You do realize mr.potatohead is a hasbro product, so I highly doubt it was this. I kinda wish there was just some tf looking thing in the backround not optimus specifically.

EDIT: Damn it I was beaten,oh well.

 

Because transformers have big deadly guns and would make french fries out of mr potato head

 

"Twitch" in TS 3 kind of resembled a MOTU figure.

 

Well here is the run down:

A company can and will allow or not allow a toy into a movie.

An essential EVERYBODY is forgetting is maybe pixar didn't want a transformer or GI JOE in the movie. My guess is because in 95 not a lot of people could associate any specific toy with transformers. I've heard go bots being called transformers from non transfans. GI JOE doesn't really have a standout from their intial lines. In other movies an older Gi Joe figure was always introduced as GI Joe or Joe. Toy Story needed instant recognition for their movie.

 

They should do some sort of transforming toy. I think it's probably best they don't go with a licensed character that already has a backstory.

Maybe they could make up some weird retro robot refugee from Japan.

 

I think what you're neglecting is the fact that the question isn't just why are there no TRANSFORMERS proper in ANY of the Toy Story movies, but why are there no loose transformer/japanese robot corollary characters who appear (even in a non-speaking role)?

Whether it was 1995 or 2010, TFs and other similar robot toys have been mainstays in old toy chests and thrift store bins, and the japanese robot toy has been an enduring presence for at least 3 decades. For these reasons, the absence is pretty conspicuous.

zmog

 

I can't see them wanting to go through the trouble of putting a non-essential transformer toy character into it. Pixar focuses very strongly on story development and characters...

Something like throwing a random Transformer into their movie probably didn't even cross their minds. A lot of the toys were more classic looking in appearance. Generic. Also there is the association people would make with the character being a transformer which would probably give them pre-concieved notions of how it should act. That wouldn't be good for story development.

Even as a background character to me a transformer toy would have been totally out of place and although I am a Transformers fan I don't think it would have made sense to have one in it.

 

I love how there's been several pretty good answers on the first four pages and yet here on page 5 people still continue with rampant speculation.

 

Have they or is that what you perceive being a fan? Because it still isn't the norm. I'll give you robot toys in general, as wind ups and rock em sock em seem to be in the robot mode more fitting of toy story. Probably why the movies have them instead huh?

Not to mention I am not neglecting the FACT that the op question and title of this thread specifically says "transformers".

 

I think it must be this, LOL

 

  What are you? 60? Do you have kids? Have you ever set foot in a toy aisle or a Salvation Army toy section? Where have you been?

I think there is a generational bias in Toy Story for sure. I think one key reason we don't see more contemporary toy robots is simply because the main writers and creators are referring to a childhood that came BEFORE the science-fiction invasion of the 1970's. This is part of the reason we perceive a high concentration of "classic" style toys in the movie. I mean, John Lasseter is a frickin' ELECTRIC TRAIN enthusiast. It doesn't get much more old-fashioned than that. For them robots are clunky retro symbols of 1950's sci-fi... which is why there IS a tin-toy style sparking robot in Toy Story 3.

But I would also say that their perspective is pretty outdated, and they could have broadened their horizons a bit in that respect. Although I think all 3 of the films are phenomenal, I think they failed to completely touch on much of the toy nostalgia of the past 30 years.

Japanese-style toy robots (including transforming ones) have been a staple since the late 70's, which is my generation. For 30 years, these toy robots have been absolutely ubiquitous, but due to our associations with them being heavily branded and highly commercial, I think there is a tendency to discount their presence. They are often scorned by earlier generations, which is kind of sad. I would point also to the scarcity of 3.75 inch action figures in the movies... Star Wars, GIJOE, Fisher Price... those things are EVERYWHERE, and yet they have a pretty marginal showing in the films. There seems to be a bit of a bias.

Though of course I think to some degree, Buzz Lightyear functions as a symbolic matrix for an entire genre of battle-ready, hyper-marketed, overly-complex, gimmick-laden sci-fi action figures, that come with their own backstory (hence Buzz's MIB space-ranger mania), TV shows, video games, etc. I think that in many ways, he represents how people of John Lasseter's age probably feel about the generation of toy culture that followed their own... a mix of both wonder and resentment.

The problem is that part of the appeal of Toy Story is the delight of seeing recognizable toys from your childhood appear in onscreen cameos... army men, Barbie, that Fisher Price phone, Trolls, etc... but also an array of non-branded but still recognizable toy types, like the jointed dinosaur toys, the wrestler, and other familiar toy chimeras. But if you took a survey of people between the ages of 6 and 36, to see which ones relate more strongly to memories of Rock'em Sock'Em Robots than to, say, a Gobot... I think you'd have a pretty weak showing. How many of us actually owned Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots, much less cared about them?

In the 3rd movie, with the expansive world of Sunnydale, we see a lot more toys, and a move towards more contemporary representation. Lotsa comes from the 1980's Care Bears lineage. Twitch is something between a MOTU figure and a TMNT mutant. Chunk is a weird rock guy with a spinning drum gimmick right out of Battle Armour He-man. In general there seems to be a more current vibe and style in the toys. But still no "generic transformer".

I'm not saying that it's a crucial flaw in the movies. I'm also not saying that transforming/japanese robot cameo should have to be an identifiable character or a prominent speaking role. I'm just saying that it is, for something as pervasive and enduring as Japanese toy culture, a conspicuous omission.

As has already been discussed extensively in this thread, "transformer" has become, in common usage, a generic term, and as such a generic transforming robot could still be considered a nod to Transformers and their ilk, without engaging in the messiness of brand identity and royalties. As pointed out, Lotsa, Twitch, Rex, Rocky and even Bo Peep to an extent, function as corollaries to common types of branded toys found in toy chests across the country. In this context, a generic robot wouldn't necessarily be out of place.

zmog

 

I'd think its a licensing issue that they didnt want to deal with and it wouldnt have added much to the movie and probably wasnt worth them taking that risk.