Thanks Leirin! I thought your ideas were great, too! The reason I think that thing about Cars is because of all of the celebrities that have the same names or similar names to real people, so I thought maybe it could be that. Maybe thereâs a car of you and me and the rest of us in there somewhereâŠ
Haha, like carsonas. Youâre right about the similar names bit too, and I didnât even take it into consideration. I have to wonder if the race in question that Lightning is going on, in the ârealâ world, is a footrace then? Itâs really funny to think in these terms!
Leirin, youâre my hero. In just a few minutes you constructed an explanation that is simpler, and more logical than anything in the Pixar theory.
I hate it because nowhere is time travel suggested in the Pixar movies and the Witch and the talking animals basically operate on Disney rules of âMagic users spout anachronismsâ and âAnimals can communicate with each other, but not with peopleâ.
Hereâs my own take on the Pixar Timeline. Incorporated some spinoff material and some development details as well to give it a little more flavor and I think it has more of an actual story to it.
I disagree with the theory for several reasons:
(1) Cars takes place in an alternate universe, as indicated by the spin-off Disney film Planes, plus the newspapers and trophies in Docâs garage are dated 1951-1954. Plus, in Pixar Short Films Collection: Volume 2, there is a short film called Time-Travel Mater, which was somehow inspired by an unmade tale that can be found in the bonus features of Materâs Tall Tales.
(2) Monsters Inc. possibly takes place around the same time as somewhere between Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3, most likely due to the kids becoming desensitized. Therefore, itâs a parallel universe that can only be accessed through the closet door. In Monsters University, there is no sign of an energy crisis yet. That is because, if you reach the scene where Mike Wazowski goes through a door to try and scare a kid, the kids are at a camp. This means the prequel probably takes place a few decades earlier, when children used to go outside and play back then.
(3) In terms of the postcard that was sent by Carl & Ellie, itâs likely possible that Andy was also a Wilderness Explorer some years before Russell came in, as we see when Russell comes up on Carlâs front porch sometime after Ellie has passed away. Oh, and itâs likely that Ratatouille would possibly be taking place around the same time as The Incredibles, as indicated through Bomb Voyage as a mime.
(4) The theory may also be disproved because it leaves out a lot of detail used in short films as well as books. Can you hear the music that blasts in Mikeâs New Car? Or would Boundinâ (along with La Luna) be something like a frequently-told tale possibly liked by just about everyone? Also, I am reading some BOOM! comics related to WALL-E, in which the BOOM! comics may also disprove the theory as well. And if you ever heard of those, has anyone here ever read either Laugh Factory or Recharge? And take a look at the other picture books, which further the story. Those stories may also disprove the theory as well.
Therefore, I must collect the info needed to create a new theory.
Whoa, I forgot all about this thread! It created some good discussion. evspixarfan2012, those are good thoughts! Iâd love to read more into this still.
I am sooooo gonna disprove this theory once and for all! (And as soon as I collect enough info for a new theory, Iâm gonna type it on my blog.)
Besides, this other old theory has got to go! Plus, Iâm pretty sure the guy who wrote that theory has probably never seen the actual films, as indicated by the following:
(1) Incorrect time periods
(2) Lack of screen shots
(3) Description and/or details appear to be rushed
(4) Information from short films is missing
Therefore, my goal this summer is to create a new theory that will ultimately disprove of the old one. Anyone else here agree with me?
Evspixarfan2012 - I think most of those are either on purpose or excusable.
-
Iâm not sure if you mean they mess up movie timelines or the parts where they move a movie to an unexpected time period. The latterâs a rather normal thing for wacky fan theories.
-
Well it doesnât really need screenshots. Itâs operating under the assumption youâve seen the movies already, so it doesnât really need to illustrate anything.
-
He doesnât seem to want to include them. Just doing the films was probably hard enough. Besides, to include shorts youâd need to figure out things like when Remy learned to break the fourth wall.
Not saying you canât try and disprove it, or make your own, it just seems highly unlikely the guy hasnât seen the movies. Why even come up with a theory for movies you havenât seen?
Off of that, people have started stating this theory is a fact. Ugh!
Well, thatâs the big problem right there! People have come to believe in the so-called theory being true, and without actually taking the time to re-watch those films in terms of details contained within that prove this theory to be false.
This, of course, is in terms of both Cars moviesâfor one. (And there are others.)
I donât really mind people taking the theory as a personal headcanon, I just have a problem with people listing it as a âPixar factâ alongside things like A113 and the Pizza Planet truck. Setting aside any problems with it (even official things have problems. Just to list one, isnât it canon that the Monster World and the Human World are the same and the humans just somehow havenât noticed?), itâs just misleading and wrong to do.
This is as annoying as the people who think Anna and Elsaâs parents are Tarzanâs parents. Why are people so set on connecting things?
I donât really know why people think they have to do thatâŠunless theyâre just doing it only for the purpose of ruining a good story by making everyone read their theories into a point of believing them, and then to cause confusion upon viewing of the actual story.
Hereâs my theory:
The way I see it, Toy Story and Monsters Inc. take place together. They just seem like two movie series that fit nicely with one another. Also, I can see Finding Nemo (the Buzz in the waiting room), Up (the Carl-and-Ellie Postcard in TS3), Ratatouille (if Finding Nemo can have sentient fish and birds and Up can have sentient dogs, then thereâs no reason I can see regarding Ratatouille also taking place along side them), and maybe WALL-E (the Rex in WALL-Eâs truck and the BNL batteries in TS3) in there as well.
The Incredibles could be a film-within-a-film (since it doesnât really fit with the others and thereâs a Mr. Incredible comic book in the Dentistâs office in Finding Nemo). The Cars Franchise, Iâd like to think, is sort of like the intro to Toy Story 3, in that it takes place inside a kidâs imagination while playing with toys. A Bugâs Life is somewhat tricky. In TS2, there are a ton of Bugs Life background references (Andyâs calendar, the book Mrs. Potato Head is reading, the toys at Alâs Toy Barn). So for me, itâs either that it takes place in a childâs imagination or itâs a film-within-a-film sort of thing.
Or they all just take place in their own separate worlds and not everything is connected.
CaptainJZH - Just checking; are you aware of the comic crossover between Monsters,Inc. and Toy Story?
Yes. I havenât read it, but I know of it.
I think itâs a cool theory!
I think there could be a connection between a couple of the different movies (For example, Ratatoullie, Up and Toy Story), but some of them just take it a little too far. I donât know.
Guys, we are having a bigger problem all over the Internet. Itâs like several other individual theories related to Pixar films are constantly continuing to be made up by deluded fansâwhich makes me mad because every time I go on a rant trying to explain that none of them are true, all I get from them is a bunch of lame excuses, such as âYou just donât get it.â and âItâs just for fun.â and a whole bunch of repeated questions that say the same details as the theory itself from which I have to constantly answer with the same set of my disproval statements over and over again.
This has happened on both my Twitter and YouTube accounts, mostly. And if those fans are refusing to believe me every time I try to tell them, itâs because they are being deluded away from the true brightness and color of the actual films themselves, and I have reason to believe that everything being said within the entire theory itself is obviously just being used as a lame excuse to prevent newbies of the fandom from watching the actual films themselves, by luring them to the untrue and dark-sounding details insteadâall of which has gone too far widespread ever since that blogger Jon Negroni started it and therefore thatâs why it must be stopped, 'cause I am really afraid (and worried) that the theory is a threat to both the studioâs future and its entire fanbase.
When are people going to realize that Boo does NOT time-travel through doors in search of Sulley and become a witch?! Or that Jessieâs previous owner does NOT become Andyâs mom?! Or that the Axiom has NOTHING to do with Cars?!
But other than that, Iâve noticed a huge number of other theories appearing recently. First, someone had suggested that Carl was dead with Russell being his guardian angel. Then someone else suggested that Edna Mode was once previously associated with Syndrome. None of these are true, either. The WORST part was that, last winter, when I recieved one of my e-mails from Topical Digest, I got really MAD because SOMEONE had called WALL-E a âvillainâ! And not only that, but at the same time it looked like whoever was saying that had obviosuly altered his cute, sad-looking googly eyes into mean-looking ones! THAT one right there, I really HATED the most.
All of this, right there, is further proof that fan theoriesâespecially the ones related to Pixar filmsâhave somehow already become a huge problem across the Internet, especially in recent months. And I think itâs time we, the true fans who know exactly what is wrong with the theory and its many noticeable flaws, try to do something about it. (Does anyone else agree?)**
âevspixarfan2012
We donât need to. The Pixar theory, as well as all other Pixar shared universe theories, are long dead as confirmed in this one interview with the directors of Inside Out:
youtube.com/watch?v=h74nAbx9Fgw
So there you go, indisputable disproving of that wretched fan theory. Of course seeing as that video has literally a 1000th or so the views one of SuperCarlinBrothersâs ongoing videos about how this recent Pixar film or that recent Pixar film fits into the theory does, it seems like we know how much the internet cares.
^Thank you for sharing.