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 🙂

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 — in case you weren’t planning on bothering to read this — 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—

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


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

  1. I don’t think the Pixar Theory is dead. I just think it may need a bit more fixing because it is kinda paradoxal: Boo looking for Sully (and Sully is at the end of the theory timeline), but then going back to the time of Brave and starting the whole story. I don’t understand that part.

      • I still haven’t gotten around to reading the book, but I wondering, have you considered the possibility that Brave takes place after Wall-E in the timeline, and Monsters Inc. takes place in its own reality? Just from the info I’ve seen on your site, it seems like this would eliminate the need for the time travel elements which many believe are so farfetched.

      • But what about the monster world being a completely different world. Then the doors would either A) time travel to and from the monster world, or B) just lead from one world to the other.
        Unless Boo is only using part of the doors magic (the time travel part) and somehow eliminating the leading to the monster world part.

        Does this make any sense?

    • Yeah That might be the problem with the theory. For example, what if Boo was actually a very far decendant of Merida from brave? Without the witch(boo), Merida would’ve married one of the 3 men precented to him which would affect Boo’s existence.

      So in this scenario, boo needs herself to be in a time before she existed in order for herself to exist?

      I still have faith in the Pixar theory by the way and Inside out just made it more cohesive and fun 🙂

      • Eh, but I still gotta read all of the Pixar Detective. I only read two chapters.

    • You don’t understand it? Time loops are one of the main ways writers use the concept of time travel, if time loops weren’t a thing, most time travel stories wouldn’t even exist.

    • Monsters Inc. Is just the CURRENT end of the timeline, if the writers at pixar have a grand meta scheme here for theirs and our enjoyment. Who’s to say they don’t have more subject matter that could extend the timeline, theres no proof that humans died out entirely, perhaps they went to another planet. And that the monsters go back in time because going forward in time takes more energy.

  2. That post Bove put out is pretty much like the Andrew Wakeman’s anti vaccine movement. It contains false debunked facts and I’m pretty sure that it only exists in order to get some attention. Either way, Bove is pretty much disgraced.

  3. Jon, I love you so much right now.
    You totally kicked his butt! He is a complete @#!?&. Next time I see him (which will be never), I will give him a piece of my mind and a bit of my foot!
    You go, guy! 😀 😀 😀

  4. If you are trying to denounce the Pixar Theory you might want to
    1. Watch all Pixar Movies
    2. Watch them again
    3. Read the Pixar Theory Book
    4. Watch Them again
    5. Think about what you’re going to attempt
    6. DON’T!

  5. This is easily the best thing I read on the Internet today. Bravo.

  6. I find it weird that the Monsters in Monsters Inc. are moving through the human timeline. It makes no sense that they’d have to do that, they’re time-traveling, after all.

    • If they go to the same time twice, they’ll bump into their past selves. It’s sort of like fossil fuels. The monsters are “mining” the past and will ultimately run out.

  7. ahaha this guys spelling and lack of actual evidence made me laugh.
    If he really wants to debunk the theory he should probably READ the theory and WATCH the movies.

    I absolutely LOVE the pixar theory, and I think you are an extremely intelligent man for creating (and continuing to create) something so fun and complex! (though it isn’t very hard to rebuttal this guy).

    • The only reason I bothered is because he insulted all of YOU at the very end. That’s when I decided it was showtime.

  8. Wow Jon, the snark was much-appreciated this time around. As you were going through that article, my only thought was “oooh get rekt”

  9. Awesome job, Jon!
    Bove is a total disgrace. A real idiot. A true #%^!#.
    Next time I see him, I will kick his butt again, because you already did it.
    (I liked the title, by the way. I nearly had a heart attack when I read it. :D)

  10. Hey Jon, are you interested in the Nintendo Theory? I’ve revamped it so it’s up to 36 franchises.

  11. I do not care about thinking hard enough to follow the Pixar Theory to understand all of this, but your rebuttals are absolutely hilarious and you are my favorite.

  12. Please tell me you posted that to where that guy can see it. I didnt even see this before I wrote my previous comment. But this goes to emphasize my previous comment even more. Firstly what is wrong with people. Especially this guy. Its a theory. There is no absolute definitive proof to prove it is right as there is no absolute definitive proof to prove it is wrong. Yet some how this guy thinks hes found evidence to definitively prove it wrong. He clearly didnt even read the whole theory because mostly everything he stated were complete contradictions. Here is just another person thinking they are smarter than they are. Its maddening.

  13. You guys, stop. Please. Just stop. The last thing this site needs is an argument on a political, religious, or otherwise controversial topic like I always find under Youtube videos. I’m not saying either of you are right or wrong, I’m not picking sides, and I’m not trying to offend anyone. But please, just stop before more people get involved or this erupts into something bigger.

    • I meant about the vaccine thing. I don’t know why it didn’t go underneath the current argument that popped up in my inbox.

  14. I’m still undecided on how much of the Pixar Theory I can go along with, but I know for a fact that that guy is a terrible writer who has no business being published by anyone ever. You are write to dismantle his flimsy argument (calling it an “argument” is a stretch). He didn’t even mention how the beginning of TS2 is a VIDEO GAME and therefore not connected to any of the real world stuff. His case falls apart right there. Thank you for dismantling this sad excuse of a movie critic and writer.

  15. I found this article very childish. Using sarcasm and belittling the other person was not necessary. You could have rebutted him in a different manner, or point out that it was all for fun and go on to reiterate how it is connected. But you took the low road here.

    • I disagree. You should read the original article before Bove went back and changed it. It was full of hubris (still is) and ended with him insulting people who believe in a theory he disagrees with. Jon’s response here was absolutely appropriate. He didn’t attack the guy personally, which would have been the low road. He just demonstrated how ridiculous his hubris is that he would just declare a popular theory “dead” based on flimsy evidence and then call people who disagree with him hopeless.

    • The reason I disagree is simple. Jon NEVER writes like this. He never gets this snarky or mean. So when he does, that’s how you know it was called for.

  16. Everyone defending and denouncing a film company’s connection theory needs to get a life…wait yours lives are dependent on Pixar. Continue arguing amongst each other bashing other writers on the Internet. Btw he didn’t need commas in that sentence you admitted in being petty(admittance that makes you sound like a douche bag). His sentence started with an independent clause and ended with a dependent one. Check your grammar. Just like it isn’t inccorect to start sentences with conjunctions which you do a lot (makes you look ignorant though).

    • Lol, judging from your comment, Jon knows a little bit more about grammar than you do 😉

      Also, telling someone they’re a douchebag in a douchey way is hilarious.

    • Liking and discussing fan theories doesn’t mean your “life” is dependent on Pixar. What an ignorant thing to say.

    • You must be new here. If you knew anything about Jon Negroni…like damn.

    • You say that us theorists and theory breakers all need to get a life, but you’re going to worry about grammar and an independent clause in one of the trillions of pages on the internet? Well please, excuse me that sentence dissection is so useless that nobody cares about it and will hence write an article the way they want. Hypocrite.

  17. I’m a horrible fan of anything, but I’ve always enjoyed your theories because they add another layer to these movies we love. I don’t see why an entertaining theory needs to be debunked just to gain readership, especially when what results is a horribly-written article riddled with poor word usage and grammatical flaws (even after the latest edits).

    Keep writing, Jon! I’ve bookmarked the Pixar Detective Table of Contents and I’m looking forward to reading it.

  18. The Pixar Theory IS dead, but not with THIS evidence. Inside Out and Monsters Inc prove this:
    The Pixar Theory states that Bing Bong is Riley’s monster, and he made her laugh when Monsters Inc changed from screams to giggles, but this isn’t possible. Riley liked Bing Bong. THEY WERE BEST FRIENDS. And also, the only reason that Boo likes Sulley is because Sulley isn’t her monster. Randall is. If Sulley were the one scaring Boo, she would have hated him from beginning to end. And if you remember the scene where Waternoose gets Sulley to demonstrate in front of the trainees how to scare a child, Boo is watching from the shadows, and she looks at Sulley, terrified. Therefore, before Monsters Inc changed their power source from screams to giggles, Bing Bong must have scared Riley, kinda like the clown did, and made her terrified of him. Unless of course, Bing Bong hadn’t arrived at Monsters Inc yet, proving this pointless.
    I rest my case.

    • You should read the Pixar Theory again, because you don’t seem to understand the arguments. The Bing Bong we met in Inside Out is not the literal monster who made Riley laugh. He’s her imaginary friend: the creature she dreamed up after being visited by the “real” Bing Bong. They were best friends because he made her laugh. So I’m not sure how this is “evidence” that the theory is dead.

      As for Bing Bong being a monster before or after “scaring” was replaced with comedy, just look at the dates presented. Monsters Inc. took place in 2001, 14 years before Riley is 11 in Inside Out. Comedy would have been in place long before Bing Bong and Riley met.

  19. To help debunk the debunk, the scene that he’s talking about when Buzz falls into a canyon whilst helping defeat Zurg, that scene isn’t real. It’s Rex and Buzz playing a video game, as revealed later. The REAL Buzz didn’t fall into the canyon at all. So this evidence this guy gave doesn’t really debunk the theory.

  20. Hey T Rooney can you please add a link to the Nintendo theory please I want to check it out

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: