Snarcasm: The Pixar Theory is Apparently, uh, Dead?

pixar theory debunk

A lot of people like to “debunk” The Pixar Theory, which is cool. I consider it flattering that people give it that much thought, and I always enjoy hearing differing opinions.

This latest “debunk” however is just too nonsense for me not to address. Let’s hit it.

So the idea is that all of the Pixar movies are connected. Here’s what Stephen Marshal Bove has to say about all of that in his interestingly named article, “The Pixar Theory is Dead.

Wait, what? Did you at least give it mouth to…

I just broke the Pixar Theory ūüôā

First words of the article, and he’s already done it. This man can do anything! Free emoticons for everyone!

With two scenes from one movie, with characters from two films. Toy Story 2 and Bugs Life.

I almost ignored these sentences because they didn’t do normal sentence things. But OK, he’s apparently saying, “I just broke the Pixar Theory SMILING with two scenes from one movie, characters from two films. Oh, and those movies ‚ÄĒ in case you weren’t planning on bothering to read this ‚ÄĒ are Toy Story 2 and (A) Bug(‘)s Life.

Not to sound petty, but if you’re going to write about Pixar movies, can you at least get the titles right?

Just like the theory uses throwaway gags to defend the theory I allowed myself to do the same.

You know what you shouldn’t throw away? Commas. But OK, I’m done being petty.

Alright, even though I don’t remember any gags in particular, or what he even means by this at all, I’ll certainly give him the benefit of the doubtful.

In Toy Story 2’s opening Buzz Lightyear falls from space to an alien world to face off against Lord Zed.

Zurg. Get Buzz’s father’s name right (oh, spoilers!)

But when you look at the canyon Buzz flies in it’s actually the same canyon from a Bugs Life.¬†

Two scenes involving rocks and a hill look the same in a theory about a universe that’s connected? No wonder he named the article what he did! Might as well pack it in and shut down the site for good.

Then Bove decides to attach a vimeo¬†that talks about this, completely explaining that this wasn’t actually his discovery.

At the end of Toy Story 2 in the bloopers part of the film, (I wish Pixar still did them) Flick and Heimlich are both seen and talk about how they are excited for ‘a Bugs Life 2’ but Buzz brushes them aside before Heimlich can give Flick the bad news.¬†

Oh no. Don’t tell me he’s about to argue that the bloopers for Pixar movies are now canon‚ÄĒ

There is much more evidence to kill the theory, but these are the two that kill it outright, with no if ands or buts. 

Wait, what? That’s it? You didn’t even¬†explain how the two things you just presented kill the entire Pixar Theory (not even just an aspect of it). How in any way is this a¬†FINISH HIM¬†moment for you?

But I do have more,

Thank goodness.

if the Monsters from Monster’s Inc / University are from some future Earth, then what happened to them after the Cars destroyed the world after Human’s left it?

The monsters¬†didn’t exist yet. Did you read the theory?

When Wall-e and Eve-A fly / crawl along the world, there is no sign of life except the one plant Wall-E found.

Except the massive field of grass revealed at the very end beyond Axiom. And all of the resolution paintings showcasing the recovery of the environment and some human civilization. And that tree.

¬†Also the human’s have said to have left Earth in Wall-E because they destroyed the planet, making it so no living thing could breathe the air. That may work for the Cars, but what about the Monsters?

Did…did you watch the end of¬†WALL-E?

In Finding Nemo, Mike is seen swimming under the water with a snorkel. So he obviously has to be able to breath unlike the Cars.

…did…did you just use something from the credits of¬†Finding Nemo¬†to make a point about monster anatomy? That’s almost impressive (if this wasn’t preceded by a complete misunderstanding of the Pixar Theory and several Pixar movies in general).

So there is another throw away gag that kills the theory instead of working for it. 

Don’t you mean drowns?

Unlike the Witch from Brave having a Pizza Planet truck and a drawling of Sully which sadly does work for it, but again these are all throw away gags to the audience and animators having fun.

Because we all know making movies that are connected to each other “isn’t” fun. It’s the worst! Those poor animators just wanted to have a good time and we ruined it!

But lets look at that Sully drawling and see if it really does work for the theory?

Is he asking our permission? Yes…OK, let’s do that. You brought it up, after all.

The theory states that the witch from Brave is actually Boo from Monster’s Inc, and she discovered how to travel through time with doors like Mike and Sully.

Right, right, this proves you at least read a paragraph of the Pixar Theory.

(Instead of the Monster’s having their own world and jumping from their world to ours like the films says)


But why would Boo need to go looking for Sully when Sully went back at the end of Monster’s Inc and was reunited with Boo. She was not much older than she was when she last saw Sully because her voice did not change very much.¬†

It’s implied that this had to be a one time thing.¬†No one expected Sulley to just keep visiting Boo all the way through college. That would be like taking your cowboy doll to…oh, so that’s foreshadowing.

In fact,¬†Inside Out¬†helps to explain the role of monsters post-Monsters Inc. Bing Bong is clearly an imaginary friend that Riley dreamed up after being visited by a monster, but she eventually forgot about him. In the same way, Sulley would stop visiting her and she’d just have those memories. Only Boo actually¬†went¬†to the monster world, and yes, Sulley came back at least one extra time.

So it makes sense to assume that this would traumatize the poor kid enough to wonder where her friend is. It would be like if Bing Bong made it to the Headquarters of Riley’s mind. With Boo, that’s probably the case.

So there you have it, the mighty Pixar Theory is dead and gone. 

Oh, just like that, huh? I wish I could will things to just happen without any effort or humility.

But it will still linger like other theory proven wrong, *cough* never landing on Moon *cough* they’ve proven metal and man mad objects are there *cough*

I’m just going to ignore the second part of that because…obviously.

Also, you haven’t proven my theory “wrong.” You’ve barely even written anything.

But I digress, this is just the evidence, if you still believe the theory there is nothing that can be done for you.

At least you digressed.

If it makes the films more enjoyable for you then believe it.

The Merciful Stephen Marshal Bove has spoken. Obey him!

But if you think Pixar is connected then I got some zinger DC/Marvel and Disney theories for yeah.

Bove¬†then goes on to “prove” a bunch of shared universe theories based on easter eggs and throaway gags. Can you believe that? Someone should write an article saying his theories are dead, so then they just will be without question. People will totally read that.

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

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni


70 thoughts on “Snarcasm: The Pixar Theory is Apparently, uh, Dead?

  1. That’s really good I haven’t even heard of all those games before and still it’s an interesting read again thanks for the link T. Rooney.

  2. The thing about the valley buzz lightyear flies through being the same as the onion a huge life would actually hurt your theory pretty bad. If as much time has gone by as you say has between the two films then there is no way the calls would look the same, over that much time and with everything that you say has happened it would have changed the landscape so something like that could not possibly look the exact same.

    • I have two reasons on that. A. It’s a video game so who cares? And B. It’s a cartoon!

    • yeah but if you consider the thousands of valley¬īs in the World I¬īm assuming that too could look similar enough like in the movies

    • the canyon is in a video game.

  3. I personally think this guy is extremely stupid and is just trying to get some fame off of Jon’s theory. anyone else?

  4. Seriously? The Pixar theory is based on movies that are all FICTION! You can’t debunk a believable theory based on stories that never actually occurred in the real world anyway. To those who want to debunk the Pixar theory, call it a giant piece of fan fiction if you will, but please don’t get this stuff mixed up with conspiracy theories about real things that actually happened. If a conspiracy theory is about fictional things, like the Pixar theory is, it is a kind of serious game, and the only way it can be “debunked” is if a very large hole is poked in it. The main rule is don’t rewrite the story or significant elements of it (like people do with the Frozen/Tarzan theory); if you do that, that’s cheating. If you can believably tie stories together without any major rewrites, as John Negroni did, congrats, you have created a viable fictional conspiracy theory, which can totally be believed and is therefore essentially a grip;ing story of sorts. Again, this won’t work if you cheat and alter major details of the story; if you can’t do a fictional conspiracy theory without major holes in it that can easily tear it apart, abandon that genre (and yes, it is a genre, with rules about making it believable without having to do a major rewrite, and only minor twists based on characters making things up are allowed) and write your own story.
    Oh, and by the way, the film’s explanation of the monsters jumping between worlds? Maybe that is just what the monsters think happened, and maybe they simply forgot that part of the history. After all, humans do that all the time; tons of historical accounts have been inaccurately “revised”. Who’s to say the monsters would not do the same?

  5. This legitimately made my laugh good job

  6. You mentioned Flik and Hemilich in the Toy Story 2 blooper. But how does the Pixar Theory explain that they KNEW they were in a movie?! Also go to the wikipedia page for the theory. There’s a whole bunch of flaws in the theory there.

    • Simple, the bloopers are the people who play the characters in the movie. It’s a fictional universe within a fictional universe. The fake bloopers aren’t canon to the movies anymore than real bloopers are canon to their respective movies.

  7. Man Jon Negroni you are actually a very rude and unlikable person. You can’t speak to people like that it’s not cool. Also the way they said that it can be Debunked by the fact that you can see Flik and Heimlich from A Bug’s Life actually does, if you payed attention to the movie more when Buzz and the other toys are trying to find Woody, and Buzz bursts through the bush you can see Flik and Heimlich scurrying out of the way in time. Don’t believe me look for yourself. And make sure all the puzzle pieces are there before you start the Puzzle. ULTIMATE PIXAR FAN OUT!

    • Negroni mentioned on the page about the original version of the theory that he likes an idea about this that someone suggested; that Boo/The Witch – whether purposely or (more likely in this case) accidentally – moved things and animals around the timeline during her travels.

  8. The Pixar Theory is not dead because it was never alive to begin with, has always been stupid since the very beginning.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: