45 comments

[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] thread
Can someone at Pixar confirm or deny this? Pees?
What? I'm pretty sure it's non confirmed. It's basically just nerdy banter (like Dracula vs Hulk).

They base their assumption on the fact that movies contain models from other movies, when those are merely Easter eggs. It's like saying MSFT wanted to turn accountants into pilots for 9/11 by including a flight simulator into it. It breaks down under scrutiny.

Oh! Of course it's not confirmed. It would just be nice for someone on the inside to give a wink+nod, or tell us that's it's completely off the mark.
There was a Quora by a Pixar employee (who did distance himself from Pixar, so not official statement) comment on that. I'll paste info here because Quora sucks:

   It's a wonderful example of how, given a sufficiently large dataset, 
   one can cherry-pick what one needs to construct almost any narrative.

   My daughter broke the time line, though, by pointing out
   that Heimlich has a cameo in Toy Story 2. I do want to 
   give the author props for inventing the idea of the 
   Monsters Inc. doors being time portals. It doesn't really 
   work, but it's witty.

   As in the case of Andy's father the real reason Pixar 
   films contain references to other Pixar films is rather 
   mundane. It's only because somebody thought it would be  
   funny and the director agreed. In the cases of things like 
   John Ratzenberger's voice and the Pizza Planet Truck, 
   it's  tradition and a challenge.
Source: http://www.quora.com/Pixar-Animation-Studios/What-do-Pixar-e...
Nice idea! Applying the Tarantino-esque everything in one world scenario is cool.

The theory is a bit off for me though. If it was me I'd have portrayed bugs as evolution (darwinian) of the fish, and monsters of the bug. That way around then Toy story spins off Monsters University as kids are seen to be scared through their Toy's eyes. With The Incredibles being activated to tackle the Monsters problem, which then leads to Monsters Inc and the monsters switching to comedy. Then aliens take over and Brave is the re-emerging human! :) n.b. was a pixar nut as a kid.

Touché though I can't fit Ratatouille in my world :)

(comment deleted)
Having studied literature, I was taken aback by this, as it really is a nice story, that fit the facts after the fact. It is the classical "post hoc, ergo proter hoc", that is so common in (at least German) literature science.

Some small factoids are taken from "texts" (or here movies) and over them a nice story is fabricated, to "explain" these factoids.

For example the timeline. Does Cars for example mention the time anywhere in the movie? Or is this just a fictional fitting from the maker of this site?

Or does Monster Inc. somewhere mention a time, that would explain the position on the timeline?

Or the mentioned wars between animals/humans and machines/humans. Where in the movies are they referenced?

This (The Pixar Theory) is not a "scientific" theory. It does not in the least adhere to anything remotely resembling a scientific method.

Fun to see, non the less, but not explaining anything.

FWIW, though American, I studied German lit. as well, and I don't see it either. Line for line, my reaction mirrors yours.
The worst of it was that most of the fitting wasn't necessary. There is no need for there to be a link between Up and Toy Story - both stories can exist in the same universe, as there is nothing contradictory.

In fact, the author of the page doesn't seem to want all the films to be in the same universe. S/he could more accurately be described as trying to reduce the number of "magical" artifacts necessary to explain all of the things in the films that don't exist in real life. So we have the discovery of magic in Brave, and the creation of unlimited energy / strong AI in The Incredibles, and everything else flows from that. Of course trying to tie everything to just these two root causes ironically makes them all less believable than the suspension of disbelief for each individual act of "magic".

Exactly, exactly. If you see this-- I'm replying late-- lend me an ear:

This analysis itself and the curious overwhelmingly positive response by HN and especially Reddit, as measured by vote tally and the mere inclination of the author to go to the trouble of creating a website solely dedicated to the idea, are, I believe, symptoms of how American schools teach literature.

Before describing my personal experiences, I want to note first that you should forget everything you've heard Americans prop up as excuses for our education system, if not entirely, then at least for this particular discussion. Science and history teachers may need to "teach to the (easiest) test (in the world)", but English teachers can and do assign whatever books they want - the graduation test is basic essay writing.

Anyway, American English teachers are extremely fond, for whatever reason, of "themed" curricula. For example, in my 9th grade English class, we read "Native Son" by Richard Wright (black American), "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe (black Nigerian), "Cry, the Beloved Country" by Alan Paton (black South African), "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad (the only white person on this list, and, inarguably, the only High Literature as well), and something or other by Maya Angelou (black American).

So, if you can't guess, the message that year was black people got it rough. If, in your literary analysis for any section of any of these books (even Conrad's, which isn't even about black people), you concluded that the message the author meant to convey with any even remotely logical elements X, Y, and Z, was that, indeed, black people have it rough, then guess what? You're right. X, Y, and Z mean black people got it rough. A+.

Yes, I mean it. Pick three random paragraphs out of 1984. "Orwell's opinion is that totalitarianism is bad, since, here, the authorities are torturing Winston." A+, you literary genius. Get something wrong for once! Please, just for the sake of variety! "In Fahrenheit 451, the firefighters' helmets are red because communism, which is also red." Oh my God, I never thought of it that way! Somebody get this 16-year-old a Nobel.

(The sole exception to this is Shakespeare, whose meaning behind any one play even the most idiotic English teachers are unwilling to reduce to a single sentence. And, wouldn't you know it, 80% of the students in class will inevitably complain about his insistence on using Victorian English, the big jerk. Literally, I shit you not, the majority of the time American students read Shakespeare, they're reading it in a book wherein the Shakespearean version is printed on left pages and the "modern translation" is printed on the right.)

So what you're saying is that all German lit experts are dour and depressing?
Ha. In one higher-level class (juniors and seniors), an older prof asked the class whether most students these days were religious. Response: "If we were when we started this major, we sure aren't now." Anxious laughter followed by contemplative nodding, all around.
Well yes. We had a situation reminding me of your story. ;-)

And no, we are not dour nor depressing. Me (having been highly influenced by formalism and structuralism) just wanted to know, what made stories work the way they do? What are/were the pieces, that allowed so many different people to read so many different things into these stories.

I wanted to understand the ground, the basis of all this. And I believe, that this yielded some quite interesting and counter-intuitive insights into some texts.

>Fun to see, non the less, but not explaining anything.

Actually, the problem is not a lack of explanatory power, but a lack of predictive power. If Pixar comes out with a new movie, is it possible for it to refute this theory? Not really. It's already been demonstrated that if a date is explicitly mentioned, it can be dismissed as using a different calendar system, and the theory doesn't change.

It seems that this dragon is incorporeal, so spray paint won't stick to it.

Heh quora feels like experts exchange. Show a little content for Google and external links, force registration for the rest. Meh, no thank you. Same people running it by any chance?
Your loss. Quora has some extremely excellent answers. It is well worth registering for.

For example, there was a very thorough, well written, even handed answer to a question asking for the history of the conflict in the Mideast, in terms that a 15 year old would understand: http://qr.ae/IsPAq

Another. Why does Superman wear red underwear over his costume? Turns out it has to do with the limitations of printing technology of the time. http://qr.ae/IsPDn

Another example. Why are software development task estimates regularly off by a factor of 2 or 3? http://qr.ae/IsPMM

Another: What is the most phenomenal moment in Olympic History? http://qr.ae/IsPO5

Here's one that will be of particular interest to many on HN: Would becoming homeless be a good strategy to cut costs? The first answer is from someone who elected to do that in Silicon Valley while bootstrapping his startup. http://qr.ae/IsPik

That's as may be, but forcing registration goes against the spirit of the open web. I, for one, consciously avoid any sites which require registration for read-only access.
Quora have (like many websites) a terrible privacy policy, saying they will share your private data with anyone they like at all.

Edit: Just in case anyone wonders what I mean:

Personally Identifiable Information: Quora may share your personally identifiable information with third parties for the purpose of providing the Service to you or with third parties offering combined services with Quora. For example, we may share your personally identifiable information with third-party partners that display Quora questions and answers through their services so that such partners can tailor content and advertising to you. If we do this, such third parties' use of your information will be bound by this Privacy Policy. We may store personal information in locations outside the direct control of Quora (for instance, on servers or databases co-located with hosting providers).

As we develop our business, we may buy or sell assets or business offerings. Customer, email, and visitor information is generally one of the transferred business assets in these types of transactions. We may also transfer or assign such information in the course of corporate divestitures, mergers, or dissolution.

Experts Exchange had plenty of great answers, too. That doesn't change the fact that it's a dick move - and when StackExchange came about and didn't abuse people seeking answers, everyone flocked to it.
Protip: put ?share=1 after the URL.
I read this theory on some other blog site a week ago - can someone confirm what it was?

The theory is tenuous as best and not overly convincing. But I love discourse like this. I think that this is the value of art, for there to be more meaning and truth in the work than the artist may have intended.

Anyway, a nice looking site. I like the idea of dedicate entire sites/domains to a single article or idea.

Category: Entertaining B.S.

Reminds me of Leonard Nimoy in "The Simpsons":

"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is no."

Sorry! I downvoted you trying to upvote..(the arrows are damn close at the iphone)
Now I got downvoted in retaliation. Punished by my ineptitude. HN is no place for weaklings! (Game of votes)
At best, theories like this serve as evidence of people's desire to find meaning and patterns in the world, especially in places where they don't exist.

If you do not maintain scientific rigidity - a questioning, truth-seeking curiosity - with constant vigilance, you will be able to create theories that explain anything, while actually explaining nothing.

If while reading this theory you got a strange feeling, as if something wasn't entirely right, GRASP that feeling and remember it. You should always seek the truth, but especially when you notice this feeling: pay attention and weigh the evidence. It's very useful to be able to reason well, and even more useful if your emotions help you reason.

This does not even come close to the best tie-in theory of all times, as seen in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fknp2aDXQyU It's subtitled, but trust me it worth every second (especially for tarantino fan bois, such as I)
cracked.com did a skit about this almost a year ago.

http://www.cracked.com/video_18459_why-pixar-movies-are-all-...

The author of the original article, Jonne Groni cites that video as the inspiration of his "theory":

> Several months ago, I watched a fun-filled video on Cracked.com that introduced the idea (at least to me) that all of the Pixar movies actually exist within the same universe. Since then, I’ve obsessed over this concept, working to complete what I call “The Pixar Theory,” a working narrative that ties all of the Pixar movies into one cohesive timeline with a main theme.

Did I miss something? I feel a bit inadequate as I didn't understand what this was revealing to me, but hey it's related to Pixar so all good.
>Another ant tells Flik not to leave the island because there are "snakes, birds, and bigger bugs out there." They do not mention humans, because there are very few humans to make it dangerous enough for insects to worry about.

I'm not sure this would be unrealistic in today's world, assuming sentient bugs. I would guess that for an ant not near a farm, non-human predators are a far greater danger than humans.

Anybody else feel that the author of this theory likes weed a little too much?
That all the stories occur in the same universe is a given. Oddly, The Pixar Theory gives no reference (much less credit) to the long-running proliferation of Pixar characters appearing in other Pixar movies. This includes characters from future movies, like Wall-E seen in Toy Story. The Pixar Theory, in its long-history view, fails to address proof most of the movies occur within a narrow timeframe, via facts like Heimlich (from A Bug's Life) appearing in Toy Story 2, and the Pizza Planet truck appearing in every movie (partial exception for Brave, where it appears as a carved-wood toy alongside a bas-relief of Sully).

The Pixar Theory takes a vague notion and just, as noted "post hoc, ergo proter hoc", creates an elaborate and baseless theory to justify it a la most conspiracy theories. Alas, there is a great deal of facts available to both destroy the theory as presented, and at the same time prove the "one Pixar universe" premise to far more comprehensive and compelling effect. Instead of a few vapid paragraphs, the website should be a collection of the dozens (hundreds?) of images tying all the stories together.

Or, the more likely theory: one of the animators was bored and thought it would be neato to give the pizza truck a cameo appearance. Of course, he pointed it out to a few of his close friends and a free of the people he worked with. As Pixar continued making movies, someone would always sneak the pizza truck in, to the point it's become an integral point in their corporate culture. A Pixar movie wouldn't feel the same without looking for that cameo appearance - for the employees just as much as the consumer.

So yeah, you're right. They do all take place in a unified universe: ours. Where people are people and they do silly, fun things for the sake of them being silly and fun. Like discussing unified universe theories of movies as if there's been any shroud of evidence that would lead anyone to believe one should exist.

Oy. I've seen this now on two other social media. and twice on here. :( i am disappoint
Monsters vs Aliens is not a pixar movie but fit well between Bug's Life and Monster Uni...maybe something bigger...I hope anyone try to put this as the "new bible" :p