little firemen driving a functional firetruck?
Edit: I’m loving all the deep Toy Story lore! >

Don’t the plastic soldiers drive around a non-sentient jeep at some point? I think that answers the question. >

That begs the question, are eyes necessary to be sentient in Toy Story? Miss hooker didn’t have any eyes.. or a lot of Sid’s toys if my memory from 10-25 years ago serves me correctly >

They did before Sid ruined them >

Toy Story 3 with the tortilla and Toy Story 4 with Sporky really open up a lot of uncomfortable questions about how exactly the "living toy" thing works. >

I think the implications in Legos are perfectly clear. Only the minifigures head piece is sentient and able to imbue pieces with life.
Now, what that means in the other scheme of the tortilla or household objects....terrifying. >

The tortilla was never alive, only Mr potato's parts >

No way man. If that were true it would lay flat and he could only flop like a snake. He supports his own weight at one point. Only whatever cosmic horror animates then can do that. >

The Lego Philosophical Conundrum: Purpose or Potential?
Am I made to be one thing? Am I predestined to exist only in one way not determined by me?
Or am I free to be whatever the imagination allows me to become?  Perhaps it is not perfect, but it is free choice.
What I am meant to be, or what I am free to become. >

Is everything awesome? >

yes >

Nah, Lego's are actually a hive-mind. Individually they have little to no sentience, but when formed into colonies they take on the aspects of their appearance. >

Legos are just rats, and when you assemble them, they become toy version of a rat king >

Portuguese man o’ war. >

The Looping/Race track was an inanimate fucking object in TS1 so I guess construct parts are not alive.
Plus Fork from TS4 only became alive AFTER he was built.
.... I'm sorry I called the race track an inanimate fucking object. >

YOU’RE an inanimate FUCKING object! >

There are inanimate toys in the movies, we see Lincoln Logs, Mrs Nesbit and Sister, tea cup sets.
It's safe to assume Legos wouldn't be sentient, but the Minifigures would be >

I mean, that zebra from TS4 in the antique shop had half his body ripped off by the cat and they seemed fine. Same for when Woody ripped his arm in TS2 >

Nah, imagine the plastic models. The vehicles and airplanes, the Star Trek starships and Gunpla >

Man, that poor person's pile of shame...  Unless they don't gain sentience until put together >

I think it is the opposite. When you assemble them they are stuck, but when apart they can become anything. Be like unassembled Lego. >

I'd assume it feels the same as being an unassembled human long before you were born. All your molecules were here already, just not in your shape. >

Maybe each Lego brick is sentient and they exist as a hive mind when assembled? Maybe Lego structures would try to assimilate other smaller structures? Actually this sounds pretty cool. >

Lego meets the doll house, thus the great toy war began. >

Disassembled is the pure form, it’s bliss. Assembled into a rigid structure is a prison >

Exactly, was OP in agony before his atoms were assembled into his current being? No, that was the last time he was at peace. >

I imagine the lego pieces as some kind of collective, like the barrel of monkeys >

Nah and yah. The individual legos are sub-sentient, and the things they build are mindful of their past lives. As a result, they tend to be attracted to Buddhism. >

I always kinda figured Lego, or really any construction set toy, would be more like a hive mind than parts of a whole. >

I bet Legos are a hivemind that can assemble their self at will >

Was there not a short where there was a Lego character? They were able to disassemble and reassemble at will. >

There's a lot of terrifying concepts in Toy Story when you think about it for any amount of time.
For example, toys feel pain. And they feel heat. And they scream in agony.
That means every time you leave a toy in the sun and it gets hot, it's paralyzed but also in extreme pain. Oh, you put a dark toy in the sand on a hot beach? And it gets up to 140-160 degrees? Yeah, it's literally burning, unable to die, unable to move. >

I always just assumed each piece would be its own entity. Because that's kinda how lego works. >

In a “Toy Story of Terror” short on Disney+ there is a Lego character which is seen to be able to self assemble like the Lego movie pieces >

Legos are just toys for the toys. They have no life of their own. >

The Halloween special has a shape-shifting character made of LEGO