The Pixar Theory
pixartheory.com
pixartheory.com
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."
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.
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".
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
E.T. and Star Wars are set in the same universe:
http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6555/are-e-t-and-st...
That factoid truly astounds people (try it)...
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.
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 :)
http://www.cracked.com/video_18459_why-pixar-movies-are-all-...
> 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.
P.S. After Hours is HILARIOUS!
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.
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
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.
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.
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...