So, M. Night Shyamalan Still Wants to Make ‘The Last Airbender 2’

the last airbender 2

Before we go any further, let’s get my opinion straight. I’m speaking to M. Night Shyamalan directly when I say, STAY AWAY FROM AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER. FOREVER.

There, that’s all I wanted to say, aside from the rest of this.

Strangely, some people don’t blame the once promising director for the insulting mess that was 2010’s The Last Airbender, including Shyamalan himself. We’ll get to the lunacy of that, but first I should mention that this is still a minority opinion. A terrible opinion, but a minority opinion all the same.

Venture Capitol Post posted an article yesterday with an unforgivably misleading title that shocked and scared the eyes of hopefully only tens of readers:

‘Avatar: The Last Airbender 2’ Confirmed: Director M. Night Shyamalan Defends 1st Film from Longstanding Criticism.

Um…No, this movie is most certainly NOT confirmed. Obvious clickbait headline isn’t just clickbait. It’s actually beyond clickbait, transcending into a full on clicksnare.

the last airbender 2
This will teach readers to skim my lede.

Nowhere in the article does it say that The Last Airbender 2 has been “confirmed.” They don’t even get the name of the movie right in the title, which should be the first red flag.

No, this article only covers a few link shares to other articles published over the last few months that point out Shyamalan’s interest in continuing the franchise. In fact, I can’t find anything new or relevant in this article to explain why it even exists. So let’s keep going!

‘Avatar: The Last Airbender 2’ director M. Night Shyamalan continued to defend his first film from long-standing criticism. He is also reported ready to push through with a sequel.

Source? Nope. There’s no source for this at all. Venture Capital Post just asserts this and moves on like it’s not the biggest bombshell fans of the animated series have seen since the first reviews for The Last Airbender came out. Who edited this?

According to Movie Pilot, the filmmaker was not to blame for the Nickelodeon cartoon adaptation’s failure with critics and audiences alike.

First, it’s Moviepilot, not “Movie Pilot.” Also, they’re shamelessly sourcing an opinionated article not written by Moviepilot staff, but written by someone who’s never seen an episode of the show they’re talking about. I’m not making that up.

Let’s jump over to that “Movie Pilot” article and see what writer Rohan Mohmand has to say (and yes, it’s ironic he shares the name of Tenzin’s son).

M.Night Shyamalan is an original thinker.

Nope, nope, keep going. You can do it, Jon.

I still haven’t seen the respective show,

Wow. Yeah, so Rohan sings Shyamalan’s praises for a few paragraphs, citing that the early success for the filmmaker based on his only two widely accepted movies, The 6th Sense and Unbreakable (a case can be made for Signs, but not a good one) lends to the fact that the failure of The Last Airbender has nothing to do with him.

Because directors don’t make both good and bad movies, according to Rohan. Especially when they’ve made like five abysmal movies in a row. You know what came out before The Last Airbender? Oh, just a little train wreck called The Happening.

In that movie, the “original” Shyamalan presented a world where plants make us kill ourselves. And that’s when we learned that originality doesn’t necessarily make something good.

Today, it has been almost six years since its release, and whenever someone brings the subject of The Last Airbender it is Shyamalan to blame.

Is this a surprise? He’s writing this like it’s not valid to blame the person who spent the most time making the movie happen and overseeing its execution for how bad it is. Granted, not every movie is bad because of the direction, but how can you argue that The Last Airbender doesn’t suffer from its many Shyamalanisms?

the last airbender 2
“Let’s do ANOTHER closeup so we can see how bad the scar is!”

But Rohan’s not finished. He cites an interview Shyamalan had with IGN about this (sorry about the inception-level article sourcing. It’s not my fault, I’m only the director of this article).

This is from Shyamalan, explaining what went wrong with the movie:

“My child was nine-years-old. So you could make it one of two ways: you could make it for that same audience, which is what I did, for nine and 10-year-olds, or you could do the ‘Transformers’ version and have Megan Fox. I didn’t do that.”

First, that last line, “I didn’t do that” wasn’t cited by Rohan for some unexplainable reason, so I added it. Second, what world does Shyamalan live in?

You know what else was made for nine and 10-year-olds? Avatar the Last Airbender, which is considered by many to be one of the greatest animated series of all time. But it’s not geared toward people who like Transformers, so Shyamalan had to “adjust.”

What kind of backwards opinion is this? Your movie sucks because you made it for kids? Have you ever seen a Disney, Pixar, or DreamWorks Animation movie? You think those movies are hits because they appeal to adults ONLY? No, they appeal to a wide demographic. Kids AND adults can watch a movie like Beauty and the Beast.

the last airbender 2
Which was ONLY the first animated movie to be nominated for Best Picture. That’s all! 

In what universe do you have to believe that if you shoot for a wider demographic, you end up creating something akin to Transformers?! You know what, I actually can believe that someone as deluded as M. Night Shyamalan believes he’s making bad movies because he thinks anything else is Transformers. That’s the same delusion that must be related to his obvious and utter failure to understand how to make a kids’ movie, or why a good kids’ movie is good. 

Rohan (hopefully) digresses:

Defending his film, there’s nothing that we can do, for as the director, and also as a fan of the show, Shyamalan has all the rights. But, the question is, is he really the person to blame for the failure of The Last Airbender?

YES. Is this a trick question?

The answer to the question above is a “no.”

I hate everything.

Shyamalan is not to blame for the failure of the film. In fact, he is owed an apology.

Should I punch my computer now?

Last summer, Joblo penned a piece spreading the word, the story behind the making of The Last Airbender, divulged passionately on the AvatarSpirit.net forums.

So now we’re officially sourcing forums.

The story, however, is no longer available on the forum.

I wonder why.

It was published by someone who worked on the production of the film and the increased attention got her concerned as her career was going to be in jeopardy.

How do you know this? And can’t you also argue that she took it down because it was full of false information skewed by her opinion? Nope, let’s just take this at face value and source it as evidence.

I’ll give you the gist. This person claims that 80% of the decisions for The Last Airbender came from the producers, including the casting of the girl who played Katara.

last airbender 2
Yeah, I don’t remember her name either.

She argues that this casting was nepotism on part of the producers, and it resulted in them having to alter the ethnicities of many other characters, leading to the major backlash this movie suffered from before it even came out. None of the characters looked the part.

Only later would we realize that none of the actors acted the part either. Katara herself lost all of her best moments from the show (holding her own against Zuko, giving the inspiring speech to the earthbenders), and Sokka’s cleverness and wit was replaced with…brooding and being serious all the time.

the last airbender 2
Your meat and sarcasm guy.

Of course, Rohan would know this if he had watched an episode of the show.

The disgruntled forum hacker blames everything on the producers. The lack of budget, the story changes, the effects not looking right. Basically, she props up the basic challenges of any film as something that the director couldn’t control.

Except, we’re not talking about a novice director. We’re talking about M. Night Shyamalan, who at this point in his career DID have clout as a film director. I can understand a newcomer like Colin Trevorrow getting steamrolled while making Jurassic World, but you can’t give someone like Shyamalan the same pass.

And this unknown person claims that Shyamalan just gave up because none of his ideas went through. In other words, he didn’t do his job of upholding good ideas, so he’s the victim.

You know who else “gave up” on their movie? Josh Trank with Fantastic Four. You know why everyone still blames him, even after writing that cringe Tweet? Because he’s the director. It’s his JOB to salvage what the producers pick apart.

the last airbender 2
“I wanted to give you good direction, but the producers said I can’t.”

And blame the producers all you want for getting in the way. You CAN’T, however, blame them for the execution. You can’t blame the producers for the gross mispronunciation of the characters’ names. That was from Shyamalan. You can’t blame the horrendous closeups and terrible camera work. That was from Shyamalan. You certainly can’t blame the bland dialogue and writing that comes from every other Shyamalan movie and is present here (because he wrote it).

What, were these the same producers who made The Happening happen?

So Rohan concludes, claiming that Shyamalan is classy for taking the responsibility and not blaming anyone else. That’s fine. But you’re in a dream within a dream if you really think he’s not to blame for why this movie still causes physical and emotional pain for any fan of the show who’s reminded of it.

Back to Venture Capital Post, who is spinning the wheels of what you can get away with in an article that does no real work:

It is undeniable that Shyamalan is a master writer-director in his own right with successful supernatural films under his belt including ‘Lady in the Water’, ‘The Village’, ‘Signs’, ‘Unbreakable’ and 1999’s cult favorite ‘The Sixth Sense’.

No.

Just…no. It is not “undeniable.” It is, in fact, incredibly deniable that Shyamalan is a “MASTER” because only two and half of those movies were well-received by critics. Lady in the Water? Seriously? The movie that received a 24% on Rotten Tomatoes before it was “cool” to make fun of Shyamalan?

Look, I love The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable as much as anyone. And I didn’t “hate” Signs and The Village. But to call the man a master is hyperbole, and saying it’s “undeniable” is transcending hyperbole. 

the last airbender 2
How do I sleep at night? 

But Venture digresses. The writer points out what Rohan did — that Shyamalan said to IGN once that The Last Airbender is made for nine and 10-year-olds instead of everyone who else who watches Transformers, which is why “you don’t get it.” Virtually ignoring every other kids’ film that has proven the exact opposite.

Then Venture rightfully acknowledges that the creators of Avatar (Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante Dimartino) don’t even acknowledge that The Last Airbender even exists. Yeah, it’s the Lake Laogai running gag that us fans have been using to cope for five years now, and it’s pretty effective.

According to Den of Geek, Shyamalan planned to push through with a sequel as evidenced by the introduction of Prince Zuko’s sister, Azula, at the end of the first film.

Wait, that’s not according to Den of Geek, that’s painfully obvious from watching the movie. Did you really have to source a website to know that they planned to make this a trilogy? Is this real life?

However, despite previous news that he had already penned a first draft for the follow-up, no updates have come up since then.

This sentence flies in the face of the earlier one in this article, which claimed that the sequel WAS reportedly happening. Oh, and it also clashes with the headline of the entire article. This is real life.

You’re probably wondering why I’m going to so much trouble to rip these articles apart, and it’s for a few reasons. The biggest is that I don’t want someone to stumble across them and take them in as actual reporting. This is a PSA.

the last airbender 2

Second, I love this franchise more than any other on television. I love the characters. I love the animation. I love the world they created. I love the comics. I love the spin off. I love the fan art. I even love the pilot episode. OK, the video games are hit and miss, but I still enjoyed playing them.

So I’m going to dissent with writers like Rohan who let their love of Shyamalan get in the way of honest criticism. And for the most part, he does a good job of explaining why he loves this director and wants him to succeed. I have no problem with that, even though I disagree.

My main issue is with a website like Venture Capital Post for all of the reasons I’ve already gotten into. And if you come across garbage articles like this during your time on the Internet, then I hope you do the same and call them out for it. We deserve better.

On that note, I’d like to welcome you to Lake Laogai.

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

The 5 Movies that Sum Up My Love For Movies

love movies

“Summing Up” is a fun exercise I used to take part in during public speaking courses in high school. The premise is simple: you’re tasked with sharing five things about yourself to someone else so that they can properly sum you up.

We would do this with books, sports, TV shows, and of course, movies.

I’m sure you can all relate with how frightening it is to tell someone your favorite movie, even if you’re reasonably confident and have good self-esteem. For whatever reason, many of us can have this lingering doubt that the movie we pick is somehow embarrassing or, worse, wrong (whatever that means).

Choosing a “favorite movie” says a lot about who you are, whether you like it or not. You immediately put that movie on a pedestal above legions of others movies that are probably better, and this creates a slight conflict between you and the person who’s listening.

love movies
The Godfather: Part II

For this reason, I used to play “Summing Up” when I was still figuring out my movie tastes. Instead of telling people that my favorite movie of all time was this or that, I gave them a few movies that illustrated my love for movies.

And you know what? That’s way more fun than just boldly implying that “your” favorite movie is something special, even if you really think it is.

Nowadays, I just tell people what my favorite movie is because it hasn’t changed in a long time and probably never will. But looking back, I’m compelled to revisit this exercise more often, and as it turns out, my favorite movie is on this list anyway.

If you’re thinking of movies right now that fit this exercise, please share in the comments at the end of the post so we can get to know you in a non-creepy way. For now, here are the 5 movies that sum up my love for movies, starting with #5.

#5 Star Wars (A New Hope)

love movies

OK, let’s just get this one out of the way. While A New Hope isn’t necessarily the best “Star Wars” film, it’s certainly the most iconic, at least for me. No, Yoda isn’t in it, and Vader’s big twist isn’t until the next one, but I’m talking about story, not set pieces.

The story arc of A New Hope is my personal favorite version of the Hero’s Journey (or monomyth), made famous by Joseph Campbell. You have a central hero, impossible circumstances, a ragtag team of allies gathered along the way, and beautiful locations to watch them complete their journey.

You have a progression from zero to hero, a damsel in distress, and a main character who returns triumphant and transformed. A New Hope is my favorite movie that has this admittedly common storytelling, and it’s one of the first movies I ever watched that captured my imagination for heroes and adventures.

For that reason, most of the adventure movies I watch now end up getting compared to this one, rather than Empire Strikes Back or the Indiana Jones films.

#4 The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

love movies

Based on an adventure novel by Alexandre Dumas, this retelling of The Count of Monte Cristo is one of the most satisfying story arcs I think I’ve ever watched on the big screen.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the basic set up, this movie is about a lovable adventurer named Edmond who is betrayed by his best friend for a crime he didn’t commit and is sentenced to life imprisonment. Meanwhile, his best friend steals his fiancé without batting an eye while Edmond plots his revenge in jail.

I won’t spoil the rest, but you can probably tell what’s coming. This movie is such a well-crafted revenge story that manages to be decently faithful to the source material. As someone who loves a great revenge movie starring Guy Pearce, this movie doesn’t disappoint in the slightest.

Every scene is pivotal, the relationships between the characters are unforgettable, and the actual message of the whole thing is timeless.

#3 You’ve Got Mail

love movies

Yes, I realize this movie is a bit of a ham, but I’ll never stop loving You’ve Got Mail. Even though the movie was considered underwhelming during its time, I’ve found it better and better the more I’ve watched it. I honestly can’t say that for a lot of movies that came out in the 90s, especially comedies.

Choosing this movie as the “romantic comedy” of the list was a hard decision because it had to win over Crazy, Stupid, Love. But really, the big difference between these movies is that You’ve Got Mail is more than just an archetype for what Crazy was trying to poke fun at.

Mail does much more with its subject material in that it contrasts relationships within the context of technology and even touchy subjects like capitalism, all set in the “center of the world,” New York City. The story works on a lot of levels, even if you’re not that entertained by the budding romance between Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, so every time I rewatch this movie, I find more things to like about it.

While that doesn’t put this movie in the league of superior rom coms, of which I’d actually include Crazy, Stupid, Love, it’s still a movie that perfectly sums up what I look for in a movie about people falling in love.

#2 The Lion King

love movies

This may surprise a lot of you who were expecting to see Toy Story be my animation pick, but as some of you know, The Lion King is the first film I ever saw in theaters, so it had a much bigger impact on me. Though to be fair, both movies cover a compelling story about redemption, which is where I’m really going with this pick.

Granted, The Lion King is basically Disney doing Hamlet with lions, but if we can give Robin Hood a free pass, then why not this? Watching both stories, I certainly enjoy The Lion King the most because it does a much better job of getting me to invest in its characters, while Hamlet suffers from being bound to an older story that was made for a different audience.

So for that reason, The Lion King is an animated movie that I compare to almost every movie I watch that tells a story about someone finding redemption after a major tragedy and achieving their destiny.

This is actually why I enjoyed the recent Jake Gyllenhaal movie, Southpaw, which tells a similar tale with a boxer who realizes he isn’t as great as he thought it was. Even though the movie isn’t a classic, I gravitated toward Southpaw‘s story because it reminded me so much of other great redemption arcs like The Lion King and even Rocky III. 

True, I could include a host of other great animated flicks that would fit well here, like Finding NemoThe Prince of Egypt, and Aladdin. But I can’t help but hold Lion King to a much higher standard all these years later.

#1 The Mask of Zorro

love movies

This is my favorite movie of all time. Not because it’s objectively the best movie ever, but because in my eyes, it’s the perfect superhero movie.

Yes, this is my superhero pick, and it’s based on one of the first superheroes ever fictionalized (unless you count Greek mythology).

The Mask of Zorro has everything you could possibly want in a superhero film. It establishes its credibility with an original Zorro who has a compelling backstory. We watch the new Zorro train, fight, and fail under motivations that get you excited to see his transformation pull through. Even the romance plays an integral part in the story and doesn’t feel forced like some other superhero movies.

And the action scenes, even to this day, are some of the most fun moments I’ve ever had in a movie theater. Every set piece is a marvel, there’s tension when there should be tension, and there’s swashbuckling fun when there should be swashbuckling fun.

The first Pirates of the Caribbean does a good job of capturing this too, which is why I also hold that movie up to a pretty high standard for adventure films. But unlike Pirates, Zorro doesn’t rely on one interesting character to make its story intriguing. And at its heart, it’s still a superhero movie that fully delivers on everything you expect to see in one.

So there you have it! These are the five movies that sum up my love for movies. Adventure, revenge, romance, redemption, and superheroes. All of these movies are my first thoughts when said tropes are brought up, and they’ll probably stay that way for a long time.

What are your picks? Let everyone know in the COMMENTS.

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

Bo Peep Is Set to Return in ‘Toy Story 4’ For a Romance with Woody

bo peep toy story woody

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.

 

‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.’ Review — I Spy a Franchise

man from uncle review

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was directed by Guy Ritchie and stars Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, and Hugh Grant. It’s an adaptation of the TV series of the same name, and like the show, it’s a spy thriller set in the 1960s.

The movie is about two special agents, an American and a Russian played by Cavill and Hammer, who have to team up on a mission to stop a criminal organization from starting a nuclear arms race (the plot is only slightly less generic than I’m making it sound). They seek help from the daughter of someone within this criminal organization, who is played by Vikander.

Warner Brothers has been wanting to make this movie for over a decade now, but it’s somehow coming out during what I like to call “Spy Summer.” We’ve gotten a lot of pretty decent spy movies over the last few months, so how does this one stack up?

Well, one of the first things you’ll notice in U.N.C.L.E. is that the stunts are pretty well done. Cavill and Hammer did a lot of their own stunts, especially Hammer. At one point, his stunt double said in an interview that he hardly had to do anything (look out, Tom Cruise).

man from uncle review

In fact, Tom Cruise was one of the lead actors first snagged for the role of Napoleon Solo, the American agent. Henry Cavill (who initially sought the role of Hammer’s character) eventually got the part, so I think a lot of people must be wondering how the “man of steel” fares in this.

Fortunately, I can say that both Cavill and Hammer have great performances in this movie. Their characters are well written, their banter has that signature Guy Ritchie style to it, and you can more or less believe that they exist in the 60s. My only complaint is that physically, they don’t seem to match up since Hammer is meant to be a brute, while Cavill is more of the sleuth. But when you look at them side by side…well, it’s just a nitpick.

Speaking of nitpicks, I didn’t find as many as I normally do in spy movies like this, and that’s a testament to the fast pace and good writing, even if there are a few too many cliches in the overall story. I can’t say I was very invested in what was going on in this movie, and at times I felt a little lost. The movie is shot with a lot of shaky cam during its action sequences, and the script kept reusing an Ocean’s 11 plot device that felt useless by the third and fourth time.

man from uncle review

That said, the movie had a lot of memorable moments, rivaling Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation (the other spy movie that came out this month). A drunken Alicia Vikander tackling Armie Hammer’s daunting character out of nowhere was great to watch, and a certain scene involving a sandwich was the film’s best moment.

Overall, U.N.C.L.E. is an entertaining B movie with some neat surprises and good performances, though a little bogged down by a generic plot. What truly saves it from getting into mediocre territory is the soundtrack, which is currently my fourth favorite of the year (behind Mad Max: Fury RoadInside Out, and Paddington).

Grade:  B- 

If you like spy movies, throwbacks to good spy movies, the 1960s, and Guy Ritchie, then this is a must-watch.

Extra Credits: 

  • Again, I’ve never seen the original TV series, so I’m curious to know how U.N.C.L.E. stacks up. Let me know in the comments if you’ve seen both and can share your thoughts.
  • No after credits stinger, but it’s definitely setting up for a sequel (assuming it makes enough money).
  • Elizabeth Debicki is my next pick for playing Audrey Hepburn in any kind of biopic.
  • So Superman, the Lone Ranger, and an Artificial Intelligence try to stop a nuclear war…

man from uncle review

If you want to hear more thoughts on this movie before checking it out, listen to our upcoming podcast episode of Now Conspiring, where we’ll do a roundtable review with multiple critics. The episode will be ready for download this Sunday at 9:00 am (Pacific).

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

Were There Self-Aware Toys in ‘Monsters Inc,’ All Along?

toy story monsters inc theory

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).

toy story monsters inc theory

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?

toy story monsters inc theory

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).

toy story monsters inc theory

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.

toy story monsters inc theory
The soccer ball is now under the bed again.

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.

monsters inc toy story theory

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.

monsters inc toy story theory

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.

monsters inc toy story theory

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.

monsters inc toy story theory
Weirdly, Phlegm was good enough to hide this with a sweater.

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

Fantastic Four, Diary of a Teenage Girl Review; Best Movies We Saw Blind

fantastic four review podcast

This week on the Now Conspiring podcast, I’m joined by Kayla Savage, Adonis Gonzalez, and Maria Garcia as we take an in-depth look at Fantastic Four and whether or not it’s worth watching.

We also review Diary of a Teenage Girl, the latest Kristen Wiig film with newcomer Bel Fowley. Plus, we cover new trailers, the latest box office updates, and all the entertainment news you can consider entertaining. And of course, we read your comments from last week’s show.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: What is the best movie you saw blind? As in, you had no idea what the movie was about, hadn’t seen a trailer, etc.

Go on…Fantastic Four, Diary of a Teenage Girl Review; Best Movies We Saw Blind

Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation and Vacation Review, Best Tom Cruise Movies

mission impossible vacation

This week on the Now Conspiring Podcast, we review Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and the new Vacation movie based on the National Lampoon original starring Chevy Chase. We also talk a bit about Jason Segel in the David Foster Wallace biopic, The End of the Tour.

We also review box office takes, the latest trailers, this week’s top entertainment headlines, and a brand new segment called “Getting Basic w/ Adonis.” Everyone but Adonis won’t be disappointed. Then we read your feedback from last week’s question of the week. Speaking of which…

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: What’s your favorite Tom Cruise movie?

Go on…Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation and Vacation Review, Best Tom Cruise Movies