The LIGHTSABER Theory: Rey Is Not A Skywalker, Solo, Or Kenobi

The lightsaber is the key.

Ever since the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens in December 2015, fans have speculated endlessly on the back story of Rey, debating multiple theories that point to who her parents are and why she’s so strong in the Force.

You’ve done it. I’ve done it. We’ve all had something to say on this matter because we all know that the second movie in this trilogy, The Last Jedi, will contain “the twist” that defines the new generation of Star Wars, in the same way The Empire Strikes Back did for fans in 1980.

That said, J.J. Abrams has given us a lot to go on when it comes to explaining Rey’s back story. But even if you don’t believe his comments that Rey’s parents don’t appear in The Force Awakens, there’s ample evidence within the movie itself to support that her parents are not Skywalkers, Solos, or Kenobis. And they’re certainly not anything related to Palpatine because that would be far too complicated for these movies to explain.

But Force Awakens does leave plenty of clues for us to put together that will make more sense in The Last Jedi, coming this December. And it all ladders up to what I call The LIGHTSABER Theory. This is the comprehensive theory that outlines how Star Wars: The Force Awakens reveals the most important details about Rey’s origins all by itself.

lightsaber theory

The LIGHTSABER Theory is simple: everything we need to know about Rey and her parents can be surmised by understanding the role of Luke’s first lightsaber, a macguffin that was at one point the main plot device in Force Awakens. Years ago, before the release of Episode VII, Lucasfilm hinted that the story of the movie would hinge on Rey and her friends trying to keep Luke’s lightsaber out of Kylo Ren’s hands. All we knew of Kylo at the time was that he sought Sith relics, especially related to Vader, but they cut most of this out of the final film, perhaps to make the big twist less obvious.

In fact, you can see a blatant hint of this in one of the first teasers for Force Awakens when it’s shown that a lightsaber is being handed to Leia. Eventually, the lightsaber hot potato was diminished a great deal by Abrams (or the producers) and later replaced with our heroes trying to find Luke Skywalker through use of BB-8’s map, but there are still hints of the lightsaber’s ownership struggle, like when Kylo Ren demands Rey give him Luke’s lightsaber on Starkiller Base. “That lightsaber doesn’t belong to you.”

When you watch Force Awakens, you’ll probably notice that it’s unclear what Han, Leia, and Maz know about Rey’s origins. All of their conversations about Rey are cut short for the audience, hinting that they know exactly who she is, but we don’t get to know yet. Many fans claim this as evidence that Rey is related to another character in the franchise, but that’s almost certainly not the case.

Before we dive deep into the crux of The LIGHTSABER Theory, let’s cover a few important details that you might have missed on your first viewing of the movie.

1. Lor San Tekka (played by Max Von Sydow) seems connected to Rey somehow.

lightsaber theory

The fact that Lor San Tekka’s village, which is part of the “Church of the Force,” is so close to Rey’s salvage town is too coincidental to ignore. In fact, it strongly suggests that Lor San Tekka was an Obi-Wan Kenobi-esque character in Force Awakens, watching Rey from afar. His strong connection to Luke Skywalker, as revealed in the canon novels, is a crucial piece of evidence for believing Rey’s identity is known and understood by Luke’s inner circle.

It’s also a bit suspicious that the Millennium Falcon is also within close proximity to Rey, but that’s a theory for another day. For now, we can try to believe it was really stolen, though I think there’s ample evidence to suggest that whoever dropped Rey off on Jakku has a serious connection to the Millennium Falcon.

2. Han, Leia, and Maz know who Rey is, but not at first.

lightsaber theory

When Han Solo first runs into Rey, he clearly doesn’t recognize her. In fact, he assures her and Finn that they can “be on their way” once they’ve dealt with the smugglers on the freighter. But after spending some time with Rey, it’s easy to notice that he’s slowly realizing who she is.

This is supported by how conversations between Han and Maz and Leia that are about Rey are all offscreen. Maz asks Han “Who’s the girl?” as soon as they’re alone, so clearly Maz can discern that Rey is somehow special, and we know Han has told Maz something crucial about Rey’s identity because the next we see of Maz, she’s trying to convince Rey to take Luke’s lightsaber and learn about the Force.

In fact, that entire scene of Rey stumbling across the lightsaber feels like an orchestration. Like Maz purposefully put the lightsaber in a place where Rey could feel the Force guiding her. When Rey goes to find the lightsaber, the door even opens for her. There’s no way Maz would just leave such a valuable relic unguarded, beneath a cantina filled with outlaws, no less. She wanted Rey to get the lightsaber because of something Han told her. Which is why she’s there as soon as Rey finishes her Force flashback, or “Forceback” as Abrams calls it.

This flashback essentially completes the puzzle, or at least the most important parts we can know. After watching it, you can figure out who Rey is, why she was left on Jakku, and who it was that left her. This is the crux of The LIGHTSABER Theory. When Rey has her flashback, she’s taken through several moments in time that appear random, but they’re actually not.

3. The “Forceback”

lightsaber theory

The first scene is a shot of Cloud City, where Luke fought Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back. This was confirmed by Abrams, who has said that they actually wanted to show some of the fight itself but then chose to make it more eery by illuminating an empty hallway. Fair enough.

Then there’s a crash, and Rey finds herself in front of Luke and R2-D2 by a fire, and we hear Luke scream “Nooooo” from when he learned Darth Vader was his father. Then the scene changes to the Knights of Ren and Kylo himself (if that is Kylo) standing around a group of bodies, presumably the next generation of Jedi trained by Luke. Someone goes to attack Rey, or whoever was there instead of Rey, but he’s killed by Kylo.

Then we see a young Rey getting left behind on Jakku with Unkar as an unknown ship flies away, a ship by the way that looks a lot like the one we see as concept art for Rey’s family’s ship, but let’s just assume that’s a coincidence. Finally, we get a glimpse of the future, when Rey confronts Kylo Ren on Starkiller Base. And we hear Obi-Wan Kenobi calling out to Rey. These are her first steps.

What do all of these scenes have in common? It’s pretty obvious, actually.The lightsaber. It ties them all together, and we’re seeing a sequence of events in chronological order. In each of these scenes, the lightsaber is present and something significant happens to it.

lightsaber theory

First, Luke loses it during his fight with Vader. Then, Luke presumably finds it again with R2D2, supported by how he and Lor San Tekka sought out Jedi relics together. I believe finding the lightsaber again is one of the triggers for Ben Solo’s turn to the dark side, and we’re seeing the aftermath of the Jedi Massacre as hinted in The Last Jedi teaser. We know Luke had to seek out the lightsaber himself because Rey finds the lightsaber in the same chest Obi-Wan had. Only Luke would know about that relic.

And then there’s the rain scene. The blue lightsaber must have changed ownership to Ben Solo at this point, but when he became Kylo Ren, sometime after the worst of the Jedi Massacre. In each of these scenes, the lightsaber is the key. That’s how we know who dropped Rey off on Jakku.

It was Luke Skywalker. The lightsaber had to be present when we see her being left on Jakku. And Rey even says this when Maz pressures her moments later, telling her that who she’s waiting for isn’t coming back. Maz then says someone else could come back, and Rey says, “Luke.” Rey actually realizes that Luke left her on Jakku at this point, but she didn’t know it was him. She thought Luke was a myth and that her family would come back to get her, which is what Luke must have told her. The red herring is that we think she wants the person who left her to come back, but really, she just wants answers. She wants to know what happened to her parents.

lightsaber theory

I strongly believe based on the movie that one or both of Rey’s parents were Luke’s Jedi apprentices and that they’re among the bodies we see in front of the Knights of Ren. An alternate way to interpret this is that Luke ends up giving the lightsaber to Rey’s father or mother, believing them to be the rightful heir to the Jedi and angering Ben Solo because Luke doesn’t trust him to carry on the legacy. This would be huge for a villain who’s been set up to revere his grandfather. Luke might even suspect Ben is slowly being seduced to the Dark Side by Snoke as he picks his successor.

The Knights of Ren scene shows us how Luke gets the lightsaber back during the massacre. I believe Luke has been defeated at this point in the scene, as evidenced by what appears to be Kylo Ren holding Luke’s green lightsaber. Then we see Kylo killing one of his own men who is about to attack Luke, but Kylo kills him, perhaps because he doesn’t want Luke to die just yet, or at all.

After surviving this encounter, Luke leaves Rey on Jakku to protect her from the First Order and Kylo Ren, who might suspect another Force sensitive is around. Han, Leia, and Maz would know about Rey because of her parents, but they’re not as familiar with her as Luke is. This would explain why Kylo seems to find Rey so familiar, yet he clearly doesn’t know who she is when he talks to Supreme Leader Snoke.

lightsaber theory

And this even explains why Kylo gets so angry, especially about Rey using that particular lightsaber, which he recognizes the first time he sees it. He wants to be like Vader, and Anakin’s lightsaber is his key to getting there. This would serve as the real source of conflict between Kylo and Rey. Kylo believes himself to be the rightful heir to Darth Vader by blood, but Rey is his natural enemy because she is heir to Luke Skywalker by the sacrifice of her parents, Luke’s true successor(s).

Why do we hear Obi-Wan in the flashback, then? It’s not because Rey’s parents are somehow connected to him. They don’t have to be. Remember, Obi-Wan gave Luke that lightsaber in the first place. And he has the ability to appear as a Force Ghost, calling out to Rey as a way to pass the proverbial torch on to her.

This adds a whole new layer of significance to some of the ending scenes, and overall, it makes The Force Awakens a better movie. Han told Leia about Rey, as we see in her conversation with Finn. So when Rey comes back after Han Solo’s death, she and Leia hug, even though the audience doesn’t realize they know each other. But they do. At this point, Rey knows that Luke dropped her off on Jakku and that Leia has lost Han. When they see each other, they grieve together as if they know one another.

lightsaber theory

And this also adds new meaning to the final shot of Rey offering the lightsaber back to Luke. It’s a full circle moment for her to remind Luke who he is, who she is, and how the Force has brought them together again. We see Luke’s slow realization of this, as he puts the pieces together himself, and we’ll likely start The Last Jedi with Rey convincing Luke to train her. The big twist will be Rey realizing that her parents were killed and that they were Jedi (or one of them was), and Luke’s decision to leave her on Jakku was rooted in his desire to end the Jedi.

It’s also possible that one parent died by Kylo’s hands while another died on Jakku, where Rey might have been raised alongside the Church of the Force. Perhaps one of her parents is someone who used to live there. Luke could have found Rey with a dead parent, wondering where the other might be, then choosing to leave Rey with Unkar by trading the Millennium Falcon (theory for another day), rather than let her explore the Force among its worshipers. But she’s still close enough for Lor San Tekka to keep an eye on her.

At that point, Luke might have given the lightsaber to Maz, or someone else who would eventually get it to her. We can tell from Maz’s bond with Han Solo and Chewbacca that she’s someone the original heroes trust, and she’d be a less obvious suspect for Kylo Ren to go after when searching for the lightsaber.

lightsaber theory

When we finally see The Last Jedi, I believe we’ll learn about Luke’s dissatisfaction with the Jedi order. Perhaps he sought out the temple in order to find out where he went wrong with Ben, only to realize that the Jedi order has always had its flaws, and maybe it’s best just to let the order die, disregarding Lor San Tekka’s wish that the Jedi come back to bring balance to the Force.

Until Rey comes along and starts to question Luke’s shift into being neutral. She could be the literal ray of hope for the light side, even redefining it for a new generation, in part because she learns about the legacy of her parents and decides that she wants to follow in their footsteps and take their place as Luke’s successor. A new Skywalker who isn’t one by blood, but rather, merit. She’s not strong in the Force because she was trained at a young age and had her memories wiped or something, it’s because she’s the result of a new legacy and step forward for the Star Wars saga.

And that’s The LIGHTSABER Theory.

There are still a lot of pressing questions to be answered, like where the Knights of Ren rain scene takes place and who was killed there, for example. And I highly doubt I’ve guessed everything exactly right. Part of me does still buy into the idea that Rey had her memory erased via Jedi Mind Trick, but touching the lightsaber “awakened” her, explaining how she was able to use the Force so well all of a sudden—the idea is that she was trained as a Jedi and had her mind wiped, which is why she doesn’t know much about herself and her name “Rey” may actually be fake.

All that said, I sincerely believe that this theory points fans in the right direction. It uses evidence from within the text of the movie, so it’s simple enough for younger viewers to get it in a pinch.

The Force Awakens preps us for knowing that the lightsaber is important and that a lot of Jedi died. There doesn’t have to be a complicated explanation, but rather a rethinking of what we were shown and why were shown it. Rey doesn’t have to come from nothing. In fact, that’s already being set up in how Finn might become a Jedi from nothing.

Rey has a unique legacy that is both new for the Star Wars universe and still connected to the original characters in a simple, believable way that will make perfect sense when revealed in Episode VIII.


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 Fate of the Furious’ Is Both Better And Worse Than Its Predecessors

fate of the furious

The Fate of the Furious is an easy film to understand just by taking a second look at its title, which feels designed for a hashtag (F8), rather than something new or creatively crafted. This is the eighth installment of a 16-year-long franchise that has more or less stayed alive and successful by finding increasingly silly ways to escalate its rising action to a series climax that has never been hazier.

In F8, we have what many 2017 films seem destined to use as a plot device: a hero of the series (Dominic Toretto, who long slipped into Vin Diesel simply playing himself) “goes rogue” and his former teammates have to team up to try and stop him.

At this point in the franchise, the “family” almost solely consists of former enemies Dom has picked up over the years, including an indefensibly sympathetic Shaw (Jason Statham) who is wrapped up with a retcon for the last two movies, pitting Charlize Theron’s “Cipher” as the real villain all along…somehow. And her isolated master plan is at least one that generates some intense moments, including a deluge of remote controlled cars that devastate New York City.

There seems to be a clear effort from director F. Gary Gray (Straight Outta ComptonItalian Job) to ground this franchise in darker subplots that make the characters feel somewhat less immortal, not just in the sense that they’ll die, but also in how death wrecks the characters. But overall, the movie’s main thrust (being a Saturday Morning Cartoon for adults) never gives way to any of the semi-serious tone that now has to reconcile with Dom’s never-ending sense of family, a theme that has certainly run its course as a passable explanation for what brings these characters together.

fate of the furious

Yet F8 also consists of some of the most exciting and entertaining set pieces in the franchise to date, including some playful development involving Shaw and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson in a bigger role than Furious 7) charming their way to what is hopefully spinoff territory, or just a retooling of the series that lets these two action heroes take the reigns. Aside from them, none of the familiar characters here are given a shred of character growth, and F8 only advances the plot of their lives in superficial ways that feel tacked on. And that’s not even mentioning the sloppy effort to replace Paul Walker with Scott Eastwood. There’s no question Furious 7 handled Walker’s tragic death with class, so it’s strange to see F8 stumble with this just two years later.

As the various family members deal with having to take down Dom, there’s no learning, application, or self-reflection to get them there. They simply do what they’ve done before; Roman wisecracks, Leti is always there for Dom, everyone drives fast, etc. It’s surprisingly weightless, even for a blockbuster franchise that has won many people over for how accessibly fun it can be, while still having enough style and shiny lights to bring you back for the next one.

If that was the only goal, then F8 does its job fine. And at times, it’s truly a spectacle that deserves to be seen on as big a screen as possible. But there’s no denying the early signs of a series that is running dangerously low on steam for the first time since 2005.

Grade: B-

Extra Credits:

  • Forgot to mention the Cuba prologue, which might actually be the movie’s best scene and one of the best street races they’ve done yet.
  • Seeing the previous movies helps quite a bit, as F8 has a lot of past characters coming back around (even Lucas Black was originally meant to have a cameo, but he had to drift out due to conflicts).
  • Yes, it’s pretty obvious that Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel hate each other in real life.
  • Kristofer Hivju (Tormund from Game of Thrones) needs to be in more movies.

Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni


Star Wars: The Force Awakens Isn’t Really A Remake Of A New Hope

force awakens

Every so often, a fan theory comes along to remind us how good fan theories can actually be when the work and time is put into them. Less than a year ago, EC Henry composed what I believe to be a masterful breakdown of The Force Awakens that (dare I say it) makes the movie just a little bit better.

Is Star Wars: The Force Awakens a remake of the original Star Wars (A New Hope)? I’ve always considered the movie to borrow voraciously from that original film, while also lifting plenty from the other two parts of the trilogy. But many reviewers like myself have talked ourselves breathless about how TFA features yet another “droid on the run” story with Death Stars, cantinas, and a modest chosen one.

But in EC Henry’s video essay below, the case is made that TFA is really a “creative remix” of the original trilogy, and there’s a strikingly good reason for this that might shed light on the future of the entire franchise. I’ll unpack the theory below (with some of my own observations), but here’s the quick 3-minute breakdown.

As EC Henry points out, nearly all of the similarities between TFA and A New Hope occur in the first act of both movies. BB-8’s story is parallel to R2D2’s, and we’re on a barren planet that slowly reveals our hero, Rey, who is reminiscent of Luke in some ways.

The Millennium Falcon departing Jakku, followed by meeting Han Solo and Chewbacca, is where the first act in TFA ends (roughly), which mirrors the end of the first act in A New Hope, when Luke meets Han and departs Tatooine aboard the same ship. Henry also implies that Greedo and Han’s antagonism is mirrored with Han’s confrontation with the mercenaries aboard the freighter.

At this point, TFA’s second act starts to mirror the second half of The Empire Strikes Back. There’s a monster-in-space encounter (Rathtars in place of the asteroid worm) followed by Han deciding to visit an old friend (Maz Kanata as a fill-in for Lando Calrissian). We also see Kylo contacting Snoke in the same way Vader contacts Palpatine.

To save for time, TFA converges the Luke/Dagobah subplot with the Cloud City subplot. Rey goes to a mysterious planet and learns more about her origins and destiny with Maz pulling double duty as a fill-in for Yoda. And just like in Empire, the villains show up to wreck things. Rey is defeated by Kylo Ren (a la Luke and Vader’s first fight) and is captured, similar to how Han is taken away by Boba Fett.

force awakens

From here, TFA mirrors the third act of Return of the Jedi. The Rebels/Resistance meet to discuss their rescue plan and discover “another Deathstar.” The story breaks in two with ground forces on Starkiller Base trying to break down the shields and Rogue Squadron attacking from space, just as the Battle of Endor had two fronts. There’s an epic lightsaber battle happening as the space assault reaches its climax, with the Jedi using fury to overwhelm the Sith (Rey slicing Kylo is quite similar to Luke taking down Vader).

As Henry also points out, there are exceptions to this where small elements of the original trilogy are mirrored throughout (the catwalk scene, for example), but there certainly seems to be a primary structure in place that combines all of the movies in a coherent way. But what’s the point? Why would Lucasfilm do a creative remix like this at all?

The expectations for TFA were always going to be astronomically high, so the strategy here makes some sense. Add all of the nostalgic fan service to TFA as a tribute in order to gain credibility for this new trilogy, so the next two movies can unfold in more creatively bold ways that aren’t enslaved to the source material. Put more simply: they started with a look at the past and ended with a strong look toward the future.

And in one strange way, TFA is basically the movie George Lucas intended to make in the 1970s. Rather than a trilogy, he envisioned the entire arc of Star Wars to be told in a single movie. TFA essentially fulfills that vision and authorial intent, so as someone who had a lot of problems with the film, I’m finding myself appreciating it more for what it manages to accomplish in light of what couldn’t have been done 40 years ago.

Did I miss anything? Add some of your own observations below. And if you like this essay, be sure to subscribe to EC Henry’s channel, and consider supporting him on Patreon for more great videos.


Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @@jonnegroni

Top 30 Things You Didn’t Know About The Incredibles – The Pixar Detectives

Did you know The Incredibles was originally supposed to be called “The Invincibles?” Even if you did, we’ve got 29 more awesome facts about one of our favorite Pixar movies ever, only on Super News!

This week, we kicked off our live show with a brief breakdown of the new clip released for Coco called “Dante’s Lunch – A Short Tail.” We discussed the video and director Lee Unkrich’s thoughts on it before jumping into our main segment.

This week’s giveaway is an Incredibles t-shirt exactly like the one I wore onscreen. We already have a winner,  so be sure to tune in live with us on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. (Pacific) for a chance to win next time. Just like Super News on Facebook to stay connected with us for new episodes every week. We give away Pixar-related goodies like shirts, books, blu-rays, and tons more. And we’re always open to new suggestions for prizes you all might be interested in! Plus, Super News has tons of other shows and live-streams for Disney, gaming, and a ton more. See you all next week!


Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni

Snarcasm: The Cars in ‘Cars’ Aren’t Really Cars. Obviously.

cars

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read

I’ve always liked MatPat’s “The Film Theorists” videos, because they’re entertaining, fun, and have a great energy. For that reason, I don’t usually criticize their theories, but that’s all about to change.

One of MatPat’s latest videos involves Cars, and it directly calls out my timeline for Pixar movies, assuming they all share the same universe. This was embarrassing on my end because Mat worked off of old Pixar Theory material without fully researching how it’s changed over the years, so his new theory about Cars is…well…let’s just say it could use some Snarcasm.

Oh, and here’s an important note. If you want to check out the better version of this “cars are alive” theory, check out the video SuperCarlinBros already did for it seven months ago…which MatPat doesn’t reference at all or give credit to in his video. And…well, he should have.

The Cars in the Cars Movie AREN’T CARS!

I don’t know if I’m ready for this.

Are the Cars in Cars really cars?

{Raises hand}

I mean sure, it’s the title of the movie.

[Raises hand more}

and they look and behave like cars

{hand floats away}

I mean they have eyes and tongues

Right. So there’s no way they’re cars with eyes and tongues. Eh, yeah that’s weird, but we’ll get to that.

How does a society of cars come to be in the first place?

Well, the Pixar Theory states that—

What are these creatures? I am 100% confident I figured it out.

Like I was saying. I outlined all of this in my book about how—

what started as a simple, stupid question led me down the rabbit hole of this bizarre car-themed universe, and the answers I found will upend everything you thought you knew about Mater and the gang.

Mat then cuts to an image of my Pixar Theory Timeline. Well, the old one at least. See when this video first came out, a lot of people asked me what I thought, and I felt guilty for not updating the timeline since I did the book, which is a small reason why Mat ends up working off of old information (we’ll get to that).

See, the theory itself was certainly at its most plot-holey when I did the first draft of the timeline in 2013. I haven’t even updated it with the newer movies. To rectify this, there’s a new timeline in place of the old one, but as you can tell, the damage is done.

and the details I find here pose some interesting questions about that infamous Pixar Theory

Infamous?

a theory that you all have wanted me to cover for quite a long time

Spoiler alert: MatPat is working on his own “mega” Pixar Theory. Well…bring it on?

it probably merits taking a second to acquaint you with that Pixar Theory. A theory that started with, as far as I can tell, online movie blogger Jon Negroni.

Hey.

which aims to unite all the Pixar movies to not just the same universe, but also come up with a cohesive timeline of events where one movie leads to the next, leads to the next.

Mat shows an image of the actual blog post for the theory itself, which begins by telling you that the theory has been updated. So why didn’t Mat “start up his search engines” then?

He does go on to talk about how he won’t be getting into the “nitty gritty” of the theory, but offers an example of how Buy n Large plays into multiple movies.

now the reason I wanted to start talking about this today is because I have a few problems with the Pixar Theory timeline. 

So Mat then goes on to recite some big elements of the theory that, again, are ancient history. And he gets some basic stuff wrong, like this:

that’s why you don’t see humans or animals in either car movie

Except we do, actually. We see the birds from For the Birds (a Pixar short) in the first Cars.

this whole Pixar Theory is an interesting explanation, but there are a lot of assumptions

So why didn’t you research the updated one? And spoiler alert: his entire theory is nothing but assumptions, starting with Mat’s assertion that they aren’t sentient machines brought to life like the toys from Toy Story.

The cars are actually organic creatures. Living creatures with the car body of the top exoskeleton, but containing some sort of internal organs. A soft and squishy inside like the center of a Tootsie Roll pop.

I get it. So Mat took all of the clever revelations SuperCarlinBros already figured out months ago…then made it worse. Neat.

First, they breathe oxygen. 

And they also drink oil. And we see they have engines multiple times in the movie. How does that make them organic?

See, Mat goes on to point out how the cars must be organic because they basically act like humans. They eat “food” and one car wears an underwater “breather” like in spy movies. I contend that they do this because they think they’re the humans who owned them. Multiple Pixar movies point out that human emotion (a la Monsters Inc.) is the source of energy that can bring inanimate objects to life (like in Brave and Toy Story). And in movies like WALL-E, we see that the life of these machines is sustained by interactions with human belongings, like the movie Hello Dolly that WALL-E watches all the time.

I’m sorry I have to keep saying this, but Mat is completely missing this stuff because he didn’t even seem to look for it. And now we have to suffer through what is at best an amusing sideshow full of weird body horror jokes.

Mat then goes on to say that because of a “studio stories” video by Pixar, this is all confirmed in addition to McQueen having the hiccups in a “Tales from Radiator Springs” short. He quickly cuts in and out of a quote that McQueen can’t open his doors because “that’s where his brains are.”

they have a brain! A giant, pink, pulsating brain hidden behind those car windows!

Nope.

This is terribly misleading because Mat leaves out the fact that this same animator was trying to think of ways to make Lightning capable of producing a map to Sally. He mentions that using the doors wouldn’t make sense conceptually because that’s where his “brains” would be. He also proposed that maybe a monkey drove the car and showed the map, and many more examples that are nonsensical.

So none of this comes close to confirming anything about cars having organs. Rather, it’s just an animator discussing the challenges of making the Cars world a believable one that isn’t gross or creepy. That includes avoiding this kind of “brain” implication in the first place.

so it would appear that the cars are actual living creatures and not just some highly advanced driverless cars.

“Appear” is a strong word. If anything, there’s far more evidence that the cars are, in fact highly advanced driverless cars compared to this idea that they’re animals. But Mat ignores all of that inconvenient evidence so he can champion his own theory.

Like I said before. Bring it on.

there’s an actual evolutionary chain present throughout these films. 

Go on.

[In Cars 2] we see birds. Except they’re not actually birds. They’re actually mini planes. 

Oh boy.

In another of the Tales from Radiator Springs animated shorts, you get VW beetle beetles. Tiny cars with insect wings.

Which is why the theory states that the cars work off of an unreliable narrator. Which means that to them, organic creatures on Earth look like cars to them, but elsewhere we see real birds, and we know from WALL-E and A Bug’s Life that birds and insects are still around in this post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Have you noticed that for a Pixar theory about Pixar movies, Mat doesn’t seem to include a lot of the other Pixar movies?

Mat goes on to talk about how the alien stuff from “Mater’s Tall Tales” is totally real rather than…a tall tale. And their tires being independent from their bodies must “prove” his theory rather than support the idea that they are, in fact, machines with tires. Good stuff.

these are living creatures with internal organs that are protected by a car-like exoskeleton.

Did they grow this exoskeleton themselves? And where do their engines (which we see) come from?

and with multiple differentiated animal-like species that have evolved over time from literal boats, planes, and cranes to bug-like and bird-like animals

But The Pixar Theory has too many assumptions? And my main problem with this is that Mat goes into zero detail over how and why machines would suddenly turn into bugs and insects. Or why the personified cars don’t. He just drops that evolution part in and moves on. You know, like in the original Pixar Theory!

In short, when you look at all of this evidence, there is only one possible conclusion:

Mat put as little effort as possible into tackling the Pixar Theory? Because this is just sloppy, and a bit uninspired.

the cars in Cars aren’t really cars at all, but are much more likely a highly evolved form of insect.

Remember kids: “this whole Pixar Theory is an interesting explanation, but there are a lot of assumptions.”

Mat’s entire argument here is that because cars have a metal “skin”, that must mean they’re evolved from insects, which (whoa!) also have an exoskeleton. Ignoring literally everything about science that has ever been known about how insects, you know, have evolved and are composed biologically.

Remember when Mat said, “Oh they have brains! Confirmed!” Well, he even shows diagrams of insects that don’t have brains (or eyes or tongues or teeth) like what he describes, yet that doesn’t matter because this is my life now.

I get it. The Pixar Theory is about having fun, not being scientifically accurate. But this is just weird for the sake of it and not at all informative of what the theory’s really about: telling a grander story behind all of the movies and characters.

the cars aren’t cars! They’re insects!

I mean come on, does anyone else think Mat is just spoofing at this point? He literally has to say “The cars aren’t cars.”

that does some really interesting things for the Pixar Theory

At best, it ruins the Pixar Theory and undermines everything we actually know about the Cars movies.

First and foremost, it removes Cars from the era of humans

Thus making it completely implausible. The point of Cars is that the machines are brought to life through memories of humans. Taking that out to make room for some random insect nonsense adds literally nothing to the theory. It only takes away evidence that brings everything about the machines together for what happens in Monsters Inc.

that sort of evolution is going to take a really long time, so get it away from the WALL-Es, Nemos, and Incredibles of the world.

So then what’s the point? And how would human civilization be what it is in the Cars universe if this was so far in the future? Where are the monsters? Why are the cars remembering events from the 20th Century, like the Piston Cup? If they’re so far removed from the Pixar timeline, why even suggest that the timeline is even purposeful?

but surprisingly enough, we do happen to have one film in Pixar’s lineup that does follow super intelligent bugs in their quest for survival

What about the birds? If we’re bringing A Bug’s Life into this, then you also have to point out that the birds are primal and “dumb” compared to the insects.

in a world where there are remnants of human society but you see no humans present

But we do know they’re still around because one insect had his wings clipped by a kid.

what I propose to you is that Cars isn’t so much its own entity, but rather A Bug’s Life 2, 3, and coming up on 4. The natural progression of insects evolving and taking over the planet Earth. 

So insects naturally evolve…into cars? That explains the millions of years established by the Pixar timeline (starting with Good Dinosaur) where they, you know, didn’t evolve into cars. But don’t worry, because all of these theory holes will be solved (maybe!) next time.

and with that we have the first puzzle pieces in place as we all start to build our own Film Theorists approved mega Pixar Theory!

Go for it. Seriously. These are your movies too. Just don’t be surprised when the Snarcasm rolls around, because if you’re going to build off of my initial ideas and timeline without fully looking into them for your own purposes, plus rip off another YouTuber’s theories without giving them any credit for it, then this is a Pixar Theory war. 


Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni


‘Beauty And The Beast’ Is A Decent Musical Trapped Inside A Dull Remake

beauty and the beast

There’s no major, heavy-handed flaw that brings down Beauty and the Beast, the latest of Disney’s live-action remakes. Rather, this film falls apart from its own weight of bad decisions, made very carefully to not to mess with one of Disney’s most beloved classics too much for fear of losing the same magic that brought animated films to the prestigious forefront of Hollywood.

The original conception hasn’t changed at all, really. A young, beautiful girl living in a small French village finds herself the prisoner of a cursed prince who was transformed into a beast for being vain. They have to fall in love in order to break the spell, and his castle’s magical servants — a collection of humans transformed into the prince’s belongings in case that wasn’t subtle enough — orchestrate elaborate ways to bring these two mismatched people together.

This is, of course, a remake that feels far more faithful to the word, in that a vast majority of this film is a recycled mess of frames, songs, characters, and ideas that are mixed together with a few more expanded subplots that try to explain the world of Beauty and the Beast better than previous adaptations. For what it’s worth, this is a longer movie that lets the characters breathe when necessary.

The trouble is that Disney’s answer to defending this remake’s existence is by over-explaining the exposition of this world and its inhabitants, robbing us of any nuance or mystery as full character motivations are described by either voiceover or ham-fisted declarations more suitable for a stage play. There’s a good effort here, though, to fix some of the perceived problems of the 1991 adaptation, like toning down the unlikable nature of the Beast earlier and with less violence on his part, so his budding relationship with Belle can be more believable and fleshed out.

beauty and the beast

In a better movie, that might have been enough to give Beauty and the Beast a real purpose for taking a victory lap, as the film also manages to pull off some impressive musical beats that show off director Bill Condon’s best work from Dreamgirls. Sadly, it seems this movie also inherits his romantic habits from the two Twilight films he directed, in that Dan Stevens and Emma Watson (who play the titular characters) are the weakest points of a movie that absolutely relies on their chemistry to succeed.

That’s not to say either performer does a terrible job here. Dan Stevens (Legion, Downton Abbey) does fine work trying to imitate the emotive Beast from the animated film, and it’s not his fault he can’t possibly measure up to Glen Keane’s legendary character. For what the film is trying to be, Stevens does a serviceable job bringing a CGI beast to life under what must have been a huge budget.

It’s Emma Watson (Harry PotterBling Ring) who seems unprepared to carry this film as the heart of its romance. She’s more passionless film critic than audience surrogate, frequently turning her nose to obviously wondrous set pieces and working off of a very limited range of expressions and vocabulary. It doesn’t help that her singing is a bit on the lump side as well, pushed harder by obvious autotune that doesn’t blend well with the superior voice work happening all around her.

Worse, there’s not much done here with the Belle character. Beast gets a new musical number and some chances for identity beyond being mean and clumsy. In this film, he’s a bit of a reader, so he and Belle have something conceivable to bond over. But Belle is a poorly written presence by comparison, often reminiscent of the kind, but independent Belle from the 1991 version without much else to cling to aside from the introduction of a forced backstory involving her life in Paris. None of these threads come together well, making for a more forgettable character than this tale deserves.

beauty and the beast

Still, there really isn’t anything atrociously bad about Beauty and the Beast apart from how tragic it is as a missed opportunity for Disney’s live-action retreads. Rather than upgrade the classic with authentic accents and an updated, more modern story (seriously, there was a great opportunity to pivot the villain, here), the film seems more content on going through the motions as best it can without the luxury of animation to make itself more enchanting. Luke Evans (Dracula Untold) as Gaston is about the only actor who tries to bring some worldly relevance to his role, while still hamming it up alongside the somewhat subdued and one-note LeFou, played by Josh Gad (Frozen).

When Beauty and the Beast does manage to pull off genuine moments of wonder, it’s every bit as likable as its predecessor. But the movie never surprises and it certainly never surpasses what it’s borrowing from. Granted, it’s beautifully realized and the production design is a positive step forward for Disney films, but nothing here is satisfying enough to make up for the fact that this is a revisionist tale lacking true vision.

Grade: C

Extra Credits:

  • I have to be honest, that’s a graceful “C.” I had a terrible experience with this film, despite its high points. It violates the don’t make them want to see the original version during the entire movie rule.
  • Another missed opportunity is in how the original Beauty and the Beast had some progressive flourishes, like how Belle was more interesting than previous Disney damsels.  But this new film does very little to innovate, aside from a more diverse cast and an awkwardly executed LGBT inclusion that seems to forget it exists most of the time.
  • I didn’t have time to get to the rest of the cast, and it’s seriously one of the better aspects of the movie. Kevin Kline as Belle’s father, Ewan McGregor as Lumiere (terrible French accent aside), and Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts just to name a few. The film does well to give everyone their moment to bask.
  • Oh, let’s not forget about Sir Ian McKellan, who played Cogsworth. Funny enough, he turned down the role for the animated version.
  • This film was in postproduction for 18 months. And it shows.
  • The ‘Gaston’ scene is the best one, in my opinion. They added cut lyrics from the original to make it longer and edgier.

    Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

    Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni


Breaking Down The First Teaser For Pixar’s ‘Coco’ – The Pixar Detectives

Pixar’s Coco doesn’t come out until November, but the Pixar Detectives are ready to dive right in to the first teaser. We even talk a lot about how it might fit into the Pixar Theory, as well as how the movie differs quite a bit from The Book of Life and Kubo and the Two Strings.

On that note, this week’s giveaway is a copy of The Pixar Theory book, written by Jon Negroni and illustrated by Kayla Savage. We already have a winner,  so be sure to tune in live with us on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. (Pacific) so you can win next time. Follow the link below or just click the video above. We give away Pixar-related goodies like shirts, books, blu-rays, and tons more. And we’re always open to new suggestions for prizes you all might be interested in!

Hope you enjoy the show, and don’t forget to like Super News on Facebook, so you can check out all kinds of awesome shows and giveaways coming out daily. That includes vide game live streams, other Disney talk shows, superhero news, and plenty more. See you all next week!


Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni