Every Pixar movie is connected. I explain how, and possibly why.

Before we go further, I should let you know that The Pixar Theory is now a published book. Since writing this blog post in 2013, I’ve been working on completing the unified theory in what I hope you find to be a compelling and even more persuasive essay. Or not. It’s cool either way.

You can check out the book here. Or keep reading below to read the original theory. Just keep in mind that a lot of what you’re about to read has been changed and modified over the last two years based on feedback and repeated viewings of the movies.

Back to the theory!

Several months ago, I watched a fun-filled video on Cracked.com that introduced the idea (at least to me) that all of the Pixar movies actually exist within the same universe. Since then, I’ve obsessed over this concept, working to complete what I call “The Pixar Theory,” a working narrative that ties all of the Pixar movies into one cohesive timeline with a main theme.

This theory covers every Pixar production since Toy Story. That includes:

• A Bug’s Life
• Toy Story 2
• Monsters Inc.
• Finding Nemo
• The Incredibles
• Cars
• Ratatouille
• Wall-E
• Up
• Toy Story 3
• Cars 2
• Brave
• Monsters University

The point of this theory is to have fun and exercise your imagination while simultaneously finding interesting connections between these fantastic movies. If you hate fun and/or imagination, you probably won’t like this theory.

[SIDE NOTE: All text in blue indicates updated edits since the original version]

You can read the full theory below, or watch this summarized video that was made and narrated by Bloop Media. Enjoy!

Brave is the first and last movie in the timeline. Obviously, this movie about a Scottish kingdom during the Dark Ages is the earliest time period covered by the Pixar films, but it’s also the only Pixar movie that actually explains why animals in the Pixar universe behave like humans sometimes.

In Brave, Merida discovers that there is “magic” that can solve her problems but inadvertently turns her mother into a bear. We find out that this magic comes from an odd witch seemingly connected to the mysterious will-of-the-wisps. Not only do we see animals behaving like humans, but we also see brooms (inanimate objects) behaving like people in the witch’s shop.

We also learn that this witch inexplicably disappears every time she passes through doors, leading us to believe that she may not even exist. Don’t get ahead of me, but we’ll come back to Brave. Let’s just say, for now, the witch is someone we know from a different movie in the timeline.

[Some of you pointed out that the animals in Brave gradually regress back into an animal state, disproving the idea that this is the source of animals acting like humans. My rebuttal is simple. They regress because the magic wears off. Over time, their evolving intelligence grows naturally.]

Centuries later, the animals from Brave that have been experimented on by the witch have interbred, creating a large-scale population of animals slowly gaining personification and intelligence on their own.

There are two progressions: the progression of the animals and the progression of artificial intelligence. The events of the following movies set up a power struggle between humans, animals, and machines.

The stage for all-out war in regards to animals is set by Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, and Up, in that order. Notice I left out A Bug’s Life, but I’ll explain why later.

In Ratatouille, we see animals experimenting with their growing personification in small, controlled experiments.

Remy wants to cook, something only humans explicitly do. He crafts a relationship with a small group of humans and finds success. Meanwhile, the villain of Ratatouille, Chef Skinner, disappears. What happened to him? What did he do with his newfound knowledge that animals were capable of transcending their instincts and performing duties better than humans?

It’s possible that Charles Muntz, the antagonist of Up, learned of this startling rumor, giving him the idea to begin inventing devices that would harness the thoughts of animals, namely his dogs, through translator collars. Those collars indicated to Muntz that animals are smarter and more like humans than we think. He needed this technology to find the exotic bird he’s obsessed over, and he even comments on how many dogs he’s lost since he arrived in South America.

But then Dug and the rest of his experiments are set free after Muntz’s demise, and we don’t know the full implications of that, but what we do know is that animosity between the animals and humans is growing steadily. Now that humans have discovered the potential of animals, they are beginning to cross the line. To develop this new technology, the humans begin an industrial revolution hinted at in Up.

[Some have pointed out that Muntz was working in South America before the events of Ratatouille. This is true, but it is not explicitly stated how and when he developed the collars. Also, we know Ratatouille takes place before Up for several reasons. In Toy Story 3, a postcard on Andy’s wall has Carl and Ellie’s name and address on it (including their last names to confirm). This confirms that in 2010, the time of Toy Story 3, Ellie is still alive or hasn’t been dead long. This supports the idea that Up takes place years later.]

In the beginning of Up, Carl is forced to give up his house to a corporation because they are expanding the city. Think on that. What corporation is guilty for polluting the earth and wiping out life in the distant future because of technology overreach?

Buy-n-Large (BNL), a corporation that runs just about everything by the time we get to Wall-E. In the“History of BNL” commercial from the movie, we’re told that BNL has even taken over the world governments. Did you catch that this one corporation achieved global dominance?Interestingly, this is the same organization alluded to in Toy Story 3:

In Finding Nemo, we have an entire population of sea creatures uniting to save a fish that was captured by humans. BNL shows up again in this universe via another news article that talks about a beautiful underwater world.

Lines are being crossed. Humans are beginning to antagonize the increasingly networked and intelligent animals.

Think about Dory from Finding Nemo for a second. She stands apart from most of the other fish. Why? She isn’t as intelligent. Her short-term memory loss is likely a result of her not being as advanced as the other sea creatures, which is a reasonable explanation for how rapidly these creatures are evolving.

It’s likely that the sequel to Finding Nemo, which is about Dory, will touch on this and further explain why. We may also get some more evidence pointing to animosity between humans and animals.

[Some great users have pointed out that Dory is actually more intelligent and shows signs of growth due to her ability to read and communicate with whales. This would actually show signs of how the animals are beginning to change in intelligence gradually.]

And that is the furthest movie in the “animal” side of things. When it comes to A.I., we start with The Incredibles. Who is the main villain of this movie? You probably thought of Buddy, a.ka. Syndrome, who basically commits genocide on super-powered humans.

Or does he? Buddy didn’t have any powers. He used technology to enact revenge on Mr. Incredible for not taking him seriously. Seems a little odd that the man went so far as to commit genocide.

[A lot of people have been arguing about where The Incredibles actually takes place because we see technology from modern times and the 1980s even though everything has a 1960s vibe. This is cleared by Brad Bird, the director, who says the movie takes place in an alternate 1960s, which means the movie opens in the 1950s.]

And how does he kill all of the supers? He creates the omnidroid, an A.I. “killbot” that learns the moves of every super-human and adapts. When Mr. Incredible is first told about this machine, Mirage mentions that it is an advanced artificial intelligence that has gone rogue.

Mr. Incredible points out that it got smart enough to wonder why it had to take orders.  The omnidroid eventually turns on Syndrome, and starts attacking humans in the city. Why would an A.I. want to just attack randomly? Do machines have an inherent hatred of humans?

The movie even shows clips of the superheroes with capes being done in by inanimate objects, such as plane turbines…accidentally.

But why would machines want to get rid of humans in the first place? We know that animals don’t like humans because they are polluting the Earth and experimenting on them, but why would the machines have an issue?

Enter Toy Story. Here we see humans using and discarding “objects” that are clearly sentient. Yes, the toys love it Uncle Tom style, but over the course of the Toy Story sequels, we see toys becoming fed up. But wait, toys and inanimate objects aren’t necessarily machines, so how do they have some kind of intelligence?

Syndrome points to the answer. He tells Mr. Incredible that his lasers are powered by Zero Point Energy. This is the electromagnetic energy that exists in a vacuum. It’s the unseen energy we find in wavelengths and a reasonable explanation for how toys and objects in the Pixar world draw power.

By the events of the Toy Story movies, we are in the 90s until 2010. It’s been 40-50 years or so since the events of The Incredibles, giving A.I. plenty of time to develop BNL.

Meanwhile, Pixar is hinting at dissatisfaction among pockets of toy civilizations. The toys rise up against Sid in the first movie. Jesse resents her owner, Emily, for abandoning her. Lotso Huggin’ Bear straight up hates humans by the third movie.

Toys are obviously not satisfied with the status quo, providing a reason for why machines and objects alike are ready to take over.

So, by the 2000s, the super-humans all but gone, and mankind is vulnerable. Animals, who want to rise up Planet of the Apes style, have the ability to take over, but we don’t see this happen.

Also, A.I. never takes over humans by force. Why do you think that is? It’s reasonable to assume that machines did take over, just not as we expected. The machines used BNL, a faceless corporation (which are basically faceless in nature) to dominate the world, starting in the 1960s after the Omnidroid fails to defeat the Incredibles.

In each of the Toy Story movies, it’s made painfully clear that sentient objects rely on humans for everything. For fulfillment and even energy. It’s hinted at that the Toys lose all life when put away in “storage” unless they are in a museum that will get them seen by humans.

So machines decide to control humans by using a corporation that suits their every need, leading to an industrial revolution that eventually leads to…pollution. When the animals rise up against the humans to stop them from polluting the earth, who will save them? The machines.

We know that the machines will win the war, too, because after this war, there are almost no animals left on Earth. Who’s left?

Because the machines tip everything out of balance, Earth becomes an unfit planet for humans and animals, so the remaining humans are put on Axiom (or Noah’s Ark if you want to carry on the Biblical theme where Wall-E is basically Robot Jesus and his love interest is aptly named Eve) as a last-ditch effort to save the human race.

On Axiom, the humans have no purpose aside from having their needs met by the machines. The machines have made humans dependent on them for everything because that is how they were treated as “toys.” It’s all they know.

Meanwhile on Earth, machines are left behind to populate the world and run things, explaining human landmarks and traditions still being prominent in Cars. There are no animals or humans in this version of Earth because they’re all gone, but we do know that the planet still has many human influences left.

[Some have noted that the world of Cars can’t be after humans left because there’s no pollution shown in the movies. If you look carefully at Wall-E, however, the world is never shown during this time, so we don’t really know how badly the Earth was polluted. It’s possible that the machines sent humans away to curb overpopulation and fix the environment without them, but the world was drained of resources as a result of machines populating the Earth. That would explain why the machines abandoned Earth entirely, leaving only Wall-E behind.]

In Cars 2, the cars go to Europe and Japan, making it plain that this is all taking place on Earth as we know it. So what happened to the cars? We’ve learned by now that humans are the source of energy for the machines. That’s why they never got rid of them.

In Wall-E, they point out that BNL intended to bring the humans back once the planet was clean again, but they failed. The machines on Earth eventually died out, though we don’t know how.

What we do know is that there is an energy crisis in Cars 2, with oil being the only way society trudges on despite its dangers. We even learn that the Allinol corporation was using “green energy” as a catalyst for a fuel war in order to turn cars away from alternative energy sources. That “clean” fuel could have been used to wipe out many of the cars, very quickly.

[Someone pointed out that “all in all” means the same thing as “by and large” making the connection between Cars and Wall-E even more substantial.]

Which brings us back to Wall-E. Have you ever wondered why Wall-E was the only machine left? We know that the movie begins 800 years after humans have left Earth on Axiom, governed by the AutoPilot (another A.I. reference).

Could it be that Wall-E’s fascination with human culture and friendship with a cockroach is what allowed him to keep finding fulfillment and the ability to maintain his personality? That’s why he was special and liberated the humans.

He remembered the times when humans and machines lived in peace, away from all of the pollution caused by both sides.

After Wall-E liberates the humans and they rebuild society back on Earth, what happens then? During the end credits of Wall-E, we see the shoe that contains the last of plant life. It grows into a mighty tree. A tree that strikingly resembles the central tree in A Bug’s Life.

That’s right. The reason no humans show up in A Bug’s Life is because there aren’t a lot left. We know because of the cockroach that some of the insects survived, meaning they would have rebounded a bit faster, though the movie had to be far enough in the timeline for birds to have returned as well, though they’re noticeably less intelligent than the bugs.

[I’ll admit, the trees looking similar isn’t enough to support the idea that A Bug’s Life takes place after Wall-E, but there’s definitely more reasons for why it’s likely. Also, I’ll bring the tree up again later because it appears in Up as well.]

There’s something strikingly different about A Bug’s Life when compared to other Pixar portrayals of animals, which leads me to believe it takes place in the future. Unlike Ratatouille, Up, and Finding Nemo, the bugs have many human activities similar to what the rats in Ratatouille were merely experimenting with.

The bugs have cities, bars, advertisements, their own machines, know what a bloody mary is and even have a traveling circus. This all assumes that the movie is in a different time period.

The other factor that sets A Bug’s Life apart from other Pixar movies is the fact that it is the only one, besides Cars and Cars 2, that doesn’t revolve (or even include) humans.

[Okay there is a a lot of contention over the idea that A Bug’s Life takes place post-apocalypse, but hear me out. The reason I am so inclined to push the idea is because of how different the bug world is from the “animal” movies. No other Pixar movie has animals wearing clothing, wild inventions, animals creating machines, or so much human influence like bars and cities. In Finding Nemo, the most human thing we see is a school, and even that is pretty stripped down. But in A Bug’s Life, we have a world where humans are barely even implied. At one point, one of the ants tells Flik not to leave the island because there are “snakes, birds, and bigger bugs out there.” He doesn’t even bring up humans. Yes, there are some humans, like the kid who allegedly picked the wings off of the homeless bug, but that still fits in a post Wall-E world. Also, the bugs have to be irradiated for them to live such long lifespans. The average lifespan of an ant is just 3 months, but these ants all survive an entire summer and allude to being around for quite some time by saying things like “this happens every year.” One of the ants even says he “feels 90 again.” That works if you accept that the ants are sturdier due to evolution and mutated genes.]

There’s another Pixar movie that was supposed to be released in 2012, but was cancelled and replaced with Brave. This movie was called Newt and I believe it might have fit in this part of the timeline post-Wall-E. The movie’s supposed plot: “What happens when the last remaining male and female blue-footed newts on the planet are forced together by science to save the species, and they can’t stand each other?” (Read here for more)

A movie about an endangered species rebuilding itself could lend itself nicely to this theory, but since the movie was never released, I’m just speculating.

So what happens next? Humanity, machines, and animals grow in harmony to the point where a new super species is born. Monsters. The monsters civilization is actually Earth in the incredibly distant future.

[Someone wisely pointed out that in Monsters University, the college is said to be founded in 1313. If we’re really in the future, then that means the monsters could have reset society and begun using their own calendar. That could mean Monsters Inc. takes place up to 1400 (or more) years after A Bug’s Life.]

Where did they come from? It’s possible that the monsters are simply the personified animals mutated after the diseased earth was irradiated for 800 years.

[Not during Wall-E. I would guess that it took hundreds of years after Wall-E for the animals to become monsters]

Whatever the reason, these monsters seem to all look like horribly mutated animals, only larger and civilized. They have cities and even colleges, as we see in Monsters University.

[An issue some have found is that this doesn’t properly explain what happened to humans. I haven’t settled on a theory I really like yet, but I’m leaning towards the idea that monsters and machines eventually forgot that they need humans and got rid of them again, not realizing their mistake until all humans died out. Another explanation is that humans just couldn’t survive on Earth anymore.]

In Monsters Inc., they have an energy crisis because they are in a future earth without humans. Humans are the source of energy, but thanks to the machines, again, the Monsters find a way to use doors to travel to the human world. Only, it’s not different dimensions.

The monsters are going back in time. They’re harvesting energy to keep from becoming extinct by going back to when humans were most prominent. The peak of civilization, if you will. Though a lot of time has passed, animosity towards humans never really went away for animals/monsters.

Monsters must have relied on anti-human instincts to believe that just touching a human would corrupt their world like it did in the past. So they scare humans to gather their energy until they realize that laughter (green energy) is more efficient because it is positive in nature.

[An alternative explanation that fits even better that some of you brought up: The machines and monsters created the time travel doors but realized that messing with time could erase their existence and change history. So, they falsely trained monsters to believe that humans are toxic and from another dimension, making it suicide for a monster to interact too much with their world. Another issue is how the monsters seem to worry about kids “being less scared these days.” It’s likely that going in the past takes a lot of energy, so the monsters can only go back as far as the practice still returns a profit in energy. To them, they’re just moving through the same dimension of time, but the monsters at the top know that eventually, they’ll run out. This is why Waternose is so bent on capturing children and enslaving them.]

We even see a connection between A Bug’s Life and Monsters Inc. via the trailer we see in both movies. As you can see, the trailer looks exactly the same, except the one in A Bug’s Life is noticeably older and more decrepit, while the one in Monsters Inc. (where Randall is sent via a door) has humans and looks newer.

Look at the picture above. On the left is the trailer from A Bug’s Life and the one on the right is from Monsters Inc. The one on the left looks older and more rundown. Even the vegetation is noticeably dryer and there’s less of it. The trailer on the right has humans and the frame even includes tall grass and a tree hanging overhead.

[Some have argued that the trailer in A Bug’s Life should be nothing but dust. I disagree based on how barely intact other buildings were in Wall-E. They also bring up the bug zapper that is powered by electricity. The zapper could easily be solar powered, just like Wall-E. The bugs probably used it as a light source to signal other bugs to “Bug City.” Also, the trailer in A Bug’s Life never shows lights in the trailer like it does for Monsters Inc.]

That said, Monsters Inc. is so far the most futuristic Pixar movie. By the end, humans, animals, and machines have finally found a way to understand each other and live harmoniously.

And then there’s Boo. What do you think happened to her? She saw everything take place in future earth where “kitty” was able to talk. She became obsessed with finding out what happened to her friend Sully and why animals in her time weren’t quite as smart as the ones she’d seen in the future.

She remembers that “doors” are the key to how she found Sully in the first place and becomes…

A WITCH. Yes, Boo is the witch from Brave. She figures out how to travel in time to find Sully, and goes back to what she believes is the source: The will-of-the-wisps.

They are what started everything, and as a witch, she cultivates this magic in an attempt to find Sully by creating doors going backwards and forwards in time.

[Just to clarify: The theory is that Boo discovered a way to use doors to travel through time on her own, possibly by developing magic on her own. She probably went back in time to the Dark Ages to get more magic from the will-o-wisps.]

How do we know? In Brave, you can briefly see a drawing in the workshop. It’s Sully.

We even see the Pizza Planet truck carved as a wooden toy in her shop, which makes no sense unless she’s seen one before…(and I’m sure she has since that truck is in almost every Pixar movie). If you look closely, you can see the carved truck below.

You remember Merida opening doors and the witch constantly disappearing? It’s because those doors are made the same way from Monsters Inc. They transport across time and that is why Merida couldn’t find the witch later in the movie.

[A lot of people have brought up how easter eggs are scattered throughout all the Pixar movies. I barely scratch the surface, but a great theory offered by some that I support is that these easter eggs are planted by Boo either intentionally or accidentally as she travels through time to find Sully. Some support for that is the fact that every easter egg in Brave lies in her workshop.]

But wait. How did Boo travel in time in the first place, and why is she obsessed with wood? Boo must have discovered that wood has been the source of energy all along, not just humans. The machines and monsters in Monsters Inc. use doors because they’re made of wood and found a way to use that energy to travel in time.

[Many have pointed out how the door that banishes monsters is metal. That’s probably because wood is used to harness this magic, and using a metal door would stop a banished monster from going back through it.]

Obsessed with finding Sully, Boo travelled across the Pixar universe using doors.

[It’s even possible that the wood from the tree in A Bug’s Life is the source of Flik’s ingenuity, due to his fascination and respect for seeds growing into trees. The tree also bears a resemblance to the one in Up that Carl and Ellie frequented, which could be the source of Carl’s wild creativity in using balloons to transport his house. This also explains why Flik and Heimlich from A Bug’s Life show up in Toy Story 2, which would be centuries before their time. Boo was trying to go to the future and could have fallen short by landing in the post-Wall-E time. She would need wood to keep time traveling, but there’s not much around yet, so she stumbles upon the tree in A Bug’s Life. She could have accidentally brought back a few bugs with her when traveling backwards in time.]

So Boo went back to the Dark Ages, probably because she could use plenty of wood there for her experiments or to study the will-o-wisps. We know that her first encounter with Mor’du ended with her turning him into a monstrous bear, but he regresses.

She probably wanted to turn him into a bear because Sully resembles a bear, and she is still trying to figure out where Sully comes from.

Does Boo ever find Sully? I like to think so. He surely reunited with her at least once as a child at the end of Monsters Inc., but eventually, he had to stop visiting.

But her love for Sully is, after all, the crux of the entire Pixar universe. The love of different people of different ages and even different species finding ways to live on Earth without destroying it because of a lust for energy.

And that is the Pixar Theory. More will be added to it, undoubtedly, when Pixar’s next movie The Good Dinosaur comes out in 2014.

[The Good Dinosaur is supposed to be about an alternate universe where dinosaurs never went extinct because a meteor never wiped them out. They have humans as pets in this alternate reality. My theory is that this “alternate universe” explains why so many things in Pixar’s universe are different from ours. It’s because evolution was never interrupted by a world-wide catastrophe. Humans evolved into supers and animals gained sentience faster, accelerating the apocalypse for resources that could do the same to our timeline. Oh, and Dinoco from Toy Story and Cars is a loose, but fun connection to speculate on.]

Until then, if you have anything to contribute or correct, don’t hesitate to bring it to my attention. Thanks for reading, and for a visual of the timeline with dates, click here.

Also, if you’re wondering whether or not Planes fits into this theory, read my full take on that subject here.

If you can’t get enough of the Pixar Theory, you can read The Pixar Detective, a serial novel (with artwork!) that explains more about this theory through an original story.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

All images courtesy of Disney/Pixar

Literally thousands of you have requested a visual timeline for The Pixar Theory, so I put this together for you in an attempt to better organize my insane, hyperactive mind. 

Keep in mind that this is not the full theory. There is plenty I don’t go over and there are many missing connections between movies I don’t bring up, so consult the full theory here if you want the details: http://jonnegroni.com/2013/07/11/the-pixar-theory/

Enjoy!

THE PIXAR THEORY – TIMELINE

Like what you read? Connect with me further via twitter @JonNegroni. I’ll follow back if you seem like a real person. You can also subscribe to this blog by clicking the “follow” button in the top-left corner.

Don’t forget to check out New Professional News, a list of headlines essential for any new professional, updated daily at 8am.

It all started with a hat.

Several months ago, one of my anonymous Pixar Theory Interns (that’s a thing on a resume) came to me with a crazy proposition: Andy’s mom is Emily, Jessie’s previous owner.

I laughed. I then agreed.

For some time, I compiled all of the evidence and found some incredible support for this theory. For one thing, take a close look at Andy’s cowboy hat he frequently wears in the movies:

Here’s another close look:

As you can see, Andy’s hat is noticeably different from Woody’s. Why is this? Why wouldn’t Andy want to wear a hat that closely resembles the one worn by his favorite toy?

It’s no secret that Andy has a close connection with Woody. In Toy Story 2, his mom (who we only know as Ms. Davis) mentions that Woody is an old family toy.

Remember that Woody doesn’t even recall that he is a collector’s item – a toy made in the 1950s. This is a deviation from other toys who know full well where they come from. It’s possible that Woody doesn’t know because he’s been in Andy’s family for a long time, possibly belonging to his father.

But we need more evidence. Take a close look at Jessie’s hat:

Ah, this hat looks familiar. It’s the same red hat with white lace that Andy wears. The only difference is that Jessie’s hat has a white lace around the center. But look at Andy’s hat again.

There’s a faded mark where the white lace should be. Why do you think that is? And what does Jessie have to do with this?

(Bob Saget’s voice) Kids, you remember the story of Jessie. Her owner Emily grew up with her, much the same way as Andy. She was incredibly loved, but Emily eventually gave her away when she grew older. Jessie ended up in storage for a long time, as confirmed by her in the movie when she has a literal panic attack over having to go back.

Now, take a close look at what’s on this bed in Emily’s room:

That is a hat that looks extremely similar to, you guessed it, Andy’s. The room is also pretty old-fashioned, leaving room for this to take place years before Andy was born.

In fact, you can clearly tell that this isn’t modern day with shots like these:

The only difference between the hat that Emily wears throughout this sequence and Andy’s hat is an extra white lace around the center, which is visibly missing from Andy’s hat. Otherwise, the hats are identical.

Also, in the donation box that Emily puts Jessie in, we don’t see the hat. We do see other remnants of her connection with Jessie, but the hat is noticeably absent. The box isn’t even big enough to hold it. So Emily held onto that hat…and maybe passed it on to her child, who would grow to also love a cowboy doll.

We never get a closeup of Emily’s face, but we do see that she has light, auburn hair as a teenager. Also, it is very short.

Compared to:

The middle picture is closest to the strawberry blonde color we see when Emily is young. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that her hair lightened as she aged, which is clearly the case in these photos (or she could have dyed it).

Here’s what we know for sure:

We don’t know the first name of Andy’s mom. We don’t know Emily’s last name. We know that Andy’s hat and Emily’s hat are the same. We know that Emily is old enough to be Andy’s mom. We definitely know that Pixar is perfectly capable of sneaking this in without being overt about it.

You may be wondering how the two characters could be the same if Emily was willing to give Jessie up so easily, while Andy was far more hesitant.

Actually, the scenarios are quite similar. Andy forgot about Woody as he grew up too, despite their strong connection. Andy even gave Woody away, albeit in a different manner than Emily.

In the end, it makes perfect sense that these two concurrent stories are so similar because they’re related by blood. It’s also a freak of destiny that Jessie would one day belong to her owner’s son, though we never get to see the mom’s reaction to seeing Jessie again.

She was probably indifferent and believed it to be a different version of the same toy. How would you respond if you saw your child with a toy that looked like one that you had as a kid? Your first assumption probably wouldn’t be that they’re the exact same toy.

What do you think? Do you believe that the two characters are the same and that Andy’s mom/Emily found redemption through the love her son had for the toy she left behind? Or, do you hate fun, love, and destiny? Let me know.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

All images courtesy of Disney/Pixar

Fine, here’s what happened to Andy’s dad.

A few months ago, I argued the theory that Andy’s mother is actually Emily, the girl who originally owned Jesse in Toy Story 2. The post quickly went viral, as many people began debating whether or not this is true, intentional, etc.

Since then, literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people have been asking me about Andy’s dad, and I’ve never wanted to address the issue for a few key reasons:

1. It’s depressing.
2. It’s depressing.
3. It’s depressing.

You see, I love talking about theories like Andy’s mom and how all of the Pixar movies are connected because that’s tons of fun to think about. Andy’s dad? That’s just…well, you get it.

But I can see that a lot of you want to know anyway, and it’s really not that complicated. In fact, this is one of the few theories about Toy Story that I can confidently say is totally intentional.

The original theory was first posited by Jess Nevins, an incredibly talented writer who published his take on “Mr. Davis” back in 2010. I’ll elaborate on his theory and build upon it with my own insights.

Nevins claimed that Andy’s parents are going through a divorce during the events of the first Toy Story. Now, many of you probably saw that coming (it’s pretty obvious, after all), but it’s important to point out that this is not an amicable divorce. Andy’s dad left the family, and there’s plenty of evidence to confirm this.

Keep in mind that Andy’s dad is never mentioned or seen throughout the Toy Story movies. If it wasn’t for the rudiments of biology and procreation, then we could just assume that the guy doesn’t even exist. But he does, and all signs point to him walking out on his wife and kids.

The Obvious Clues

He may have left right before the first Toy Story started or months before, but one thing is certain: Andy’s dad did not die. If he had died, then why are there no pictures of him on the wall in the Davis house?

As you can see from this shot of Toy Story, Andy’s dad is not depicted in these family photos. If he had died, you’d think they would at least keep a picture of him up for the sake of honoring his memory.

Of course, you can argue that he died a long time ago, and the family has forgotten about him already. But if that’s the case, then how do you explain the fact that Molly (Andy’s younger sister) is a baby? He would’ve had to have died recently in order for her existence to be possible.

It makes more sense to assume that his pictures were taken down, and it would take something despicable on his part for that to happen.

To strengthen that point, Andy’s mom is spotted without a wedding ring at Andy’s birthday party in the first film. If Mr. Davis had died recently, then she would probably still be wearing it.

Now, I’ll admit that if you really want to, you can come up with a lot of diverting theories to explain all of this by saying Molly was conceived by some other man and that could be why the parents divorced. You could argue that the kids are adopted, or Andy’s mom just “gets around.”

But don’t you think the creators of Toy Story intended for this to be clear? In this case, the simple explanation is the more likely.

After all, the family is moving from a bigger house to a noticeably smaller one in Toy Story, which signals that Andy’s mom is having financial trouble. If she and Mr. Davis were getting a divorce, then he would at least be paying child support, but the family still has to make some sacrifices.

Oh, and the family gets a puppy. That’s pretty much the king of single mother clichés.

Childish Competition

The “deadbeat dad” theory also explains why Andy is so deeply connected with his toys, especially the masculine figureheads depicted by Woody and Buzz (who are both authoritative models as a “sheriff” and a “space ranger”).

What seems like a petty rivalry between two toys vying for Andy’s affection is really an allegory that Andy is playing out in his mind. In the end, their reconciliation and eventual friendship is symbolic of Andy coming to terms with only having his mother around.

Woody is the “old” father figure that represents where Andy really comes from, while Buzz is the “new” future he has to get used to. It’s no wonder Andy is going through emotional whiplash as he has to face the absence of his father and having to move to a totally new house within such a limited amount of time.

Now, if you’re a fan of my theory of Pixar movies and the Pixar Detective novel, then a fun way to interpret this is by noting how Woody and Buzz are essentially “programmed” to make Andy happy.

They may notice that he is torn by his old life and the new one that is being forced upon him, prompting Woody to obsess over making sure Andy still has a connection to his old life, while Buzz is the “oblivious” future that just happens upon Andy without him knowing it.

A Common Theme

Ultimately, this explains why Andy is so deeply immersed with his toys, and it’s a theme that Disney is no stranger to. In many Disney and Pixar films, the main characters are brought up without one or both parents.

Movies like this include Up (Russell’s father left him), Tangled (Rapunzel is raised by an evil fake-mother and Flynn is an orphan), Frozen (both parents pass away), A Bug’s Life (Dot and Atta only have their mother), The Princess and the Frog (her father dies early on), Aladdin (Jasmine’s mother is never mentioned and Aladdin’s father is estranged until the third film) and I could go on and on.

The simple explanation for this is that many people suffer from broken homes during their formative years, and it’s been reflected in both literature and moviemaking for as long as they’ve been around. It should be no surprise that a fun film like Toy Story has an undercurrent of sadness and (dare I say it) reality lingering in the background.

Also, it’s been a tradition for movies and even TV to stray from having both parents onscreen in order to prevent alienating single parents who take their kids to go see movies. Ouch, right in the heart.

What the Creators Have to Say About It

Now, if you ask the director of Toy Story, Lee Unkrich, directly, then he’ll give you a mysteriously vague answer. In her article, “Toy Story 3 and the Triumph of a Single Mother,” writer Mary Pols spoke with Unkrich himself and gained his thoughts on the matter:

“It’s an oft asked question, but there is no concrete answer, We don’t mean to be mysterious about it; it’s just never been relevant to the story.”

It’s just always been that way. The decision was made really early on in ‘Toy Story’ to have Andy’s dad not be around. We’ve never addressed it directly, nor have we given any explanation for where he is or why he’s absent.”

As for Unkrich himself (pictured below), his parents divorced when he was 10 years old, and he reportedly grew up with just his mother for some time.

On Quora, Craig Good (one of Toy Story‘s animators) claims that the decision to exclude Andy’s dad was made because rendering humans was very difficult and expensive at the time, and he wouldn’t be relevant to the story anyway.

But that definitely doesn’t mean they didn’t pepper in a few clues that hint at Andy’s father being a deadbeat. That most easily explains why he truly isn’t necessary for the Toy Story movies, especially to the characters who moved on without him.

Except for Buzz Lightyear, of course. Even he got a dad in Toy Story 2…

Summary:

So here it is in a nutshell. Andy’s father most likely walked out on the family, which led to Andy’s mother deciding to relocate to a smaller house to save money and (hopefully) move on from the painful memory. She has removed any pictures she has of him, along with her wedding ring, and the father is never mentioned or seen, even in Andy’s graduation photos.

It’s sad and kind of depressing, but inevitably pointless to the story, which is really about a boy and his toys that somehow come to life and compete for his love and imagination.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Trying to compare the Pixar films according to quality and personal affection is a pointless task, in my opinion. Of course, I could easily tell you what my favorite films are and rank them, but how does that really help anyone?

Everyone has their favorites, but everyone also loves lists and comparisons. So for the sake of this post, I’m pointing out how successful each one was compared to the other. Prepare to be surprised.

To crunch the numbers, I added the domestic and foreign totals to provide the worldwide figures. I also adjusted everything according to inflation in 2014, so you’re really seeing which films made the most value in their day.

I did not rank these in order of profitability, as in I don’t point out how much it cost to make the film versus how much it made. Instead, I kept it simple and only pointed out how much money the film made overall.

Let’s begin!

#1. Finding Nemo

How much it made: Many assume that Toy Story 3 was the first Pixar film to make over $1 billion worldwide, and they’re technically right. In 2003, Finding Nemo just barely came short of the billion mark with $936 million made worldwide. But when you adjust for inflation, the underwater animated film actually made $1.2 billion worldwide, easily surpassing the threequel.

Why? This is pretty impressive considering the fact that Finding Nemo had fewer advantages than more recent Pixar films. This was before foreign markets were becoming the brunt of Disney Pixar’s audience. In fact, I’d argue that it opened the floodgates to how well U.S. films can perform overseas.

Put simply, Finding Nemo benefitted from having extremely wide appeal. While movies about toys, superheroes, and balloon houses are fun concepts, many people of different ages found a reason to check out this film about a father finding his lost son in an endless ocean.

#2. Toy Story 3

How much it made: The possibly final entry in the Toy Story franchise is also its most successful. It was the first Pixar film to make $1 billion worldwide ($1.1 billion adjusted for inflation), and unlike Finding Nemo, its gap between money made domestically and foreign is much narrower.

Why? Waiting a decade to finish the franchise was a smart decision on Pixar’s part. Strong word-of-mouth, the return of the original cast, and an emotionally wrenching premise made this a can’t-miss film for the countless people who fell in love with Toy Story over the course of 15 years.

#3. Up

How much it made: It didn’t just collect Oscars. Up pulled in an impressive $731 million worldwide. Adjusted from 2009, that’s over $812 million.

Why? The film had broad international appeal thanks to its setting, and it came at a time when Pixar was hitting its stride with back-to-back hits. It also benefitted from a strong opening that had critics raving over the score and memorable characters. That, and this was also the first Pixar film to reap the benefits of 3D ticket prices.

#4. The Incredibles

How much it made: Following the success of Finding Nemo was an impossible task, so leave it to the superhero film to accomplish just that. The Incredibles made a whopping $631.million worldwide in 2004, which is actually $795.8 million by today’s standards.

Why? One of the main advantages of mashing up several genres like superheroes, family drama, comedy, animation, and spies is that you can generate a ton of interest in your movie. Families and young adults came out to this film in droves, and it didn’t hurt that audiences were still enamored with the success of Finding Nemo.

#5. Monsters University

How much it made: This 2013 prequel to Monsters Inc. narrowly surpassed its predecessor by raking in $743.5 million worldwide ($760 million adjusted for inflation). It’s important to note that it made the bulk of its money overseas, like many of the recent Pixar films.

Why? As a rule, sequels and even prequels tend to build upon existing audiences, no matter the downgrade in quality. Plus, the film was quite enjoyable and a step up from Pixar’s previous outings (Cars 2 and Brave).

#6. Monsters Inc.

How much it made: This is the Pixar film that showed critics just what the studio was capable of, as it was the first of the films to spike in profit. The 2001 film made an impressive $562.8 million worldwide ($756.4 adjusted), with an almost even split between domestic and foreign markets.

Why? This film came out after a 1-year hiatus for Pixar, and it had been three years since the studio had released a non-sequel. Thanks to Monsters Inc., the momentum for Pixar as it entered the 21st century was set early, and high.

#7. Ratatouille

How much it made: Only Pixar can make a film about a rat learning to cook in Paris a huge success with over $623 million made globally ($716.7 million adjusted).

Why? Foreign markets definitely carried this film, representing about 2/3 of the profits. Also, audiences who were displeased with Cars were happy to see a Pixar film with more traditional storytelling (even though it was anything but).

#8. Toy Story 2

How much it made: That’s right, one of Disney’s first forays into a sequel (they’re notorious for not doing big screen sequels at all) was a Pixar film. And it totally paid off. Toy Story 2 ran away with $485 million worldwide. These days, that’s nearly $700 million. Keep in mind that this was in 1999; a time when the box office competition was fierce.

Why? As we now know, the film was just as good if not better than the original, and that prompted millions of people who loved the first film to go see this one. And it helped that VHS sales build a lot of hype for this film four years after the original. The lesson, of course, is that there should be a lot of time in between sequels for the sake of direction and precision. Not many people have learned this lesson, sadly.

#9. Cars 2

How much it made: Pixar’s follow-up to the record-breaking Toy Story 3 was yet another sequel. And they suffered for it. Cars 2  brought in about $559 million worldwide, or $593 million adjusted for inflation. A little more than half of what Pixar made the previous year.

Why? Some are wondering why it made so much when it shouldn’t. Others may be wondering why it didn’t make as much. Both questions are answered by the fact that the film was both helped and hurt by its predecessor, Cars. Yes, it had plenty of interest from fans of the original, but the problem was that there weren’t that many fans anyway. But it still made good money, especially overseas. This was partly due to the various locales seen in the film and Disney’s expertise at managing foreign markets by 2011.

#10. WALL-E

How much it made: This may surprise a lot of you, but WALL-E only brought in $521 million worldwide. Adjusted for this year, that’s only about $576.8 million.

Why? Oddly, this is celebrated as one of Pixar’s best films, both by audiences and critics. And yet it is one of the least successful. Sadly, this is mostly because the film came out during the onset of Great Recession, which badly hurt money made domestically. On top of that, many moviegoers were put off by the film’s lack of dialogue, especially in the early parts of the film.

#11. Toy Story

How much it made: The first of the Pixar films performed pretty well for a forerunner. It made $362 million worldwide, with most of that money being domestic. Nowadays, that translates to about $566 million, which is nothing to scoff at.

Why? Unlike its successors, Toy Story didn’t have the luxury of Pixar being a household name. It earned its success solely from being a good film and shattering expectations as the first computer-animated film ever. In fact, I’m more surprised that this isn’t lower on the list considering the risk that was put into making it. Toy Story truly is a miracle of film.

#12. Brave

How much it made: Still hurting from the disappointment that was Cars 2, this 2012 film also disappointed with a meager $539 million worldwide total ($559 million adjusted). That’s still pretty good, though it is certainly low compared to the rest of the Pixar family.

Why? Entire research papers could be written about the mystery surrounding Brave‘s underwhelming premise. I’m not sure I fully understand why it fell short for me, personally. Whatever the reason, Brave just didn’t click or resonate with people as deeply as previous Pixar films, which made this an animated outing for only a certain group of moviegoers (kids and their parents looking for a getaway).

#13. Cars

How much it made: Released in 2006, Cars didn’t really deliver for Pixar as much as they hoped with a decent $462 million worldwide ($546 million adjusted). Of course, it was still incredibly profitable for Pixar, seeing as it only cost $120 million to make.

Why? You know a film has problems when it falls so short after two massive hits like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. It even had the benefit of coming along after a 1-year hiatus. Still, audiences weren’t impressed with the premise, and Cars ultimately suffered. Strangely, the sequel was still green-lit and made a bit more money years later.

#14. A Bug’s Life

How much it made: Pixar’s second film was great in its own right, even though that didn’t necessarily translate to box office sales. It made just $363 million worldwide, which is about $530.5 million adjusted for inflation. Interestingly, it made more money overseas than Toy Story did, and it was the first of the Pixar films to make most of its money in foreign markets.

Why? Put simply, the novelty of computer animation had worn off a bit. So A Bug’s Life had to rely on just being a good movie. That’s why it made as much as it did, but the basic fact is that a film about toys coming to life was more appealing than a film about bugs fighting grasshoppers.

Conclusions:

One of the most interesting things about this list is that even the lowest entry of Pixar’s films is a box office success that stands up to most of the films that are coming out today. That means in 14 films over the course of 19 years, Pixar hasn’t had a single flop. No other studio in history can compare to that kind of consistent success.

In the years to come, we’ll see if Pixar can maintain the status quo or make another huge leap forward. Inside Out premieres next summer, and it could prove to be the next Monsters Inc. in terms of reviving the studio’s creative fortunes. And with new sequels like Finding Dory and The Incredibles 2 on the horizon, along with some other originals like The Good Dinosaur, Pixar may be poised for its first renaissance.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

When I heard the news yesterday, I almost felt robbed. Excited, but robbed.

The Toy Story trilogy is something I treasure as being one of the few “perfect” (whatever that means) things I grew up with. It’s something that started great, got better and then ended perfectly.

So the news that there would be another entry immediately terrified me. The thought of something sullying the unsullied Toy Story movies is just unbearable.

But that’s my gut reaction, and gut reactions have a tendency to be ruled by emotion, rather than logic. And logically, there a few important things to consider about this news. The “facts.”

This isn’t B Team working on this. Toy Story 4 is reportedly being put together by John Lasseter, Lee Unkrich, Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton. If you need a refresher, that’s Pixar’s round table of masterminds. They’re the talent behind pretty much everything good that’s been going on with Pixar for 20 years now.

One thing’s for sure. This project is in good hands.

John Lasseter:

“We love these characters so much; they are like family to us. We don’t want to do anything with them unless it lives up to or surpasses what’s gone before. Toy Story 3 ended Woody and Buzz’s story with Andy so perfectly that for a long time, we never even talked about doing another Toy Story movie. But when Andrew, Pete, Lee, and I came up with this new idea, I just could not stop thinking about it. It was so exciting to me, I knew we had to make this movie — and I wanted to direct it myself.”

Good enough for me.

Since it was announced, many Toy Story fans like myself have been scratching our heads about the upcoming plot for Toy Story 4.

After all, John Lasseter promises that it’s good enough to warrant yet another sequel to an otherwise perfect trilogy. So what could this great idea be?

It’s too early to tell, but that didn’t stop Aaron Helman from writing out what he considers to be a pretty exciting script. Enjoy:

TOY STORY 4

by Aaron Helman

The film is set 6-7 years after Toy Story 3.

The toys are hanging out by themselves, doing Toy Story things when a woman barges in the room in a tizzy and starts throwing them into boxes. The toys are confused, but they hear a conversation in the next room, trying to figure out what’s going on. Through the perspective of the toys, we hear bits and pieces:

“Once I heard, I just knew you had to have these.”

“That’s so sweet, but what about…”

“Oh she’s 13 now. She doesn’t really play with them anymore.”

“I’m sure Andy will be thrilled.”

“When’s the baby due?”

Cue music and excitement from the toys.

Andy’s mom drops the toys off for Andy, but he’s in a rush. He sets the box in a partially completed nursery but doesn’t open it. And he doesn’t play with the toys.

We see, from the perspective of the toys, time-lapse work on the nursery. Andy’s wife’s bump grows and we hear a crying baby after they come back from the hospital to place him in his crib. Andy still hasn’t gotten to the toys.

The baby gets bigger and learns to crawl. Andy seems preoccupied with other things, but he finally opens the box and haphazardly hands one of the toys to baby.

One day, the baby “catches” the toys when they’ve come to life. The toys soon realize that the baby can’t communicate and won’t remember any of this, so they begin to come alive around the baby to play. The baby loves this.

There’s a scene where baby drops his pacifier, starts crying, but the toys work together to fix it.

Throughout all of this, Andy is being revealed to be a workaholic. Mom wants help with the baby, Andy’s coming home later and later; he’s stressed out, too.

Next we have a scene where the baby picks up Woody, crawls over to Andy and raises his arms to be lifted up. Andy brushes the baby (and Woody) aside because he’s in the middle of working on something. We overhear that Andy is working for a firm that’s trying to buy the now-for-sale Al’s Toy Barn to put up an office complex.

Woody gathers the other toys because he’s worried about Andy. He’s not the same person he used to be, doesn’t have time for the toys and doesn’t appear to have time for his baby. He thinks that it’s because of “work,” which is a concept the toys don’t really understand.

Buzz suggests that maybe Andy’s been brainwashed, and they go on an adventure to Andy’s work to find out what’s going on.

At the office — a sterile place altogether — they sneak around to watch what goes down, confused by everything. They refer to a meeting as a play-date, etc… (Maybe Rainn Wilson and Steve Carrell can voice Andy’s co-workers).

Finally, they see Andy copying a page from a book, with the copy machine lid lifted. They see the green glow from the machine’s “wand” and deduce that this is the brainwashing machine.

After everyone’s gone, the toys set out to destroy the copy machine, but some weird bobbleheads come to life from a desk to explain that it’s not a brainwashing machine, but a copy machine. Etch and the Copy Machine have a duel. Etch wins.

The toys come up with the idea to go back to Andy’s room to find something to remind him of who he really is because Jesse saw that in a movie once.

As they leave, Hamm is photocopying his butt.

They go to Andy’s Room, but it’s not the same. It’s been repainted. There’s a treadmill and a desk in there. They start looking anyway. When they can’t find anything, Buzz calls it off and says they need to head back.

Woody says, “No. I know what we need.” He walks solemnly over to a vent, removes the cover, and with the help of the toys, retrieves a small journal.

One of the toys asks, “What is it?”

Woody: “I’m not sure. When Andy was little, he used to look at it all the time. But every time he looked at it, he would cry. So one day, when he was at school, I hid it, because I didn’t want to see Andy cry like that anymore.”

The toys turn the pages of the journal. A photo of a man holding a baby. A photo of the same man holding a toddler at Christmas. A photo of the same man hugging a young Andy and his Woody doll. A photo of the same man on a hospital bed, Andy snuggled up against him.

Then pages of words and pictures as the toys leaf through the journal, finally settling on this page with a child’s handwriting.

I love playing with Woody, but I just really miss my dad.

The toys head back home with the journal in tow, and leave it out on the table. The next day Andy returns home, late again, and drops his briefcase on the table. He’s on the phone, discussing the Toy Barn deal, and the toys overhear him say that he’s got a meeting tomorrow and has to have a decision by then.

Andy ends the call, is clearly exasperated, then buries his head in his hands before noticing his old journal.

He leafs through it, holding back tears as he looks through the pictures, then settles on the same page as the toys noticed. He reads the words, “I love playing with Woody. But I just really miss my dad.”

He looks up, and sees the baby in the other room playing all by himself with Woody.

Etch spends the rest of the night working on his piece de resistance: a picture of the baby, Buzz and Woody. The toys sneak Etch into Andy’s briefcase before the big meeting where the decision will be made.

At the meeting, Andy opens the briefcase, sees Etch, has a moment, excuses himself and apologizes for getting choked up. He composes himself and says, “I would hate for this not to be a toy store anymore. What if I run it?”

The other workers in the firm are livid, but Andy ignores them as he reaches across to shake a hand.

The final scene is back at Andy’s home. Buzz and Woody watch from a window as Andy plays with his son in the leaves. They congratulate each other on a job well done. Woody protests that “Ah, I’m just a toy.

Buzz disagrees, “No, Cowboy. Today, you are a bona-fide hero.”

Final montage as the familiar music of “You’ve Got a Friend in Me” starts to play. We see Andy wrestling with the baby, feeding the baby (the  baby spitting up on Andy) and snuggling with the baby. In each of these moments, Buzz and Woody are inanimate, but still looking on approvingly.

The movie ends with Andy feeding baby a bottle and rocking him gently while he sings:

You’ve got a friend in me.

You’ve got a friend in me.

When the road looks rough ahead…

That’s it! Tweet @AaronHelman if you liked his take on Toy Story 4! And be sure to share your own ideas in the comments below.

If you recall, Toy Story 3 sort of glossed over the destiny of Woody’s love interest. Woody. He’s the star of the show, but arguably the second most important person-er-soul to him clearly vanished. And he barely even talks about it.

That’s like if Rachael from Friends suddenly just vanished, but Ross carried on because at least he still has Monica (who I’m guessing is Buzz Lightyear in this analogy? I didn’t think this through).

Anyway, since Pixar doesn’t want to just tell us what happened to Bo Peep, it’s time us fans do it for them. Who knows? Maybe the next Toy Story will showcase the return of Bo Peep if we do a good enough job.

My suggestions are below. Please add yours in the comments (and don’t you dare bring up “Once Upon a Time” on ABC).

#1 Bo Peep was sold at a yard sale.

Let’s just get this one out of the way, because it’s the most obvious. Eventually, Andy had to start believing it was weird to play with a porcelain doll (don’t hate, the 90s were a different time). So he’d pass her off to Molly, presumably, who would then get sick of Bo Peep until Mrs. Davis cleared the dusty shelf.

Right?

I’m not convinced. Andy recognizes that Woody and Bo Peep are in love. And it seems like that’s why he kept Jessie and Mrs. Potato (who are also girls’ toys he pairs with Buzz and Mr. Potato Head), even though he would outgrow them faster. So why would he part with his favorite toy’s paramour? Plus, he probably watched “Friends” (because again, it’s the 90s) and got the same Ross/Rachael analogy I pointed out earlier.

As for Molly, she kept her Barbie all those years.

Why not Bo Peep as well? Something doesn’t add the heck up.

#2 Andy lost her.

Pretty reasonable, right? Kids lose toys all the time. He lost a bunch of his army men, from the look of things, and  half of the first movie was only about how he lost his toys.

Right?

Maybe not. Again, Bo Peep is an important toy because she’s closest to Woody. And even if Andy couldn’t find her, the toys would have. We’re talking about the same group of toys who traveled halfway across Tri-County on foot and crossed rush hour traffic just to find Woody.

#3 Bo Peep ran away.

I mean, it is possible. How do we know she didn’t just decide to split? Maybe she got sick of never being played with and bailed, similar to how the army men peaced out in the beginning of Toy Story 3.

Right?

No way. If you know anything about the grand universe of Pixar, then you know that toys operate under strict, programmed directives to always please humans no matter what. Unless your human is Sid.

Besides, she wouldn’t just leave her sheep behind. It’s Bo.

#4 Bo Peep was donated.

We know Andy’s mom is familiar with Sunnyside Daycare in Toy Story 3. During her classic mom talk with Bonnie’s mom, she talks about how they haven’t seen the kids in years. And Sunnyside is the first place she thought of to donate toys, so she might have donated Bo Peep (and other favorites like Etch and Mr. Spell) years before.

Right?

Ridiculous. If she was donated to Sunnyside, she’d still be around by the time Woody and the gang showed up in Toy Story 3. I mean, sure, it would have been awesome if she had turned evil and had Lotso’s dictator role by the time Woody showed up, but Pixar doesn’t read my fan fiction scripts.

If she was donated, then that means Lotso and the gang put her in the Caterpillar room. And if we don’t see her, that means she was literally destroyed by children, and I don’t think Pixar hates us that much.

#5 Annie Potts was too busy to voice her again.

The ensemble at this point was too big to include her, anyway. So Pixar must’ve thought it would be a waste of cash to rehire Annie Potts, who voices Bo Peep in the first two films. And maybe they have no idea what happened to Bo Peep, leaving it to our (dangerous) imaginations.

Right?

You must be joking. How many times do I have to say it? Bo Peep is important. This is modern cinema for crying out loud. She’s the white love interest of a white leading man. They’re not just going to sweep her character under the rug without leaving clues about her whereabouts for us to find.

And they kept Slinky, even though his voice actor tragically passed away. This wasn’t about money. This was about something…something we may never understand.

But if anyone’s going to find out what really happened to Bo Peep, it’s someone way smarter than me. So get to work!

HINT: it happened when Andy was young, as evidenced by her noticeable absence from this once precious moment that is now a full-blown crime scene:

THE VERDICT:

Well, that was fast. Blogger Steve Feek came up with an explanation that I find pretty suitable.

So we know that Bo Peep and her sheep are made of porcelain. Well, what if she was accidentally broken by Andy? All it would take is a brush off the night stand and onto the floor.

Mrs. Davis would have no choice but to throw her out, despite Andy’s protests (broken porcelain is no toy for a child). In fact, this would probably traumatize Woody because he would forever be haunted by the one time he couldn’t save Bo Peep.

That got pretty dark…

Thanks for reading! If you like reading the strange things I write about, be sure to subscribe to this blog by clicking “follow” on the sidebar. Or just follow me on Twitter for updates: @JonNegroni. 

While I was writing a trailer breakdown for the upcoming Pixar film, Inside Out, I came upon something that may link this new world to the one we see in the Toy Story trilogy.

It’s not rock solid and could be open to interpretation. For my full argument on the matter, you should check out the breakdown I linked to above. But if you’re too curious to click away, the easter egg essentially boils down to location.

See, we know that Inside Out takes place in San Francisco. Big deal. Almost every Pixar movie takes place in California because that’s where they’re headquartered.

Pixar likes to use fictional locations along with real ones. For example, The Incredibles takes place first in Municiberg and then in Metroville. These are fictional cities confirmed as being located somewhere in California.

But Pixar uses real places too (they’re sort of like Marvel comics in that respect). Up, for example, opens in Oakland, and it contains many landmarks that exist in real life.

All three Toy Story movies take place in Tri-County, California. It’s also known simply as “Tri-County Area.” We see this when the gang goes to Tri-County Airport, Woody looks at a map that says Tri-County, and Sid works for Tri-County Sanitation.

This is clearly a play on “Tri-County Area,” which isn’t something specific to one place, and I think the point is that Pixar made a fictional place that sounds as generic as possible. Well, that may not be the case because part of Inside Out apparently takes place near Tri-County.

In a quick frame where Riley is playing youth hockey, you can see a banner that says “Tri-County Youth Division.” Now, you could argue they just mean the general Tri-County area, but then it’s weird how the banner next to it says that the Tri-County Youth League has won the All-State Division.

Since we know that Toy Story takes place in the Bay area, along with Inside Out because it’s in San Francisco, it’s pretty clear that the banner is a subtle nod to the first Pixar movie being in close proximity to this new one. After all, you don’t see “Tri-County” in any of the other Pixar movies.

Or Pixar just really likes the name, Tri-County. Or both.

Every once in a while, someone manages to create a pretty convincing fan theory about the Pixar movies. Most of the time, these theories are pretty lackluster, but Jonathan Carlin of “SuperCarlinBrothers” has recently come up with a great theory you might believe in.

Now, if you enjoy my theories and speculations on this site, then I have little doubt you’ll enjoy Carlin’s work on YouTube. We’ve shared multiple theories from each other on our own platforms over the years, and he’s certainly one of the most entertaining vloggers out there when it comes to fan theories.

And so is the case with his latest argument for why Andy from Toy Story has a monster we know from Monsters Inc. I’ll outline and evaluate his theory below, but you can also watch his video on the subject if you prefer (it’s only about 6 minutes long).

OK, so let’s go over SCB’s theory in detail, starting with the overall premise that Toy Story and Monsters Inc. share the same universe.

Of course, longtime readers already know I’m sold on this. The litany of easter eggs shared between the movies (from Jessie’s appearance in Boo’s room to Randall’s imitation of Andy’s wallpaper) share a lot of credence to the idea that these films are connected. And if you believe in my unifying Pixar Theory, then that’s that.

SCB himself points out that in Toy Story 3, we see a young girl who looks like she could be “Boo” (real name is Mary) because they look alike, though it’s not 100% certain. He also makes a connection between a poster we see in Monsters Inc. inside a child’s room and the same poster being on Sid’s wall in Toy Story.

As you can see, though, the posters aren’t situated the same way, and the monster we’re seeing has just been scared by a young girl, not a sadistic kid like Sid. For that reason, I think this is just an easter egg and NOT an indication that this was Sid’s monster.

Next, SCB points out that the movies sort of collide in a comic book series called Monsters Inc: Laugh Factory. Published in 2009, this 4-part series is about what happened after the events of Monsters Inc. Interestingly, a kid who looks like Sid Phillips (minus the skull t-shirt) shows up.

You can actually see several easter eggs in Boo’s room, here. And that’s kind of the point. Laugh Factory is filled with tons of references to other Pixar movies, as this was written by Paul Benjamin, a comic book writer for Marvel (not Pixar).

Keep in mind that Disney bought Marvel in 2009, likely explaining why this comic book series came about. For that reason and several others (including blatant continuity errors), I don’t actually consider these stories canon. They’re very over-the-top and portray situations and overt nods to other Pixar movies that don’t fit the framework of what Pixar has made themselves. Still, it’s a very interesting comic book series you can check out here.

Now on to the crux of SCB’s proposed theory. Could Andy have a monster of his own? Monsters Inc. takes place in 2001, which is 6 years after the events of Toy Story and Toy Story 2 (which takes place the summer following the first movie’s ending Christmas scene).

Monsters have been scaring kids for centuries, as we know from Monsters University revealing that the school was founded in 1313. So if the movies are connected, then it’s reasonable to assume that Andy could be one of the children assigned a monster.

In Monsters Inc., I always found it weird that there are commercials and advertisements for what is essentially a power plant. Why would Waternoose be so concerned about awareness?

Monsters Inc. doesn’t sell anything. 

Well, it would seem that Waternoose is concerned with recruiting new scarers. The university trains these monsters to make them the best, but as we saw in Monsters University, Sulley was able to climb the ranks without an education, possibly explaining why Waternoose is interested in hiring recruits anywhere he can find them.

This all leads me to believe that there are lots of children, but not enough scarers. The problem they have is getting enough energy from the kids they scare (because kids are harder to scare these days), but another solution is to hire more scarers to scare even more kids. Scary.

That also explains why kidnapping children was such an appealing solution to Waternoose. If he can’t keep up with demand, then stealing the kids outright can give him enough energy to last years.

Though Roz tells Mike and Sulley that they’ve been onto the kidnappings for quite some time, it’s doubtful that Andy as a kid in 1996 was ever stolen. There’s just no evidence or reason to believe that.

Back to SCB’s theory. He argues that Andy’s closet door looks remarkably similar to a door seen in Monsters University (though he couldn’t find the same door in Monsters Inc.) Specifically, this door from a promo reel on the Monsters University website matches Andy’s door.

The doorknobs even match up because on this side of the closet, the doorknob should be on the right because the one on Andy’s closet door is on the left.

SCB argues that this evidence — in tandem with Randall practicing his camouflage with wallpaper from Andy’s room — proves that Randall is Andy’s monster.

Unfortunately, I don’t agree.

The issue is that Monsters University takes place years before Randall becomes a full-time scarer (he’s just a freshman at the start of the movie). If this is Andy’s door, then that just means Andy had some other monster while Randall was still in school.

That also gives a more logical explanation for the wallpaper thing. Sure, Randall has it as practice, but that doesn’t mean he’s scared a kid with that same wallpaper. It probably just belongs to Monsters Inc. in the same way they have the practice rooms for scaring. Why and how would Randall have this for his own personal use unless he got it from the company?

I think it makes way more sense for the wallpaper to be passed down because it belonged to a kid who moved, giving them an opportunity to collect it and use it for practice. That may even be why the university has this door in the first place. It’s not being used anymore.

Of course, who else would need wallpaper to camouflage themselves against? It’s not like everyone can be stealthy like Randall. Well, I’d say the simple explanation is that Monsters Inc. builds its practice rooms from real rooms, and Randall and his assistant are using wallpaper from these rooms for their specialized training.

Here’s a question that’s bothered me for a while: How much time passes between Monsters University and Monsters Inc.?

This is a question of age, to be sure. In the original movie, Mike and Sulley appear to be grown, well-established adults. From their voice actors, you’d assume they’re in their late 30s or early 40s.

After watching Monsters University, however, you can tell that their voices are basically the same. Mike is in a relationship with Celia not long after he and Sulley get their dream jobs, and neither of them seem settled down romantically. I’d honestly argue they’re really in their mid-20s, which supports the idea that Monsters University occurs during or after Andy’s move in 1995.

SCB also brings up the “Newt Crossing” sticker on Andy’s door in Toy Story 3 as evidence that Andy remembers Randall coming through his closet. But I don’t find that very convincing because why would Andy plaster something that scared him on his closet? I’m more inclined to believe that it really is just a reference to the Newt movie that never came about.

I really enjoy this theory, but I don’t think it’s complete. SCB is certainly on to something, and I definitely want to believe a monster we’ve seen has an old scare card for Andy somewhere. But for now, we can only guess.

Thanks for reading! If you like this blog, you can subscribe for weekly updates by clicking the “Subscribe” button on the right sidebar. Or just follow me on Twitter for the latest updates – @JonNegroni

Since the release of my new book, The Pixar Theory, I honestly haven’t given much thought to expanding these Pixar-related connections because…vacation.

So, I’m back and here’s something potentially interesting for you to seek your teeth into. A few weeks ago, a regular visitor to the site (cheers, @ThomastheBrainEngine), brought me some interesting evidence of toys being “self-aware” in Monsters Inc, a la Toy Story.

In Toy Story, we learn that toys are sentient. They move around on their own when we’re not watching, and their entire lives revolve around the children who love them.

One of the main tenets of my theory, which tries to unite the Pixar movies, is that toys are alive because in the Pixar universe, human imagination is like a battery, and it gives life to ordinary things (maybe even cars).

I argue that this is the same concept as monsters powering their society with the energy of children in Monsters Inc. But despite a few cameos (like Jessie and the Luxo ball), there’s nothing tangible linking Toy Story and Monsters Inc, especially if you consider Jessie’s appearance in Monsters Inc., to only be an easter egg, not a hint to something more.

But ThomastheBrainEngine presented a fascinating thought that I had not yet considered: what if we do see evidence that the world of Monsters Inc. has sentient toys? 

So I looked into this, and the evidence is solid, believe it or not. And it all hinges on the movie’s first scene.

Mr. Bile, can you tell me what you did wrong?

This opening sequence introduces us to the basic mechanics of how monsters scare children. The monster, Mr. Bile (Phlegm), sneaks into a child’s room and attempts to scare him, but the kid wakes up and sees him. We see that Mr. Bile is actually more scared of the child than vice versa, and he trips and falls for comedic effect.

This, of course, is a simulation. A demonstration of how not to scare a child, so that the movie can cut to Sulley, our main character, who is the best scarer at Monsters Incorporated. The simulation we just watched was at the factory, and it’s our set up for everything that happens next in the movie (notably, that the worst thing you can do is let in a child by leaving the door open).

Something that has bugged a lot of people, including myself, is a major goof (or series of goofs) that transpires during the simulation. When Mr. Bile walks in, we get a clear shot of the room’s layout and where everything is located. The soccer ball is under the bed, the toy train and its tracks are at the foot of the bed, and one of the books near the window hangs over the edge.

But as the scene changes, everything moves around. The soccer ball inexplicably moves to the side of the bed. It’s in a totally different location, and it eventually shows up again at the foot of the bed, where the train tracks have disappeared. Instead, there’s a bunch of jax in its place. Mr. Bile steps back on the soccer ball and falls on the jax (see above) like we’re watching a better version of Home Alone 3. We even see that the books on the toy box have moved a little bit, but they return to their original spot toward the end of the scene.

It’s nitpicking, but I’ve always been annoyed by how overtly obvious these goofs are. I’ve sat through a dailies session at Pixar, where the director and a group of animators will scrutinize every single aspect of what’s on the screen. Even for a movie that was made in Pixar’s early days, it’s strange to think that they could make so many continuity errors in just a couple of minutes, and the movie’s first few minutes at that.

Granted, these goofs happen all the time, and some are caught too late in the game to be considered worth the effort of fixing them. But they’re usually separated and scarce, not gathered in a cluster.

So, what if this entire scene wasn’t a goof at all? What if we were meant to see them? They’re certainly hard to miss, after all.

The idea is that the toys moved on their own because the rules of Toy Story bleed into Monsters Inc. Part of any good simulation would be to make sure monsters are prepared for anything that could happen. If toys are able to come alive and possibly protect their sleeping owner from an invader, then it makes perfect sense for these simulations to include these variables.

Without those toys interfering, Mr. Bile probably would have been able to successfully leave the room and escape before the child could get up and go through that door. So part of the simulation could be to move the toys around, like they would in a real situation, in a way that conspires against the monster pulling off a scare. In this case, that meant moving the ball to where he would fall on a bunch of conveniently placed jacks that weren’t there in the first place.

It’s definitely possible, at least. The monsters controlling the simulation are creating atmospheric effects (the curtain moving like wind is blowing it, the child moving around in reaction to realtime events). If toys could move, too, then the monsters could simulate that experience.

Would toys really do this, though?

I don’t think it’s a stretch based on what we’ve seen in Toy Story. Woody breaks the rules and unites Sid’s toys against him just to get back to Andy. He goes to incredible lengths to make Andy happy, so I’m pretty sure he’d also go pretty far to protect Andy from a terrifying monster.

It might not happen every time with every kid who has toys, but it could happen enough to warrant a response from Monsters Inc. When you watch Monsters University, you see that the higher ups are teaching the monsters tons of useful tips and facts about this profession, ranging from how the doors work to how monsters can adapt to any given situation.

They have to prepare the monsters to be so stealthy, not even the toys know they’re there (which is possible, since we see that the toys do sleep when Woody has that nightmare in the first movie).

This also solves another major inconsistency that was brought on by Monsters University. If monsters have to go to college to get jobs as professional scarers, then why is Mr. Bile having such a hard time? And why is he doing this, anyway, if he has experience and a college education?

Well, if you watch Monsters University again, you probably won’t notice any of these instances of toys getting in the way. And that’s probably because introducing them as a variable is when you get into the expert mode of scaring. This would make scaring so hard for monsters that it wouldn’t be a critical point of the simulator until you actually got the job, explaining why Mr. Bile is sort of talented, but he ends up falling on his face, despite the rigorous standards of professional scaring established by Dean Hardscrabble in MU.

To sum up, I think this evidence is pretty strong, mostly because those goofs I pointed out just seem overwhelmingly obvious. It is possible that the monsters controlling the simulation could be moving the toys around from the control room just to make things harder for Mr. Bile, not because toys are expected to come alive. But that just seems sort of harsh.

Mr. Bile walked into that room and surveyed everything as he was trained. Mixing things up for no good reason in a scenario that wouldn’t possible happen just to make things harder undermines how the monsters are trained in Monsters University. It’s like testing high school students on a different subject with information you never taught them—OK, wait, that happens all the time.

Let me know if you’re convinced or unconvinced and we can hash it out in the comments. If you’re interested in the Pixar Theory (that is, how all the movies may be connected and why) enough to read an entire book about it with all of the clues and arguments I’ve collected over the past few years, don’t forget to check out my book, which is available now in print and as an e-book on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Today at the D23 expo in Anaheim, John Lasseter (Disney CCO) broke the news to CNBC what will be going down for Pixar’s next film in the Toy Story franchise.

Lasseter: It’s a love story with Woody and – and this is news – Bo Peep… At Pixar and at Disney, we only make sequels if we come up with a story that’s as good or better than the original. That’s our rule. We don’t do things just to print money.

Guys, I’m stoked. As many of you are aware, I’ve speculated about Bo Peep’s destiny a lot in the past, so it’s great to hear that Pixar is opening the pages to that story. And it will be even better if Annie Potts reprises her role as the porcelain lamp.

John Lasseter and Josh Cooley (story artist for Inside Out) will be helming Toy Story 4, which is being written by Rashida Jones and Will McCormack.

Something bears repeating, by the way. The story idea for Toy Story 4 came directly from John Lasseter, Andrew  Stanton, Pete Docter, and Lee Unkrich. This isn’t B team. I know you might be a little wary about Pixar messing with what is pretty much a perfect trilogy, but it’s not like they’re handing the reigns to someone over in Disney Toon studios or whatever it’s called these days.

Toy Story 4 is set to release sometime in June, 2017.

Sorry, everyone. It turns out we have to ditch enjoying our entertainment a certain way because the managing editor of Movie Mezzanine thinks they are, and this is a direct quote, “truly toxic.”

Alright. Let’s do this.

In his latest editorial, titled “Why Fan Theories are Destroying Film Discourse,” film critic Josh Spiegel deconstructs the modern fan theory, directly calling me out on two theories I’ve written on this very site. For that reason, I think it would be rude not to respond, right?

He starts the essay with a few examples to set up his case.

Did you know that, in The Dark Knight, the hero was actually the Joker? It’s true—if you buy into this recent theory posited by a user on Reddit.

Interesting that he doesn’t link to the post itself, just an article on SlashFilm reporting on it. I mean, that’s not egregiously terrible or anything…but why not just link to the original post? Wouldn’t it be fairer for readers to evaluate the original version instead of a shortened one that leaves out his full explanation?

Also, I don’t get his logic with this sentence: “It’s true—if you buy into this.”

Well, no, something isn’t “true” just because you believe it. I suppose, then, it is true to you, but if Josh is subtly implying that truth is relative, then doesn’t that make this entire article pointless?

And did you know that Andy’s mom in Toy Story is also the grown version of the girl named Emily in Toy Story 2 who owned, and then discarded, Jessie the cowgirl?

YES! Wait, is this a trap?

No fooling, according to a post by the same guy who has a far broader theory that every Pixar movie—yes, even the Cars movies—are connected to each other.

Well, no, that’s not true. If he had read the actual post he’s linking to, he would have noticed that I didn’t, in fact, come up with the original theory for Andy’s mom being Emily. It was presented to me, and I made the case for it with my own research.

And in the most mind-blowing one of all, it’s even been suggested that the snarky kid at the beginning of Jurassic Park who Alan Grant threatens with a raptor claw grew up to be none other than Chris Pratt’s hero character in Jurassic World.

Again, Spiegel links to the article reporting what someone posted on Reddit, instead of just the original posting. Does Spiegel hate Reddit or something?

Also, I actually like this theory about Jurassic World. It’s interesting. It’s a fun connection. It makes enough sense, and it doesn’t contradict anything presented in the respective movies. So, what’s the problem?

There are an embarrassingly large number of fan theories floating around the Internet, and the emphasis here should be on the word “embarrassingly.”

It’s embarrassing to have a large number of discussions about movies? I thought fan theories were destroying film discourse, not strengthening it? Oh, Josh, let’s just cut to the chase, friend. 

What these ideas amount to are fan fiction, not fan theories.

Wait, but what are “these ideas” you refer to? I didn’t leave a sentence out. You’re saying that fan theories are fan fiction, but they’re not fan theories. What?

Also, fan fiction isn’t as broad a term as you’re alluding. Unless someone is actually writing a fiction, it’s not fan fiction. And even if it is, some fan fiction can be pretty good (don’t see above), and a lot of people read and love it. In a way, the celebrated Star Wars novels are a form of fan fiction cleverly called “expanded universe.” Why is that acceptable, but an interpretation of a movie you just saw isn’t?

I have a feeling he’s not going to answer the question and instead bring something else up.

Few, if any, of these theories ever get a direct response;

They’re not supposed to get a direct response. That’s not the point. Fan theories, in a broad sense, are an experiment by moviegoers to let themselves interpret movies they love in new and different ways. They don’t have to be “true.” 

That’s like saying your interpretation of 2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t worth your time because Kubrick hasn’t directly responded to it from the grave.

..the closest in recent memory is Pixar director Lee Unkrich playfully retweeting a comment or two from followers of his who treat the so-called Pixar Theory as utter silliness.

Well first of all, it’s not “so-called.” It’s just called.

Also, why not just link to the Tweet itself?? Again, Spiegel links to the blog post about the Tweet. I’m feeling an Inception fan theory coming on here…is…is Josh Spiegel Dom Cobb? Makes sense.

Oh, and you’re linking to the wrong Pixar Theory. That’s the website inspired by it, not the original post. I’m guessing Spiegel doesn’t care.

[UPDATE: Movie Mezzanine graciously fixed this error and sent the link to the correct spot. Credit where credit is due.]

But fan theories are becoming as prevalent to modern film culture as stories about casting rumors or reviews, and they are becoming truly toxic.

Toxic, eh? That’s strong language. I mean it implies that fan theories themselves are harmful. Probably to film discourse! Let’s read why. 

It’s easy to imagine the counterargument from those in favor of fan theories: What’s the harm?

Right. That’s a big one. 

The Dark Knight doesn’t become better or worse because of a Reddit user’s theory about the Joker, as silly as that theory might sound.

Nods.

The Toy Story films are still marvelous whether or not Andy’s mom is Jessie’s old owner.

True that. 

Jurassic World is still a resounding disappointment,

Wait, what? A resounding disappointment? That’s heavy hyperbole, especially considering the adjective is implying that we’re still feeling it as a disappointment months later. 

Never mind that Jurassic World is one of the top-grossing films of all time, or that it managed to score good reviews when most people were expecting another terrible Jurassic Park sequel. 

I get why you may not have liked it, Spiegel, but that doesn’t make it an ongoing disappointment to everyone else.

The problem is that these theories, online, become as inextricable to a vast amount of readers as the actual movies themselves.

He just asserts this. No evidence. No examples. Not even a bloody anecdote. Spiegel, in all his wisdom, just declares that fan theories are confusing people because there’s a lot of them. Does he not think we’re smart enough to read fan theories? And then he says the movies should be confusing us. What? What’s confusing? 

This argument makes no sense to me because it implies that people care more about fan theories than the movie themselves, but liking the movie is the actual prerequisite to even wanting to read a fan theory.

So what’s the problem? People aren’t overthinking movies the right way? Is that where this is going?

Worse still, these fan theories are quickly replacing actual critical analysis,

Last I checked, people still critique movies. Like a lot of them. All the time. Do you have, maybe, any evidence that there are fewer articles that analyze movies the way you want them to be analyzed?

covered by a large amount of entertainment websites in part because the content beast must be fed,

Exactly! Like how celebrity gossip ruined film discourse because the magazine content beast had to be fed. Should we hate that, too?

and in part because it takes the work out of the hands of the sites’ writers and into the hands of random commenters who have too much time on their hands.

Look, I’m all for giving writers more work to do. Like sourcing the actual comments instead of just linking to the blog post about them. (But I guess he’s doing that to strengthen his point.) 

And we don’t totally disagree on this. Some fan theories are pretty bad, and it’s annoying when a website will feature them just to get clicks. So why are you attacking all fan theories? Some of them are fantastic, and yes, worth talking about.

They’re not from “random commenters” as you so condescendingly refer to them as. They’re human beings who love movies just as much as you and I do.

I don’t care what you think about them, Spiegel. Loving movies is the only qualifier you need to join the discussion, EVEN if you have free time (gasp).

So what’s the difference between a fan theory and a deep-dive exploration into one aspect of a film?

Hmmm…How many flattering adjectives you’re willing to assign to them? 

The former is the product of a person choosing to fantasize about what they would do if they had made the film they’re watching,

No, that’s not it at all. Last I checked, not everyone wants to be a director. Maybe I’ll check again. Checks. Nope. 

and the latter is the product of a person paying attention to the movie they’re watching and responding in kind.

Wow. Just…wow. Spiegel isn’t using words like “some” or “generally.” He’s definitively saying that people who write fan theories aren’t paying attention to the movie. 

Because it’s not like I write both fan theories and elaborate critiques about how The Incredibles demonstrates the subtle benefits of inequality, how Inception brilliantly built its story around filmmaking, or how the humans of WALL-E represent the best in society contrasted with their horrible surroundings you’re only perceiving as “bad” because of clever story tricks. 

I couldn’t have written any of those things because I wasn’t “paying attention.” I was too busy also writing fan theories, and those are bad.

Often, the fan theories that send the Internet—specifically its social-media avenues—into a tizzy rely heavily on the fact that they aren’t based directly on what’s present in the text.

True. Most of these theories end up being rubbish, or not completely thought through. 

Take, for example, the notion that Owen Grady in Jurassic World is the kid in the opening of Jurassic Park. That certainly sounds cool, and would be a nice, if random, tie-in to the 1993 film. But what’s the evidence backing this theory? Well, see, the kid in Jurassic Park is only credited as “Volunteer Boy.” So his name could be Owen! Also, Chris Pratt is only a year older than the actor who played Volunteer Boy, so the timeline could fit! Also…um…hey, look, something shiny!

Seriously, Josh? Why so mean-spirited in that last line? We get it. You think fan theories are childish. You don’t have to be a tool about it.

Also, the evidence for this Jurassic World theory comes from the fact that you can reasonably see the people who made the film creating a character who embodies this moment from the first film. It actually informs the story as a whole.

That said, and I can’t stress this enough, this theory doesn’t have to be true. But it is a fun thought experiment that you can speculate about because it does happen to fit with the source material so nicely.

The majority of the work to make this theory seem remotely logical is done behind the scenes, as someone imagines what could have happened to this kid after Alan Grant scratched at his stomach with a raptor claw.

Yeah, who needs imagination? Certainly not people who watch what is essentially an illusion on a big screen.

See, much of what we take from a movie has to come from thinking external of what’s being presented. This is because the audience makes an emotional connection with what’s happening, but not every director can spoon feed you the context. That would alienate the audience.

We have to fill in those blanks ourselves most of the time, which leads to…you guessed it…film discourse.

This same vagueness plagues the majority of fan theories. Yes, it’s not impossible that, in the Toy Story films, Andy’s mom could have a deeper connection to one of his toys than he or even she realizes. So many existing fan theories rely on the first four words of the previous sentence: “Yes, it’s not impossible.” The lack of impossibility, however, doesn’t automatically prove a theory correct; it merely suggests that it’s not impossible for something to be true.

Again, these theories don’t have to be true. That’s not why most people come up with them. It’s about interpreting small clues in new ways that get you to think about the film. When someone reads this theory for the first time, they’re often pushed into rewatching the movie, and (guess what!) paying attention to it. 

Fan theories are no substitute for critical analysis, yet they have quickly become inseparable for so many readers online.

This is Josh’s main argument, and I get why he’s so concerned. Because it’s true that fan theories are not a substitute. But that’s a complete misunderstanding of their role. They’re not meant to be a substitute, either. They never were. 

Instead, fan theories in their nature are meant to be a form of interpretation through imagination and passion for the subject material. They’re meant to answer questions that don’t have to be answered, but create conversations between the people who answer these questions in different ways.

Analogy time!

Fan theories are like movies. There are good movies, and there are bad movies. That doesn’t mean we should get rid of all movies because some are bad. And bad movies certainly don’t replace other art forms that approach entertainment in a different way. I can read a fan theory and a deep analysis by A.A. Dowd. And I can enjoy both of them.

On the other, fan theories pose as critical analysis in spite of featuring neither criticism—often, these are posed by people who would proudly consider themselves fanboys or fangirls, never pausing to think about the built-in imperfections of even their favorite films—nor analysis.

Translation: Josh thinks you like movies too much. Go figure. 

Right, because in his world, people who overthink movies don’t criticize them. That is an actual opinion held by a film critic.

Popular films like Jurassic World or The Dark Knight or Toy Story beg to be debated for their themes.

And nothing else! Only themes! 

Hey, wouldn’t that mean that critical analysis of themes is destroying film discourse? What if someone wants to debate the characters in the movie, or how some of the movies share nods to each other?

Nope! To save film discourse, we must prevent it from happening the way we want it to. Shrug!

As ubiquitous as they may be, the discourse surrounding these films frequently sidesteps a conversation on nostalgia, on childhood heroes, on the possible emptiness of vast spectacle.

This sentence exists in a world where The Nostalgia Critic is one of the most widely viewed critics in new media. 

Fan theories now drive the discourse on these films, and to everyone’s detriment.

No, they just exist. That’s all they do. Yes, some are more popular than others, but how is that in any way proof that they’re replacing anything? 

I browse the Top and Trending URLs almost every single day. You know which articles about movies I see the most being shared? Not fan theories. Those make up a small percentage, because the reality is that a good fan theory is hard to discover, while pointing out what you think about a movie is pretty easy, and a lot of people are pretty interested in critical analysis.

You know what the top trending links were for the day I wrote this (September 2, 2015)? The top link was an image of Bryan Cranston as LBJ in the upcoming movie, All the Way.

The second most shared link about movies (including via social media) was a longform piece by Italo Calvino about movies that influenced his youth, adapted from a published autobiography.

There was another piece about actors who’s built successful careers after The Twilight Zone.

Even Gawker published something interesting about how Bruce Willis was unaware that China has a huge film market even though he’s in a movie made in China. OK, I thought it was interesting.

So that’s everything movie-related from the top 100 links. Yet I don’t see a single “fan theory” shoving its way past articles that are, in Spiegel’s eyes, more deserving.

For some odd reason, Spiegel feels threatened because a good article he probably wrote isn’t as famous as a theory about the Joker from The Dark Knight. And I guess I sympathize. That sounds weird, and I’ve been there.

Does that mean fan theories are inherently bad, though? Absolutely not. You could only argue that they’re toxic if you actually have an argument that points out how they prevent people from deep analysis.

But instead of doing that, Spiegel has chosen to create a false dichotomy between analysis and analysis fueled by imagination. By doing this, he tries to makes you feel dumb for liking fan theories instead of something he likes.

That’s not an argument. That’s a childish guilt trip.

On their own, fan theories are, indeed, harmless; if they existed next to critical discussions, and did so in lesser standing, they would be a fun distraction.

“Fan theories wouldn’t be so bad if people liked my articles better.” 

But the more fan theories are treated as serious, thoughtful salvos in a debate, the more ridiculous they appear to become.

To you. 

Here’s a new fan theory to ponder: making these things die a quick death will improve the world of film immeasurably. What more proof do you need?

All of the proof you failed to deliver thousands of words ago. 

And I’m puzzled by the raising of the stakes toward the end. Now we have to make fan theories die a quick death? What’s going on, Josh? Did a fan theory steal your girlfriend or something?

Seriously, he went from talking about how fan theories are harmless to calling for their immediate death. This sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me, rather than letting people who love movies make up their minds on how they want to approach the entertainment they like.

In other words, not everyone thinks like a film critic. And that’s OK.

This entire article is a classic case of subjectivity rearing its opinionated head. The truth of it is that Josh Spiegel is an intelligent film critic. I actually like his work a lot and enjoyed his review of Inside Out, among others. We don’t always agree, of course, but he’s good at adding great points to any given discussion.

But this idea that fan theories are making everything worse is a true moment of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

The quick of it is that Josh doesn’t like fan theories. So he doesn’t like that you like fan theories. Then he accuses you of not liking the type of analysis that he likes (even though you probably do). Then he calls for the death of said thing that you love.

No thanks.

[UPDATE] The original author of the “Joker” theory (who goes by the username, generalzee) responded to Spiegel’s post via the comments, and I thought it would be good to share it here as well. Source.

As the person who wrote the Joker Fan Theory in question, I can’t believe how wrong and insecure this article sounds.

First of all, I never intended for my fan theory to be a critical analysis of The Dark Knight. Nowhere in my theory do I talk about the framing of shots (which I could have), or the acting (which could have been a major point in such a theory), or even the uber-dark mise-en-scene, which may have fully supported my theory, and highlighted how, thematically, all three main characters were living in the dark. Instead, I made an arguably compelling argument that the film could be interpreted another way.

What I find worse than that, though, is the fact that you claim that I ignored facts that are DIRECTLY MENTIONED in my theory. I explained both the boats and Dent’s scarring (Both physical and emotional) directly in the original piece. Of course, I wouldn’t expect a modern blogger to actually check his sources, and I’m sure you just read the Mashable version at some point, but it annoys me that you would make such an attack on fan theories WITHOUT EVEN READING THE ONE YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.

So please let me be clear that this response IS intended to be a critical discourse on your work. What I see is a self-proclaimed critic who is horrified by his perceived loss of power to a basically unrelated group of people investigating films in a way that he, himself, has arbitrarily deemed below himself. This is reflected in his weak, but clear call to action to end Fan Theories as if they are going to harm legitimate film criticism. The panic he feels reflects strongly in his hastily researched (Really, how long did it take you to read the titles of the top 5 Fan Theories on Reddit?), and poorly thought-out criticism of a culture that he would attempt to appropriate into his own, only to discard it immediately.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

You’ve probably seen a teaser or two for Illumination Entertainment’s upcoming franchise starter, The Secret Life of Pets. The movie is essentially about what dogs, cats, and other pets are up to when their owners aren’t around.

Sound familiar?

Look, I didn’t dare make this comparison last summer when the first teaser released. That version of the movie was intriguing, as it featured a variety of animals getting caught up in humorous situations in different environments somewhat connected by an apartment building.

Then the trailer dropped, revealing the actual plot of Pets. And to be honest, it doesn’t look nearly as interesting thanks to its incessant borrowing from Pixar’s first feature film, Toy Story.

What do pets do when their owners aren’t around? This is a generic premise that movies have been using for decades, not just Toy Story. That said, a handful of movies have already tackled the pets aspect of that story (the live-action Cats vs. Dogs immediately comes to mind), but I’m not opposed to a different studio trying something new with the concept. After all, Toy Story can easily be compared to The Brave Little Toaster, and who hasn’t compared The Walking Dead to Toy Story?

But then…well, here’s the trailer:

Like Toy Story, we have a pre-established society where pets call the shots. On top of that, we have a main character named Max who is used to getting all of the attention from his owner, exactly like Woody and Andy’s relationship in Toy Story.

The inciting incident appears to be the adoption of a new pet who steals the attention away from the favorite, who is Max in this case. Then the two of them get “lost” and have to find their way home, resolving their differences along the way. I won’t be surprised if getting neutered will be spun as the new “YOU ARE A TOY!” line.

The plot also borrows a key structure from Toy Story 2, in that the remaining pets go on a mission to the city in order to find their lost friend. Gidget’s speech sounds remarkably reminiscent of Buzz’s rallying of the toys to find Woody.

Sure, there are some inventive gags in this trailer, including the poodle’s System of a Down obsession. But then you have the tired jokes where dogs get easily distracted by animals, circa Dug in Up.

And I haven’t even mentioned the visual similarities. Take Max for example. His colors are nearly identical to Woody, from the brown and white to the black, red, and gold.

The design of the “new” dog and Buzz Lightyear are different, but the scope is still there. This new dog is a lot bigger than Max, which is a visual representation of how Max feels around him. The same emotion was captured by Buzz’s space-cool features.

And these aren’t the only characters who are weirdly similar. Gidget, a side character who seems to be the close friend/love interest, shares a similar voice and style as Bo Peep.

In fact, all of the side characters have a reasonable counterpart when it comes to tone and basic visuals.

And that’s still not the end of it. Not only does the plot share a lot of basic similarities, even some of the scenes are ripped straight out of Toy Story:

There’s the bunny, Snowball, who is voiced by Kevin Hart. And from what I can tell, he feels like a fresh(er) character inspired from the Penguins of Madagascar. But his character arc looks a lot like Sid’s in Toy Story. He frees Max and Duke from a cage, then tells them that they belong to him. He’s also maniacal and appears to be sadistic.

Actually, the bunny could more easily be compared to Lotso from Toy Story 3. Both characters are cute on the outside, yet are slowly revealed to be monstrous villains. They both bail out the main characters when they’re in trouble (Lotso provides a new way of life for the toys, and Snowball rescues Max and Duke from Animal Control), only to thrust the heroes into an even worse scenario.

Of course, thoughtful borrowing can lead to great movies. That said, when your work is this derivative in so many ways, it calls the quality of the entire film into question.

I have no doubt that Pets will have some clever jokes and memorable characters. Despite my public disdain for the Despicable Me franchise, I have high hopes for directors Chris Renaud and Yarrow Cheney, who are returning to cement Illumination Entertainment as one of the top animation companies (Eh, who am I kidding? Minions is a billion dollar franchise. They’re already at that point).

But while the movie will cater to the same people who still think the Minions are adorable, I am losing hope in Illumination’s ability to deliver a remarkable story, or anything that will last the test of time for a reason beyond genius marketing ploys.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Turns out that tip I reported was correct after all.

Allanah Faherty confirmed the rumor yesterday on Movie Pilot:

Pixar President, Jim Morris has revealed that after the release of the last sequel on the current slate, The Incredibles 2 in June 2019, the studio will release four original films.

“Everything after Toy Story and The Incredibles is an original right now,” he said. At the moment there are two untitled original films scheduled to be released in March and June 2020, and a further two are in early development, and look “highly likely” to join the studio’s schedule soon.

This is interesting news for a few big reasons. The most obvious one is that this addresses the “sequel-fatigue” many of us have been experiencing with the studio since Cars 2, as well as the doubts people have been having about Pixar’s quality in comparison to Walt Disney Animation Studios’ recent wave of huge success.

But the other big reason we should consider is how this will reflect on Pixar’s massive hit, Finding Dory, which is of course a sequel. The film has been a box office juggernaut in the U.S. (it will soon dethrone Captain America: Civil War as the biggest domestic hit of 2016), and the movie has also enjoyed steadily positive praise from critics.

In other words, this news implies what a lot of us have always suspected about Pixar as a business. Their decisions on which movies to release are not solely driven by short-term numbers and cash grabs. It seems they’re more interested in telling the stories they want to tell.

Note: the top image is a reference to Pixar’s next original film, Coco, which will release next year.

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read

Did Pixar lose its way, or did we lose our way with Pixar? There’s no real answer to the latter part of that question because it makes no sense. But the article we’re snarcasming this week actually does make a lot of sense and deserves to be approached thoughtfully. Even though it’s basically wrong for the most part.

Writing for The Atlantic, Christopher Orr titles his piece “How Pixar Lost Its Way,” because at this point, Orr is confident there’s no other conclusion to reach.

For 15 years, the animation studio was the best on the planet.

Studio Ghibli would like a word.

Then Disney bought it. 

And the Fire Nation attacked.

Orr begins his piece with a line from Ed Catmull, Pixar’s own president who at one point claimed that sequels can represent “creative bankruptcy.”

He was discussing Pixar, the legendary animation studio, and its avowed distaste for cheap spin-offs.

Good thing Pixar doesn’t make cheap spin-offs!

Hold on, we’ll get to Cars 2.

More pointedly, he argued that if Pixar were only to make sequels, it would “wither and die.”

Good thing Pixar doesn’t only make sequels!

Yet here comes Cars 3, rolling into a theater near you this month.

Ah yes, it wouldn’t be a hot take on Pixar without car-related puns.

You may recall that the original Cars, released back in 2006, was widely judged to be the studio’s worst film to date.

“Worst,” however, is a misleading phrase. It wasn’t the strongest of the Pixar films, but most critics believed the film was good mainly on the strengths of its production value and a decent story. The problem was that Cars was the first Pixar movie made mostly for children. Cars 2 was made for merchandising to said children and was the studio’s first flop, coincidentally.

if Cars 3 isn’t disheartening enough, two of the three Pixar films in line after it are also sequels: The Incredibles 2 and (say it isn’t so!) Toy Story 4.

Of course, Pixar has made great sequels as well, including two for that last movie you mention. And they just made Finding Dory, which audiences loved—

The golden era of Pixar is over.

Yeah, ok, here we go.

It was a 15-year run of unmatched commercial and creative excellence,

Filled with sequels and large gaps in between movies.

Since then, other animation studios have made consistently better films.

This is somewhat true, but not necessarily fair. The only studio that’s been making those better films is Disney, which has been creatively led by Pixar’s John Lasseter since the studio’s purchase. Orr also mentions two Laika films, but one came out the same year as Up and the other came out the same year as Finding Dory.

To Orr’s point, Disney has made Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, Moana, and Zootopia, all of which are widely regarded as better than Brave, Cars 2, Monsters University (arguably), The Good Dinosaur (arguably), and Finding Dory. But Pixar has also made Inside Out, which most critics consider the superior film out of every single one of those Disney and Laika films.

Now, I get Orr’s point. That’s just one Pixar movie while Disney has had an aggressive output of great films that have managed to catch up to Pixar’s level of quality. If that were Orr’s only argument here, it would be a noteworthy one, but the jump to concluding that this means Pixar has lost its way ignores plenty of other important information, including Pixar’s excellent short animated films, which are consistently better than Disney’s, and the fact that they’ve still made good movies in the last seven years.

One need only look at this year’s Oscars: Two Disney movies, Zootopia and Moana, were nominated for Best Animated Feature, and Zootopia won. Pixar’s Finding Dory was shut out altogether.

First of all, Pixar won an Oscar just a year ago. Second, Finding Dory isn’t any less of a good film simply because it didn’t win a certain award. It just wasn’t as original and compelling as Zootopia and Moana, which is fine, and the Academy has a persistent stigma against sequels, anyway. Orr’s standard of Pixar being on the right path is too restricting, apparently arguing that movies are best when they manage to best other movies, ignoring, for example, Kubo and the Two Strings, which numerous critics argue was better than both Zootopia and Moana. Even if they’re right, all three movies are pretty good.

Simply put, a film being great doesn’t make another film any less great. This is only relevant if the value you hold in a movie is tied into how it compares with the reception of its competition.

Orr goes on, however, to expand on his own standard for what makes Pixar great, citing its technical achievements (which none of the sequels have erred on) and how it has provided great cinema for kids and adults (which hasn’t changed at all since Toy Story 3).

Even as others gradually caught up with Pixar’s visual artistry, the studio continued to tell stories of unparalleled depth and sophistication.

Some Pixar movies, however, weren’t so brilliantly received by critics at the time they came out. Films like Ratatouille and Wall-E, for example, were criticized plenty for trifles that no one even considers now. Monsters Inc. wasn’t exactly critic-proof either (it didn’t even win an Oscar?!), and that goes even more for A Bug’s Life.

Two films that unquestionably cemented Pixar’s eventual reputation beyond Toy Story were The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. Several other Pixar movies have managed to match them, in my opinion, but only Inside Out has truly reached the standard Orr sets here, which isn’t one that has been consistently met by Pixar with every film they’ve put out. Good Dinosaur is a good example, in that it’s a film directly trying to be far more bizarre and experimental than what’s worked for Pixar in the past.

Orr goes on to talk about Pixar’s achievement with crossover storytelling, raising some great points about how and why their movies are so consistently well-received.

And then, after Toy Story 3, the Pixar magic began to fade.

Here we go.

The sequels that followed—Cars 2 (a spy spoof) in 2011 and Monsters University (a college farce) in 2013—lacked any thematic or emotional connection to the movies that spawned them.

I truly take issue with Orr essentially lumping these two movies together, because Monsters University in no way lacks thematic connection to Monsters Inc. If anything, it adds flourish to the Mike Wazowski character and tells a poignant story about how we deal with our limitations. It’s far from merely being a “college farce.”

Though better than either of those two, Brave, Pixar’s 2012 foray into princessdom, was a disappointment as well.

I’m not sure which movie is better—Monsters University or Brave. Orr isn’t wrong in saying that Brave was a bit of a disappointment, but it’s about as serviceable as Cars and hey! It won an Oscar.

The studio rallied with Inside Out in 2015.

If by rallied, you mean they put out one of their best films in 20 years, sure. They “rallied.”

But the inferior The Good Dinosaur (also in 2015) and last year’s mediocre Finding Dory only confirmed the overall decline,

Here’s where Orr and I differ the most. To him, Pixar has lost its way because it’s made a few movies that aren’t as good as its very best ones. For me, Pixar has been unable to top themselves year after year, same as Disney wasn’t able to do in the 90s, well before that, and in the near future. But in reality, they never really did that in the first place.

Is Pixar experiencing an overall decline? Sure, no one really disputes that. But does an overall decline mean that the studio has lost its way? Not necessarily. It might just mean we’re witnessing a studio in transition, swinging for the fences with some movies and biding time with sequels as they prepare for a new era that may be entirely different.

Even Orr points out that at the time of the merger, Pixar was already facing huge problems as a studio. And these are the shifts that have led to the Pixar we know today, which has produced occasional masterpieces like Inside Out and artful experiments like The Good Dinosaur. Orr doesn’t even mention Coco, which comes out later this year, but laments Toy Story 4 and Incredibles 2, the latter of which is a sequel to one of Pixar’s best films ever and could very well be the first Pixar sequel since Toy Story 3 to actually be better than the original.

The Disney merger seems to have brought with it new imperatives. Pixar has always been very good at making money, but historically it did so largely on its own terms.

I agree. Merging with Disney is a big reason for the sequels, but that’s likely because Pixar knew they couldn’t survive much longer without them. Pixar movies take years to make, and their standards are too high to make new worlds from scratch at a quick enough speed to pay the bills. Sequels take much less time and can make even more money when done correctly. That’s not an excuse, of course, but it is indicative of what could happen next.

Merger or no, there’s plenty reason to believe Pixar would have kept making sequels anyway in order to support their simultaneous need for great original films to also fill the pipeline. That’s not Pixar losing its way. It’s Pixar changing course in a more sustainable direction, consolidating their talent and taking steps toward a future where they may not have to rely on sequels so badly. And this has led to some good results over the years, along with some unfortunate branding ones, admittedly.

Then Orr makes his worst argument.

There are a dozen Disney theme parks scattered across the globe in need of, well, themes for their rides.

Don’t do it, Orr. Please. Think of the children.

the overlap between the Pixar movies that beget sequels and the movies that inspire rides at Disney amusement parks is all but total.

Seriously? You’re trying to argue that Pixar is basing its creative decisions around theme-parks?

Theme-park rides are premised on an awareness of the theme in question, and young parkgoers are less likely to be familiar with movies that are more than a decade old.

That explains why Disneyland is filled with movie themes from over 50 years ago.

This idea that kids are going to forget what Toy Story is without a Toy Story 4 is almost enough for me to dismiss all of Orr’s previous arguments out of spite. I won’t because clearly he’s not entirely wrong about a lot of this, but…really? Theme-park rides?

Look, there’s a point to be made about how sequels can be properly timed with theme-park attractions in order to maximize exposure. But to suggest that a legendary storyteller like Lasseter is guiding one of the best animated studios of all time (with Catmull’s approval) around what will look good on a brochure is nothing more than a brainless conspiracy theory. They’re not making Toy Story 4 because of a theme-park ride. At best, and if we take Pixar at their word, they’re making it because they truly believe in the story and it would be easier and more profitable than a new IP.

Pixar has promised that after the upcoming glut of sequels, the studio will focus on original features.

And honestly, I believe them. Pixar has built up decades of credibility with its fans, but Orr would dismiss all of it because the studio has only put out one masterpiece in seven years, assuming Coco isn’t as good as it looks, while other studios like Disney haven’t really made any masterpieces of their own in the same amount of time.

I’m not sure I dare to expect much more of what used to make Pixar Pixar: the idiosyncratic stories, the deep emotional resonance, the subtle themes that don’t easily translate into amusement-park rides.

Seriously, it’s been two years since Inside Out. Two. And the people who made it still work at Pixar, and for the last time, they’re still making good films. What makes Pixar Pixar hasn’t changed, just the frequency of its best material, and impatience (while understandable) is a poor excuse for trying to accuse an animation studio of being enslaved to theme-park rides.

Orr finishes by rounding off examples of what he loves in Ratatouille, Wall-E, and Up, finally stating:

Would Pixar even bother making those pictures anymore?

So the implication is that because these movies supposedly wouldn’t translate well to a theme-park ride (though they actually would, considering the Axiom is begging to be in Tomorrowland and Ratatouille has its own part in Disneyland Paris, which Orr even admits), he questions Pixar’s willingness to make great movies. You know, despite the fact that Coco comes out in November and virtually nothing about Pixar tells us that they’re disinterested in making great movies.

As I’ve pointed out numerous times here, Orr makes a lot of accurate observations, and I don’t blame anyone for believing Pixar really has lost their way. But it really depends on what you look to Pixar for. Even their worst films still contain a level of quality that far surpass the worst of the Disney movies and DreamWorks movies for that matter. It’s definitely true that they’re not putting out a slew of original breakthroughs almost every year like they once did, and yes, that is a shame.

But we also can’t discount that their competitors really have caught up to them in a lot of ways. And there are a ton of learning curves to managing a bigger studio that is no longer as unique and creatively compact as it once was. From what I can tell, Pixar has embraced this decade with a new caution, desperate to preserve its best material by investing in more conventional ways of making money. I’m not saying this is necessarily the best choice they could’ve made, and I don’t agree with all of their decisions since Toy Story 3. But all of this does mean that Pixar can still make the masterpieces we want to see from them.

In other words, I very much doubt a movie like Inside Out, heralded as one of the greatest animated movies of all time, would have been able to come out if it weren’t for Cars 2 and Monsters University. These are movies that came out instead of failed concepts like Newt, and Pixar would have been in a tailspin if not for the box office they made off of Toy Story 3. You don’t have to like it, and hopefully this isn’t a new norm for Pixar, but it is the reality of a studio that has reached maturing age. It’s a different time for Pixar, but not necessarily a bad one.

Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my mailing list.

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

From Toy Story to Finding Dory, which Pixar movies found the most financial success with audiences? 

A few years ago, I did a ranking just like this in the year leading up to Inside Out. It was simple: I took the worldwide box office returns for each Pixar movie and adjusted for inflation, though I measured the numbers according current rates of inflation (2014 at the time). A faulty metric, now that I take a second look.

Honestly, it’s hard to rank these movies on the same playing field, because so many circumstances determined their profits. 3D ticket sales and a widening international market make it harder to define which Pixar movies were more “successful” than others based on their own terms and fair context.

So this time, I’m only looking at two factors: domestic box office and a rate of inflation with 1995, the year that Toy Story came out. So all of the numbers you’re about to see bolded are NOT the actual numbers you’ll find online, but rather they’ve been modified to match what they were worth 22 years ago. For obvious reasons, I’ve left out Cars 3 for now (though you can watch my video review now to find out what I think).

Let’s start at the bottom of the list this time with…

#17 The Good Dinosaur – $77 million

Wow. Going into this list, I expected The Good Dinosaur to at least be in the same zone as the other Pixar movies, but adjusted for inflation, this 2015 movie made only a little more than half of the next film on this list. Worse, there are seven Pixar movies total that made more box office domestically than Good Dinosaur did internationally, only eking out $208 million overall.

#16 Cars 2 – $130 million

Even internationally, Cars 2 wasn’t very impressive at all, earning only about $382 million overall in 2011, which is still in the bottom tier of this list. But thanks to 3D and merchandising, Pixar got their money’s worth with this unfortunate sequel, often hailed the worst of the Pixar films. We’ll see soon how Cars 3 does in response.

#15 A Bug’s Life – $150.3 million

In my 2014 list, A Bug’s Life was actually at the bottom of this ranking, which leads me to believe this new system is a fairer way to evaluate these numbers (Cars 2 was actually a lot farther up, for example).  Releasing in 1998, A Bug’s Life wasn’t much of an international hit with $335.4 million overall, but it’s telling that the next closest film is Good Dinosaur with $120 million less than that so many years later and in more markets.

#14 Ratatouille – $151.7 million

It may not be underrated, but I think we can safely say that Ratatouille was vastly under-watched in its time, just barely making more than A Bug’s Life did almost a decade earlier. That said, its international run was vastly more impressive with a full $456.3 million, which is why it was #7 on my 2014 list. And most would agree that it’s the best film in the bottom tier of this list.

#13 Brave – $156.3 million

Though it’s one of the lowest performers internationally with $356 million overall, Brave was clearly neck and neck with these other films in the bottom tier based on its domestic run. Was it the Disney princess tradition in America that brought audiences out? Was it the fantasy premise? Personally, I credit more to the fact that audiences were unprepared for a new half-decade ushered in by Cars 2.

#12 WALL-E – $160 million

Unfortunately, WALL-E fares slightly worse here than it did in my 2014 list, though not by much. Its worldwide return of $381 million would bump it up the rankings a little bit more, but the message is clear. While it wasn’t a huge commercial success, it’s still one of Pixar’s most beloved films, especially during the years when all was thought lost after Disney bought Pixar.

#11 Monsters University – $173.2 million

This is one of the starkest differences between this list and the 2014 one, because Monsters University was such a hit internationally ($480.2 million total), it managed to crack the Top 5. Here, it doesn’t make the top 10, though it does sit somewhat comfortably between #10 and #12. Releasing in 2013, Monsters University didn’t exactly take the world by storm, but it was an enjoyable, occasionally poignant college film that held its own and then some.

#10 Cars – $185 million

Scratch that, Cars might just be the biggest change on this list, helped significantly by the strange fact that its domestic run in 2006 was far better than its international run ($350.8 million total) compared to the rest of the Pixar films. It’s almost exactly switched with Cars 2 in the 2014 list, though it’s at least consistent in the sense that it clearly didn’t resonate with international audiences, while delivering something satisfying for Americans, though that may have more to do with the lack of Pixar movies in 2005 following a legendary run from Toy Story 2 to The Incredibles.

#9 Toy Story – $191.8 million

Another big change is Toy Story’s place on this list, moving from near the bottom to the bottom of the middle tier. Not bad, especially considering only a modest worldwide take of $373.5 million. Plenty of credit should be given to Pixar’s first film, of course, for pioneering the art form and establishing the brand that other movies would benefit more from. That said, Toy Story did have the weight of the Disney Renaissance guiding its box office, and it shows.

#8 Up – $201.7 million

Internationally, Up was definitely a much bigger hit with $506 million overall, so it surprised me to see its domestic returns so low, though it should be noted that it outperformed the previous three Pixar films: Cars, Ratatouille, and WALL-E by a hefty margin. Up isn’t exactly the first Pixar movie you think of when you consider Pixar’s most successful movies, but I’d argue it is one of the first Pixar movies you think of, period.

#7 The Incredibles – $210.6 million

Both domestically and internationally, The Incredibles is only slightly higher than Up, and it suffers the same fate of being pushed down the list without the strength of that $510 million. Like Up, it was in the Top 5 before, but now it has to settle for the middle ground, despite being one of Pixar’s highest rated films (and arguably its best film, period).

#6 Inside Out – $223 million

I had higher hopes for Inside Out, suspecting a spot closer to #3 or at least the Top 5. Still, it was a juggernaut for Pixar in 2015 right when they needed it, and internationally, it does take the #4 spot with $536.7 million. Its success also leads me to believe that the disastrous response to The Good Dinosaur had as much to do with timing (it was also released in 2015 and shortly before Star Wars: The Force Awakens) than it did the quality of the film. Several Pixar films have been released in November, but it’s safe to say that the biggest earners have all been summer releases.

#5 Toy Story 2 – $223.5 million

The Top 5 kicks off with just a slight edge given to Toy Story 2 over Inside Out, though its international run is noticeably much lower with a middling $452.2 million overall. Still, that’s quite good for 1999, and we are dealing with Pixar’s first few films, shortly before the studio would go on to cement its reputation. Many also argue that this is either the best Toy Story film or the second best, so making the Top 5 sounds about right.

#4 Monsters Inc. – $249.5 million

In the 2014 list, Monsters Inc. barely got left out of the Top 5, so it’s clear this one was a bigger winner with American audiences, even for 2001. Its overall $497 million take was definitely impressive for 2001, same as Toy Story 2, but it’s also interesting to note how far away this one is from Monsters University domestically, despite the two films being neck and neck internationally.

#3 Toy Story 3 – $286.6 million

That’s right, Toy Story 3 has been unseated from the #2 spot internationally (which it still holds with $736.8 million). Toy Story 3 had a lot of legs with audiences here in the US, and its numbers signify just how far the international market grew from 1999 to 2010, especially in the aftermath of Avatar’s record-breaking run that same year thanks to the rise of 3D.

#2 Finding Dory – $304 million

No surprise here. Finding Dory obliterated the domestic box office last summer and did pretty well overseas, too, with $643 million overall. This definitely proves the staying power of the Finding Nemo franchise, which with two films has proven to be Pixar’s preeminent property, or at least neck and neck with Toy Story and Cars if counting merchandise.

#1 Finding Nemo – $313.8 million

At this point, I truly wonder what it will take for Pixar to top Finding Nemo. Will there ever be another original Pixar film that outdoes this one both domestically and internationally? To be fair, Finding Dory came darn close, and Toy Story 3 is within spitting distance of Nemo‘s $775 million (while not all that close at all, really, especially for a 2003 movie). Until that next lightning in a bottle comes, I think it’s safe to say this #1 spot is well guarded.

Closing Thoughts

Discounting international box office certainly puts the financial success of many of these movies in a dramatically different light. Films like Cars and Toy Story were obviously bigger hits in the US, and of course, the studios get a nicer cut of the profits from domestic returns than they do international. But in a filmmaking environment where more studios are counting on cumulative success internationally to become less reliant on those pesky domestic runs, I do wonder if Pixar will unlearn its lesson from Finding Dory. Only time will tell as we see Coco this November and Incredibles 2 in 2018.

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read. 

The Pixar Theory is old news, everyone. You know it. I know it. Lee Unkrich practically breathes it into the cease and desist letters he claims his lawyers send me. And then there’s Joshua Eyler, who graciously wants to speed the process of a new Pixar Theory along. So much to unpack here. Perhaps we should begin with a tweet?

My new post (with all due respect to @JonNegroni‘s original): “It’s Time for a New Pixar Theory”

First problem: I am due zero respect.

Is it clickbait when you know the person writing the post? Let’s say it’s not because Joshua is also an educator, so surely—

Negroni suggests that “every feature-length movie made by Pixar Animation Studios since 1995” takes place “within the same universe” and can be precisely placed chronologically into a connected timeline with Brave as both the first and the last movie in the sequence

Well, now it’s The Good Dinosaur because—

(it’s complicated–you’ll want to read the original). 

But it’s time…for a new one? You’re really asking readers to read a LOT.

You…you are a teacher.

Furthermore, in a later continuation of the theory, Negroni goes as far as to say that the films even comprise “a single, overarching narrative.”

Eyler links to a post I wrote about Finding Dory, but the whole “overarching narrative” thing has been a thing in the theory since the beginning. NEW!

The original post was immensely popular, and it led to further commentary, YouTube videos, a book, and something like celebrity status for its author. 

Still waiting for that celebrity status to kick in.

When I first read it, I thought the piece was really enjoyable, and it made me consider the films more carefully than I had before.

“Now it’s not enjoyable and now I don’t consider the films more carefully!”

Later, his ideas even inspired me to develop a course at Rice University on the Pixar films.

I mean, it beats making the students watch a video…

Jon himself was a guest speaker, via Skype, during my students’ presentations of their own Pixar theories, and he was very gracious in his comments.

Fortunately, my egotistical celebrity status hadn’t kicked in yet.

I do remember this talk, which happened about two years ago or so. I don’t know if I was “gracious,” but I remember answering a lot of questions and diving into the students’ research into the movies. I won’t say the experience was normal, because I’m not a liar, but it was…gracious?

To be clear, he has also said in numerous venues that his intention is to provoke thought, not to give the final word on the meaning of the Pixar films.

Right…

You probably sense that there is a “but” coming.

Stop teasing us, Josh.

Jon’s Pixar theory is a lot of fun, *but* in the end I just don’t buy it.

Thank goodness.

As a reader, you have to stretch the limits of logic to their breaking point in order to accept that all Pixar films are pieces of one big story and that they somehow occupy the same universe at different points of time.

Not really? The shared universe premise is actually kind of easy to believe, mostly because of the easter eggs and cameos. My original theory is a bit illogical and limit-stretching, which is why I wrote a book that makes it all a bit more believable, but you don’t have to buy into all of that extra stuff in order for the theory to work—

In order for the theory to work, all of these statements also have to be true:

I sense a long list coming…

The writing teams, directors, producers, animators, and all of the other influential groups at Pixar had to develop this idea before they made their first feature film and then carried it through every other film they have ever made.

But the point of the theory isn’t to prove this was done on purpose. If anything, the “fun” lies in how open they leave the movies for differing interpretation.

That alone strikes me as next to impossible, but when you add to it the fact that some Pixar folks themselves have disavowed the one-narrative part of the theory and that the films were not immune to production shake-ups, then it becomes even more difficult to find evidence to support the Grand Master Plan behind the Pixar Theory.

And other Pixar folks have encouraged the one-narrative part of the theory, as many of them are glad fans are spending so much time appreciating their hard work, even if it isn’t necessarily true. These other Pixar folks you mention are probably and rightfully frustrated that they’re constantly asked about this theory by reporters, even though they’ve already made their case about it many times.

Easter Eggs like the Pizza Planet truck, which appears in many of the films, have to be more than just fun-to-spot allusions and homages to other Pixar movies.  The Pixar Theory invests the Easter Eggs with great symbolic weight–making them go beyond nifty, but surface-level, connections between films and instead forcing them to serve as the glue for the larger narrative that Jon pieces together.

Can you really “force” glue?

Look, I’m really starting to think that Josh here has no idea what the point of this theory is. He’s evaluating it as a thesis instead of a thought experiment, to the point where I now have to defend myself for…having fun with easter eggs? What is happening right now?

Finally, for this theory to work, the meanings of individual films cannot stand on their own but must also serve the all-encompassing story of the BnL company’s technological machinations and the effect of their efforts on the earth, animals, and humankind.

Why? Since when does the theory take away from the narratives of the individual movies…at all? It’s like saying The Avengers ruined Iron Man because Gwyneth Paltrow had a cameo or Thanos was in the background doing…something. All of real history is basically one narrative with a lot of differing stories and meanings that all contribute to it, and what I set out to do with the Pixar Theory itself was craft a connecting narrative that lives up to the spirit of the Pixar movies I love.

Promised myself I wouldn’t cry.

Oh, and the main narrative of the Pixar Theory isn’t just a cautionary tale about BnL and technological overreach. It’s also about how love transcends time and…and…great, now I’m crying.

As a teacher of literature, I’m always willing to admit that more than one meaning can exist at the same time,

So do that.

but the theory promotes the importance of the bigger narrative oftentimes at the expense of the beautiful, powerful, individual messages of the films themselves.

When? How? Many of the movies in the theory only get one paragraph, and it’s mostly just background explanation. Provide your sources, teach!

As a fan of Pixar movies, I think this is what gets under my skin the most.

No, I think you’re just annoyed that people like my crazy short story theory “too much.”

Jon often defends these inconsistencies by saying that we shouldn’t take the theory “too seriously.”

What inconsistencies? So far, you’ve only pointed out your irrelevant interpretations of a theory that asks you not to take this so seriously.

Also, I don’t believe I’ve ever “defended” the theory with excuses like that. I usually just defend the theory with my own arguments, while also saying at the outset that the point of the theory is to have fun, which none of us must be having right now in this Snarcasm piece. Except for Lee Unkrich of course.

I never look at my own work with the theory and try to argue that the flaws are forgivable because the theory shouldn’t be taken too seriously. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to fix the problems, make the theory better, and let it be something of intellectual substance (as much as one can do, obviously). Josh characterizes me as a snake oil salesman trying to huckster the townspeople by comparison.

We should just have fun, he says, and enjoy the fan theory. 

So do that. Or don’t. I don’t really care at this point.

This strikes me as a defensive move more than anything else,

Of course it does.

Even though I always say “have fun” at the beginning of my Pixar Theory articles and the original theory itself. But I never defend the theory by saying, “Don’t take it so seriously, BRO!”

particularly because of the number of words he has written expanding on the theory.

So…me saying “let’s have fun” is a “defensive move” because I’ve written “a lot of words.” How in any universe does that make sense, teach?

why shouldn’t we be able to analyze fan theories with the same kind of intellectual rigor that we apply to anything else that exists in popular culture?

Also, why is Joshua Eyler, a higher educator, using logical fallacies to accuse me of being anti-intellectual?

Seriously, I can’t stress enough that if you’ve spent at least ten seconds browsing my Pixar posts, I’ve done nothing but analyze and offer logical explanations for each of these theories while still trying to keep them fun and interesting. Assuming I do the opposite and undermine analytical thought is a Straw Man that’s really easy for me to disprove with the mere existence of Snarcasm itself, especially because so far, Josh hasn’t even raised one actual issue he has with the theory itself, just the fact that it exists.

if Jon believes what he says about not taking fan theories too seriously, why is he more than happy to pick competing theories apart so carefully in his nicely written, and pretty darn funny, Snarcasm posts?

WOW.

First of all, mentioning Snarcasm is an easy way to get a Snarcasm, so kudos Josh. You sly dog.

Second, Snarcasm is anything but taking fan theories too seriously. It’s literally a character, sort of like The Nostalgia Critic or Alex Jones or one of Johnny Depp’s hats.

Third, I don’t pick apart all competing theories or fan theories in general. Only the ones that are…well, dumb. Or clickbait. There are scores of Pixar theories and other pop culture theories that I regularly promote on this website and point to as great examples of what makes fan theories so fun and entertaining. Snarcasm is a way to impolitely point out the ones that are just…bad.

And I don’t think that’s the opposite of having fun. It’s fun to have standards with these theories and write about them online. It’s fun to put on a character and deconstruct terrible theories while later posting videos of ones that are better than any I’ve come up with myself. It’s not fun having to write this particular Snarcasm, granted, because I feel like I’m in high school again trying to argue why Young Goodman Brown is about losing your virginity.

I think it’s about time for a new Pixar Theory

When has it never been time? Theorize away, teach.

one that takes the individual films on their own terms and then works outward from there to find connections rather than going the other way around.

That’s…just…the Pixar Theory? Slightly changing the methodology doesn’t change the theory itself or make it smarter. It’s certainly not making anyone else smarter.

If we do this, we find that the films do not necessarily work together to form a cohesive narrative.

Whelp, then let’s pack it in, boys.

Instead, they operate as a collage pointing us toward an important theme.

If there was a Pixar equivalent of Jesus, I’d use his name in vain right now. Oh wait,

WALL-E help us.

Going further, I don’t really see them existing in the same physicaluniverse as much as I do a consistent philosophical universe.

Hold up, Josh. Some teacher told me there’s a HUGE problem with that because for that to work, the writing teams, directors, producers, animators, and all of the other influential groups at Pixar would have to have the exact same, uh, “philosophies” and oh, what about those darn production shakeups, Josh? WHAT ABOUT THEM?

Yes, the Pixar films are linked together all right, but they are connected by ideas

Translation: “It’s time for a new Pixar Theory. But not really. It’s just the old Pixar…statement.”

All of the films, in some way or another, work with the twin themes of loss and rebuilding, and by exploring the degree to which the movies wrestle with these ideas, we begin to see the contribution of the Pixar films as contemporary works of artistic importance.

Which breaks down immediately because then you have to argue that the very basic ideas of “stories” link Pixar movies to countless other films. All you’re doing is pointing out parallel details and…that’s it. That’s not a theory, that’s just you bragging at a party without being able to read the room.

You…you are my high school teacher.

For some of the films, the concepts of loss and rebuilding are simply drivers of the plot, whereas in others they are the springboard for more sophisticated reflections on our lives and what we value most.

“Also, the themes I point out are inconsistent! Foolproof! Please don’t take this too seriously.”

In what follows, I briefly go through each film to discuss how it explores these themes.

I hope to WALL-E I never have to sit down and actually read this entire thing, because it’s anything but brief. And in any other context, it would probably be a straightforward, even thought-provoking think piece on what Josh likes about Pixar movies. Instead, he’s presenting it as some sort of competing shared universe theory, despite it not being about a shared universe by his own definition.

So it’s almost like this is clickbait. Almost…completely like clickbait.

Josh starts with Toy Story.

The first film of the Pixar dynasty

Dynasty? No. Nope. I’m done. This is over. Let’s skip to the end.

In the end, I think Pixar has achieved something remarkable. 

Real hot take, there, Josh.

As a production company, it has created a body of films that, taken together, teach us about the power of loss to shape human experience and–at the same time–how we rebuild new lives, new futures, both for ourselves and for our society through perseverance, courage, and love.

See, here’s the problem Josh. I really think this “theme” you got going here really takes away from these standalone movies and their own themes about literally everything else Pixar movies have provided as original stories. And my teacher—you might know him—said to me recently that you can’t think about two things at the same time, so…

Now that’s a theory I can work with.

Go nuts. Or more nuts, I guess.

Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my mailing list.

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

The post Snarcasm: It’s Time For A New Pixar Theory, Sort Of appeared first on Jon Negroni.

From RadioTimes:

It’s been a long wait, but Toy Story 4 is getting close. Well, closer: Although we originally expected the toys back in town last year, changes in personnel – most significantly with the departure of writers Rashida Jones and Will McCormack – saw Pixar rework the animation, pushing it back to a June 2019 release.

Part of me has always suspected that the movie was delayed in order to stagger Pixar’s next few movies coming out through 2019. At the moment, Toy Story 4 is the last officially announced Pixar movie with a release date and title. The rest are still under wraps, including “Untitled Suburban Fantasy,” but Pixar has confirmed that their next wave of releases will be original stories, not sequels.

If you’re wondering why we have so little information about future Pixar releases, keep in mind that the studio has had issues with announced projects getting replicated (either intentionally or unintentionally) by other studios. This is why they canceled Newt, for example, because Rio was so similar to the story. And let’s not forget the waves of backlash concerning parallels between last year’s Coco and The Book of Life.

Back to Toy Story 4:

So, how much has the film’s script changed during this staggered production? A huge amount, according to Annie Potts, who will reprise her voice role as Bo Peep in the Disney film. “[Toy Story 4] was supposed to come out this year and then they threw out three-quarters of it and rewrote,” she told RadioTimes.com

There are two likely scenarios, here, based on what we’ve observed historically from Pixar releases. This could be another Toy Story 2, where almost the entire film was redone from scratch in record time. The same happened with the first Toy Story, as well as Ratatouille and The Good Dinosaur.

Another scenario is the Brave example, which somewhat mirrors Toy Story 4 in the way that both movies involve high-ranking women leaving the project partway through, and for apparently troubling reasons. For Brave, it was director Brenda Chapman, and as alluded above, it was Rashida Jones for Toy Story 4 as writer.

If there’s any cause for concern, it’s not that most of the script has been tossed, or “three quarters” as Annie Potts claims. Pixar is well known for being a perfectionist studio, constantly scrutinizing every detail and tossing out entire scenes that aren’t working.

No, the real cause of concern would rest in the creative shakeups and drama behind the scenes, notably concerning John Lasseter. There’s actually a precedent for issues like this with several Pixar films, including Brave and (for many) The Good Dinosaur.

In the case of Toy Story 4, Lasseter stepped down from directing the movie a while back and was replaced by Josh Cooley, a story lead on Inside Out. I’ve met Cooley before and have seen firsthand his mastery of story (seriously, this guy works a storyboard in ways that depress me as a budding storyteller). I have a lot of faith in his ability and am hoping for the best, but let’s not kid ourselves. This project is looking more and more perilous for Pixar. Hopefully, that’s not really the case.

Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my mailing list.

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

The post Pixar Delayed ‘Toy Story 4’ Because They Threw Out Most Of The Script appeared first on Jon Negroni.

I’ve commented on this topic a lot, particularly this week with the release of Incredibles 2, but Victor Luckerson seriously nails the rise of Pixar sequels with this piece on The Ringer.

How Pixar Became a Sequel Factory:

This decade has been different. Pixar’s next 10 films included six sequels or prequels, among them the newly released Incredibles 2. Its next movie is Toy Story 4, an addendum to a conclusive trilogy that no one asked for. In addition to its two sequels, there has even been a Cars spinoff, Planes, which recalls the low-budget direct-to-video sequels Disney pumped out in the ’90s.

And here’s where Victor goes for the soundbite:

The movie studio that built a brand out of flouting convention has become bound to the machinery of it. Though it’s headquartered in Silicon Valley’s culture of innovation, Pixar feels more and more like the risk-averse Hollywood establishment.

The article goes into deeper detail, laying out a case for why Pixar had to resort to making sequels to stay afloat financially, regardless of Disney’s influence.

Pixar executives say it wasn’t the Disney acquisition that caused the onset of sequelitis. Since the release of Toy Story, Pixar has been steadily increasing its output and has long known that sequels would be necessary to stabilize its business. In his book Creativity, Inc., Pixar cofounder Ed Catmull calls sequels “a sort of creative bankruptcy” but notes that the company had a long-term plan to eventually develop one sequel for every two original films (the ratio right now is the inverse). This strategy allows the company to assume even more risk on its original endeavors, Catmull argues.

Here’s hoping.

That leaves Pixar on the precipice of a curious new era. After a thrilling run of original hits and a middle age buoyed by sequels, the Pixar of the next decade will try to regain its original imaginative spark in a climate where only mega-franchises succeed. It will also be under new leadership — likely Pete Docter, the director of Up and Inside Out, who has been integral to Pixar’s success since Toy Story. And it will have to try to retain a culture distinct from Disney Animation, which has created two of the biggest original hits of the decade in Frozen and Zootopia.

You can read the rest of the article here (and I highly recommend you do).

Even as someone who enjoyed most of the Pixar films of the last 8 years, including all but one of the Pixar sequels, I can’t help but feel a pang of excitement at the prospect of 3 or 4 original Pixar films coming out in a row, uninterrupted by sequels. And part of me wonders how much steam the Walt Disney Animation computer animated movies have as we’re getting a sequel to Wreck-It Ralph later this year and then Frozen 2. Can we really hope for more breakthrough originals like Zootopia or Moana? Or does this mark the end of the latest Disney renaissance?

If so (and that’s a big “if”), recall what happened the last time Disney slowed down to catch its breath. Pixar sped right up with one of the most impressive runs for a studio ever, animated or otherwise.

Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my Mailing List.

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

The post The Real Reason Why Pixar Keeps Making Sequels appeared first on Jon Negroni.