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.

 

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

Did Andy From ‘Toy Story’ Have His Own Monster?

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

toy-story-pixar-theory-who-is-andy-s-monster-404836

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

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

andy monster toy story

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

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

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

toy story andy monsters

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

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

Monsters Inc. doesn’t sell anything. 

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

toy story andy monsters

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

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

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

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

andy toy story monsters andy toy story monsters

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

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

Unfortunately, I don’t agree.

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

toy story andy monsters

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

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

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

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

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

toy story andy monsters

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

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

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

toy story andy monsters

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

There’s A ‘Toy Story’ Easter Egg In The New ‘Inside Out’ Trailer

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

inside out easter egg

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

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

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

inside out easter egg

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

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

5 Theories For What Really Happened to Bo Peep in ‘Toy Story 3’

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

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

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

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

#1 Bo Peep was sold at a yard sale.

YardSale

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

Right?

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

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

bo peep toy story

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

#2 Andy lost her.

bo peep toy story

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

Right?

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

#3 Bo Peep ran away.

toy story bo peep

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

Right?

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

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

#4 Bo Peep was donated.

bo peep toy story

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

Right?

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

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

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

bo peep toy story

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

Right?

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

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

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

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

bo peep toy story

THE VERDICT:

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

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

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

That got pretty dark…


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

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

 

Here’s a Pretty Perfect Plot Idea For ‘Toy Story 4.’

toy story 4

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

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

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

TOY STORY 4

by Aaron Helman

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

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

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

“That’s so sweet, but what about…”

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

“I’m sure Andy will be thrilled.”

“When’s the baby due?”

Cue music and excitement from the toys.

Go on…Here’s a Pretty Perfect Plot Idea For ‘Toy Story 4.’

Why is Pixar Making ‘Toy Story 4?’

toy story 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Lasseter:

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

Good enough for me.