It all started with a hat.
Several months ago, one of my anonymous Pixar Theory Interns (that’s a thing on a resume) came to me with a crazy proposition: Andy’s mom is Emily, Jessie’s previous owner.
I laughed. I then agreed.
For some time, I compiled all of the evidence and found some incredible support for this theory. For one thing, take a close look at Andy’s cowboy hat he frequently wears in the movies:
Here’s another close look:
As you can see, Andy’s hat is noticeably different from Woody’s. Why is this? Why wouldn’t Andy want to wear a hat that closely resembles the one worn by his favorite toy?
It’s no secret that Andy has a close connection with Woody. In Toy Story 2, his mom (who we only know as Ms. Davis) mentions that Woody is an old family toy.
Remember that Woody doesn’t even recall that he is a collector’s item – a toy made in the 1950s. This is a deviation from other toys who know full well where they come from. It’s possible that Woody doesn’t know because he’s been in Andy’s family for a long time, possibly belonging to his father.
But we need more evidence. Take a close look at Jessie’s hat:
Ah, this hat looks familiar. It’s the same red hat with white lace that Andy wears. The only difference is that Jessie’s hat has a white lace around the center. But look at Andy’s hat again.
There’s a faded mark where the white lace should be. Why do you think that is? And what does Jessie have to do with this?
(Bob Saget’s voice) Kids, you remember the story of Jessie. Her owner Emily grew up with her, much the same way as Andy. She was incredibly loved, but Emily eventually gave her away when she grew older. Jessie ended up in storage for a long time, as confirmed by her in the movie when she has a literal panic attack over having to go back.
Now, take a close look at what’s on this bed in Emily’s room:
That is a hat that looks extremely similar to, you guessed it, Andy’s. The room is also pretty old-fashioned, leaving room for this to take place years before Andy was born.
In fact, you can clearly tell that this isn’t modern day with shots like these:
The only difference between the hat that Emily wears throughout this sequence and Andy’s hat is an extra white lace around the center, which is visibly missing from Andy’s hat. Otherwise, the hats are identical.
Also, in the donation box that Emily puts Jessie in, we don’t see the hat. We do see other remnants of her connection with Jessie, but the hat is noticeably absent. The box isn’t even big enough to hold it. So Emily held onto that hat…and maybe passed it on to her child, who would grow to also love a cowboy doll.
We never get a closeup of Emily’s face, but we do see that she has light, auburn hair as a teenager. Also, it is very short.
Compared to:
The middle picture is closest to the strawberry blonde color we see when Emily is young. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that her hair lightened as she aged, which is clearly the case in these photos (or she could have dyed it).
Here’s what we know for sure:
We don’t know the first name of Andy’s mom. We don’t know Emily’s last name. We know that Andy’s hat and Emily’s hat are the same. We know that Emily is old enough to be Andy’s mom. We definitely know that Pixar is perfectly capable of sneaking this in without being overt about it.
You may be wondering how the two characters could be the same if Emily was willing to give Jessie up so easily, while Andy was far more hesitant.
Actually, the scenarios are quite similar. Andy forgot about Woody as he grew up too, despite their strong connection. Andy even gave Woody away, albeit in a different manner than Emily.
In the end, it makes perfect sense that these two concurrent stories are so similar because they’re related by blood. It’s also a freak of destiny that Jessie would one day belong to her owner’s son, though we never get to see the mom’s reaction to seeing Jessie again.
She was probably indifferent and believed it to be a different version of the same toy. How would you respond if you saw your child with a toy that looked like one that you had as a kid? Your first assumption probably wouldn’t be that they’re the exact same toy.
What do you think? Do you believe that the two characters are the same and that Andy’s mom/Emily found redemption through the love her son had for the toy she left behind? Or, do you hate fun, love, and destiny? Let me know.
Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my Mailing List.
Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni
All images courtesy of Disney/Pixar
I think the link between Andy in Toy Story to Tom Hank’s character in Philadelphia is much more interesting. The handwriting on the stone outside his parent’s house is almost identical to what is written on the bottom of Woody’s foot. I would love to see your guy research that.
Wow
As a Lit. & Film as Lit. teacher, I find this really interesting and a great topic to discuss. Thanks for that! But I do have to say you should follow some basic punctuation rules; this just frustrated me. The title of the movie should be underlined or written in italics, since it’s considered a long work. Only short works like titles of articles, poems, essays, and songs are between quotation marks. Sorry, but reading good things with errors just gets to me; it’s the teacher in me. Keep on writing good articles!
You’re a prick.
Get a fucking life.
kill yourself
I think it’s time we ask ourselves the question “did this article or comment affect my life?” The answer is probably “no” so why comment in a way that could affect someone else’s life.
No need!
Such love. Must be a republican tea bagger.
Or a self absorbed brainwashed liberal communist. Either one are mindless morons.
If that really bugs you then so might your first sentence. Maybe check your own writing before you criticize others.
You ARE a prick
Didn’t Jessie have initials on the bottom of her shoe? Or am I thinking amother toy beside woody.
I can’t remember if Jessie did but Bullseye did. But Andy may have put them there. I can’t remember.
Don’t know if that misspell was intentional or not, but it was cute. “amother toy” Haha
“Amother toy” could’ve been a playful way to hint that its a mother’s toy. In this case Andy’s mom.
Interesting theory. Very interesting. You make it sound as though Pixar is being intentionally sneaky about this back story. The conspiracy theories about Disney and Pixar are ridiculous, but this particular theory, other than the “sneakiness” behind the story is interesting.
Reblogged this on Of Stories, Thoughts and Mere Ramblings.
This was stolen from http://imgur.com/gallery/RKslq posted 7 months ago! Jonnegroni is a fraud.
Thank you!! I saw this too and came to comment that he stole the idea. Thanks for the link!
I like the idea that Pixar/Disney folks planned the whole integrated timeline story and how all the Pixar films are all in the same Universe and continue and connect the same grand storyline but it’s also more likely that connecting these plot points is just a random find from some very bored students. If it was on purpose, BRAVO. If not, still a really awesome theory and way to connect all the stories.
So yeah does Pixar theory intern = tumblr?
Essentially, he took this theory from someone who had original thoughts and claimed it as his own. For profit.
lovely story but one problem emily was about 6 i would say when the toy was new and u say 1950s so she would be bit old in andys time so maybe be his nannas 🙂
Boo not as fun to read you loose
If Woody was on old toy of the family, then wouldn’t that mean that she would have owned him from around that age too? Why keep one toy and get rid of the other? That, my friend, doesn’t hold water. Other than that the story sounds legit. Just look at the picture of Emily as a kid. She’s in a blue room. The blue looks the same in one of the shots of Andies room(when it showed his Buzz pictures, I believe). I could be wrong, though. The mom and Emily both had about the same build too, despite being older. The big question is, why hasn’t anyone tried getting in touch with one of the companies to ask? I bet their comments would be interesting. 😮
Woody was probably Andy’s dads toy. Cowboy for boy cowgirl for girls. The dad probably kept his since they were in fact keepsakes, kind of like howdie doodie.
maybe the pixar animators got lazy and reused jessie’s hat the same as the one they drew for Andy.
Just sayin.
The Pixar animators don’t get lazy. Seriously. It just doesn’t happen.
Everything Pixar do is done for a reason. All the tiny things connecting all their movies and characters are in there for a reason, not by accident.
But wait boo is also emily,because as we see
In monsters inc boo has a jesse doll in her room,its ALL connected…
oh my god so true! boo is the 3 year old Emily! ahah
wouldn’t Jessie have just recognized the older Emily?
At the end of #2 Andy calls Jessie “Calamity Jane”. By #3 he is calling her “Jessie”. Where did he learn her real name? From Google? Or from his mother, the original owner of this Jessie doll!!!???!!!
Wrong!
Because they are all mass produced toys. Can call one Susan for crying out loud. Doesn’t matter. Not the same toy.
http://iqraislamqa.wordpress.com/category/comparitive-religion/christianity/
lol shit
Well that was… something… Mind quite blown off if i might say
Wow, I so want to believe this theory, it’s awesome! 😀 (have to see the third movie!)
Andy’s mom would know that was her toy especially because that she loved Jessie. Pixar used the same hat (red and white ribbon), one for Andy and a smaller one for Jessie, that’s all folks.
Except that all dolls are mass produced in CHINA where they are full of carcinogens.
So Woody is really a Trojan (Chinese) horse, killing the children and messing with their sperm. It’s how China will become a world power and why they need to be stopped.
http://imgur.com/gallery/RKslq
7 months ago