The Pixar Theory - DEBUNKED!

After the intro, Bob starts off by giving his signature two-finger salute.
Bob: Hey, guys. The human brain is one of the most amazing things in existence. It can make complex calculations, it can take strange, abstract thoughts and somehow make them into a reality, it can do damn near anything. Unfortunately, it also has this little tendency of making connections that aren't really there. As such, let's talk about "The Pixar Theory".
Clips of various Pixar movies are seen as the award-nominated hit, "You've Got A Friend In Me", plays in the background.
Bob: *voiceover* I love Pixar, as does everyone else in the world. They produce the kind of movies that you just want to watch over and over and over again, and because everybody wants to watch them over and over and over again, I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone watched them and wondered, "Hey, could all of Pixar's movies be taking place within the same universe and continuity?" 
We cut back to Bob, sitting in his chair.
Bob: As far as fan theories go, this one is pretty fraught with flaws. And, while I normally don't pay attention to such things, there seems to be too many people buying into it for me to just let this slide. If I have the chance to use my nitpicky powers for the greater good, then by god, I'm gonna do it. This is "The Pixar Theory", debunked.
(Editor 1: Hey, that's the name of this-)
(Editor 2: Shut up!)
Bob: *voiceover* The theory begins with the assertion that we see animals behaving like humans in several of Pixar's movies, thanks to Princess Merida's mother magically turning into a bear in the movie, "Brave". And since we never see the mother interacting with any other animals, or any of that kind of magic spread elsewhere throughout this little patch of Scotland, this theory is immediately off to a good start by making absolutely no sense. How did the actions of a medieval Scottish bear queen influence modern French rats or Australian sea-life, especially when she's made human again by the movie's end and it's never established that magic even exists in these other movies?
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: You wanna know the real reason why we see animals acting like humans in Pixar's films? Because animators have been humanizing animals ever since Gertie the Dinosaur.
A clip from the silent short film appears to the right of him.
Bob: *voiceover* It is also theorized that since the witch from "Brave" also had a number of enchanted objects, this somehow led to a power struggle between humans, animals, and machines. 
A clip of Nemo getting captured by scuba divers is shown.
Bob: *voiceover* The animal struggle with humans... OK, that's pretty much a given since that just happens in real life, anyway, but the struggle between humans and machines is completely unfounded. Since the witch took all of her magical items with her when she disappeared from the movie, how do mystical items form a power struggle with humans when they aren't even there? 
Cut to a scene from "Ratatouille" where rats have overrun the kitchen, much to Chef Skinner's horror. Then, we move on to the movie "Up", where we see the main antagonist, Charles F. Muntz, with his army of dogs with collars that allow them to speak.
Bob: *voiceover* It goes on to suggest that after "Ratatouille"'s Chef Skinner was let out of the freezer and told everyone about the rats cooking in the kitchen, word of it got to Charles Muntz, the bad guy from "Up", and the news of these intelligent rats is what inspired him to make the collars that would allow his army of dogs to talk. 
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: Yes, never mind how the idea of a bunch of rats cooking in a kitchen is so ridiculous that food critic, Anton Ego, lost his job and his credibility when he wrote about it. How do a bunch of modern Parisian rats influence a guy who's been lost in South America since the 1930s?
After that, we move on to a scene from "The Incredibles" where Mr. Incredible confronts Syndrome for the first time. 
Bob: *voiceover* Back to the struggle against humans and machines. Things apparently really started kicking off when Syndrome created a giant robot to defeat Mr. Incredible; which, of course, has nothing to do with the witch from "Brave" since Syndrome was utilizing science, he worked in complete isolation, and his robot was destroyed before it could influence any other machines.
Narrator: Eventually, the robot turns on its creator and tries killing innocent people randomly. Why would an AI robot do that? Do machines have and inherit hatred towards humans?
cut back to Bob.
Bob: No, it's only following its programming; i.e., defending itself from whatever threats it can identify, and causing murder and mayhem so that Syndrome can "protect the world" from it. It's not the robot's fault that Syndrome made it smart enough to think that he might be a threat.
Now, we see clips from the Toy Story sequels.
Bob: *voiceover* The "Man VS Machines" idea attempts to bolster itself by pointing out that the toys from the "Toy Story" trilogy have feelings, and many are left embittered and angry after their owners give them up. While this is true, it kinda goes against the idea that machines naturally hate humans, since all toys begin with loving their humans. And what about the toys who aren't resentful when their owners stop playing with them? 
Then, in the first "Toy Story", Sid's mutant toys start harassing him back.
Bob: *voiceover* Let's not forget that toys do have the power to get revenge on their masters. If being denied their playtime was really enough to feed this struggle between man and machine that this theory is trying to push, why wouldn't they turn on their masters more often?
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: I mean, seriously, how difficult would it be for a toy to just kill his owner while he slept?
Suddenly, Bob is seen holding a monster puppet with blue and orange stripe who is, in turn, holding a sharp knife in a reverse grip.
Blueper: Oh, you don't like me anymore? Well, you're dead now. *stabs the knife down*
Bob: Not a whole lot of room for struggle here. *shakes Blueper's head*
After that, we transition over to "WALL.E", and then to "Cars" for a short period.
Bob: *voiceover* Meanwhile, apparently the corporation, Buy N' Large from "WALL.E", is being run by the robots it created, despite there being no evidence supporting that claim, and they're getting their revenge on the humans by keeping them inactive. Yeah, just look at M-O keeping humanity down by obsessively cleaning up everything he can. He's a diabolical genius! Sorry, theory, but like the Omnidroid from "The Incredibles", all the robots from "WALL.E" are simply following their programming. It's the robots' jobs to keep the humans safe and happy, and that's all we see them do in the movie. If the humans onboard the Axiom don't want to get any exercise, that's their own fault. 
Narrator: Meanwhile, on Earth, machines are the only beings left to populate the planet. They follow human behavior and tradition, as seen in "Cars", because that's what they learned from humans.
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: Oh, god, are you seriously going to try to connect "Cars" to the rest of the Pixar movies? Why in god's holy name would we, as a species, ever create a line of cars that had tongues?
A clip of Lightning McQueen from the first "Cars" movie in mid-air with his tongue out is seen to the right of Bob.
Bob: *voiceover* And, if "Cars" is supposed to be happening while the humans are out in space, where did all the garbage go? The "Cars" world looks remarkably clean for a place that's supposed to be so polluted, it forced all of humanity to jump ship.
Narrator: Which brings us back to "WALL.E". Why is WALL.E is the only machine left on Earth? We know that the movie starts hundreds of years after the humans have left the planet. It's WALL.E's fascination with human culture and a friendship with a living being, the cockroach, that kept him going. That's what made him special and sent him on a journey to liberate the humans. He remembers the time when humans and machines lived side by side, happily. 
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: *voiceover* No, the only thing that kept him going was his programming that allowed him to fix himself when need-be. He didn't actually care about the humans.
Then, we see a scene from the credits where WALL.E and EVE are staring at a large tree, supposedly bringing us to "A Bug's Life".
Bob: *voiceover* It would also seem that the plant that EVE recovered, which grows up into a large tree during the ending credits, is the same tree that we see in "A Bug's Life".
Bob then compares the two trees side-by-side.
Bob: *voiceover* Except that the surrounding landscapes are completely different and these two trees look nothing alike. At all. And, since we see some contemporary references in "A Bug's Life", do you really expect us to believe this is happening seven hundred years in the future when "WALL.E" is taking place? *points out a billboard for the Broadway musical adaptation of "The Lion King"* I somehow doubt that "Lion King: The Musical" is still going to be playing for that long. 
 
Then, we briefly show to a clip from "Toy Story 2" where some toys from "A Bug's Life" are seen in Al's Toy Barn.
Bob: *voiceover* And, let's not forget about the "Bug's Life" toys that we see in the background of "Toy Story 2". What, are we suppose to assume that these toy manufacturers from 1999 can see into the future, and none of them bothered telling anyone about the destruction of Earth brought on by Buy N' Large? I think that would be a better use of their powers than making a line of toys that no one will understand. 
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: But, if you think that this theory can't possibly grasp for anymore straws out of desperation, take a look at this. 
We move on to "Monsters, Inc.".
Narrator: Humans, machines, and animals start repopulating the planet in harmony to the point that a new species is born: monsters. The "Monsters" universe is actually Earth in the very far future. Where did monsters come from? Maybe mutations of animals after hundreds of years on the diseased planet.
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: Yeah, remember that optimistic ending from "WALL.E" where all the humans start coming back to Earth, and everything starts becoming green and beautiful again? *beat* Yeah, turns out that that didn't happen. Actually, the Earth was so poisonous that all of the human race just died out, and every animal on Earth eventually evolved into horrible mutations that are the monsters.
Bob pauses for a moment, and he facepalms.
Bob: *voiceover* Oh, and you know those doors that they use in "Monsters, Inc." to travel into children's bedrooms to collect their screams to be used as a power source? The movie never addresses them as such, but it's pretty obvious that these doors are simply a gateway into our dimension, while the monsters live in a completely different dimension. However, the Pixar theory wants us to think that these aren't dimensional gates, but gates into Earth's distant past where humans are still alive. But, if the "Monsters" universe is actually Earth's distant future, why would the monsters need to rely on "scream" as an energy source? 
Cut back to WALL.E for a short period.
Bob: *voiceover* Apparently, the scientists working for "Buy N' Large were able to figure out a perfectly sustainable energy source powerful enough to maintain the lives of god-knows-how-many humans, and an army of robots to keep them perfectly comfortable for several centuries. What happened to this amazing energy that would force the monsters to resort to "scream" energy? Also, it's pretty obvious that the doors that the monsters use to visit the children are not doorways through time. When we're first introduced to the concept of the monsters harvesting "scream", we see them going through several doors scattered throughout the Eastern Seaboard. Clearly, this particular scare floor begins its work date in the United States, and works its way around the world into the next time zone every hour. If the monsters were travelling into the past, why would they need to focus on individual time zones all throughout the world? Why couldn't they just focus on scaring the same group of kids at the exact same time over and over again? The monsters could be collecting tons of collective screams every day for years at a time, but to the kids, it would only be the one scare just that once. Not to mention if they were utilizing time travel, they wouldn't need to worry about the kids that they're scaring become desensitized to them, and they wouldn't need to destroy any of their doors as a result. If they scare the same kids only once at the exact same time, over and over again, they can't get desensitized if it only registers to them as just the one scare, can they? 
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: And now, we come to the grand finale, and the biggest flaw in the Pixar theory. Prepare for head scratching in three, two, one.
Narrator: This would've been the end if it wasn't for Boo, the little girl in "Monsters, Inc.", who slipped into the futuristic world of the monsters, and found a friend there. After going back to her world, she kept trying to find a way to see Sulley again, and became a witch.
We cut back to "Brave" once more.
Narrator: Yes, Boo is the witch from "Brave". She figured out how to travel though time and goes back to what she thinks the source of it: the Will-o'-the-wisps, the magic that started this whole thing. 
Cut back to Bob.
Bob: Oh, yeah. That incredibly sweet ending at the end of "Monsters, Incorporated" where Mike rebuilds Boo's door, Sulley finally gets to go back and see Boo whenever he wants, and the entire audience around the world cries their eyes out? *beat* Yeah, turns out that actually didn't happen. In reality, Sulley never saw Boo again, Boo goes hopelessly insane and obsesses over something she shouldn't logically be able to remember, she studies the dark arts, becomes a witch, travels back into the past when she's actually supposed to visit the future, and in doing so, she dooms the entire human race to extinction. "The Pixar Theory", ladies and gentlemen! 
Various clips from the actual movie are seen.
Bob: *voiceover* I mean, there are crazy conspiracy theories, and then there's this. It's one thing to think of plot points or character traits that a story may not especially talk about in its own narrative, but the leaps in logic for this thing are just ridiculous. Sequels and prequels aside, all of Pixar's movies are separate little entities that have nothing to do with each other. Well, that's not entirely true. The Pixar movies are actually linked to each other. How?
A picture of John Ratzenberger showing all his roles from Pixar movies is seen. 
Bob: *voiceover* John Ratzenberger plays a part in all of them. That's. It.
A clip from the credits scene in "Cars" shows the characters at a drive-in, watching car-based parodies of other Pixar films such as "Toy Story", "Monsters, Inc.", and "A Bug's Life".
Mack (John Ratzenberger): *after seeing scenes of his voice actor's other roles* Wait a minute here, they're just using the same actor over and over. What kind of a cut-rate production is this?
Cut back to Bob one last time.
Bob: *voiceover* So, yeah, I hate to burst your bubble if you thought that this Pixar theory might've been legit, but it just doesn't work. If you're the kind of guy who likes putting puzzles together, that's great. You go ahead and do that, but just make sure that the puzzle pieces are actually there before you start putting them together. See you next time.
Bob signs off with his two-finger salute, and a live rendition of Randy Newman and Lyle Lovett performing "You've Got A Friend In Me" plays over the end credits.
* 
Category:Transcripts