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 hatĀ again.
There’s a faded mark where the white laceĀ shouldĀ 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 aĀ 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 MailingĀ List.
Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni
All images courtesy of Disney/Pixar
Jon you’re a genius! š
Dude get a life and enjoy the freaking movie. You’ve now ruined it for all of us who don’t give a crap about anything but watching the best (arguably) kids animated movie series ever. And remember these guys are artists, if you were one you would know what its like to put meaning into a piece and respect its silence as an ode to those who made it. You’ll never know the answers to your theories cus you didn’t make it and neither did we, bottom line.
“Dude get a life…” Irony alert!
“You’ve now ruined it for all of us…” If that’s all it takes, you weren’t that into it to begin with.
“…respect its silence as an ode to those who made it…” Someone alert every film/art critic on the planet and tell them to shut the hell up, you’re ruining it for this guy.
I can say that theories like this don’t ruin the movie for me, and instead give me something to ponder years after I first saw it.
You obviously care if you’re commenting about it.
If you didn’t want it “ruined” by knowing additional inside information about the film’s universe ā something that, by the way, enhances the experience for most people ā then why did you click on an article about “the true identity of Andy’s mom?”
Cool but the hats in question are different. Andy’s hat is a totally different shape, check the photos on here.
I have a kid and I know that what they produce for the kids to wear never matches what the toys wear 100 percent. That wasn’t unusual, check the girl toy section at walmart and see the gowns and wands, they are only similar not exact copies of what the movie princesses wear.
The only difference between the hats is that the rim is folded on Andy’s which can be fixed. If we are saying that this hat is from the 60s it wouldn’t be in good condition.
I don’t see a significant difference between the shapes of the hats. What little difference I see would easily be explained by Andy wearing the hat further down on his head, whereas Jessie rests it on top. Andy’s head fills the hat, causing the inner brim to be slightly stretched, which causes the outer edge of the brim to push up as seen in the pictures. The brim lies flat for Jessie in the absence of that pressure from inside.
As for the theory… find me the white lace* and I’m sold.
(*actually a hat band if I’m not mistaken)
Yes!!!! Great Answer
Or, it can be explained by the simple fact that one is a toy hat for a doll, and the other is a replica made for a kid. Jessie’s is likely a hard plastic, whereas Andy’s is probably a stiff fabric. The costume pieces sold for kids to where rarely match up exactly to the toy piece they are copied from due to scaling and materials.
Woody’s hat has a brown hat band – on Andy’s hat it looks more like a similar brown hat band more than it does “faded”
The missing white lace is easy enough to explain. Mom removed the white lace. She was giving a girl cowboy hat to a boy. As a mom that is exactly what I would have done. I can see a conversation in my house going something like this.
“Look son, now you have a hat just like your toy!”
“But, mom, my toy doesn’t have the white on the hat!”
“We can fix that” (Removes the lace) “There, now, how is that?”
“Thanks Mom” (Runs off to play)
Why hasn’t Jessie recognized Andy’s Mom?
I imagine lots of people wouldn’t recognise someone they hadn’t seen for twenty years or so.
If the last time you saw a person was as a child/teen they look very different as an adult. I had friends I havent seen since high school. I am sure I would hardly, if at all, recognize them today.
One thing you missed is what Andy calls Jessie. I believe this to be further evidence.
At the end of toy story 2, upon finding Jessie in his room, he calls her Calamity Jane. At the end of toy story 3, when he gives the toys to the little girl, he knows that her name is Jessie. How does he find this out? Could it be that his mother told him because she once had the same doll? I think so.
Hmm, not too sure about this one, on the toy that my daughter has one of the phrases includes “hi, my name’s Jessie….”
More than just missing the white band, Andy’s hat also does not have the white brim edging.
You’re comparing the hat Andy is wearing to the hat Jessie is wearing. That’s not the question. Difference in the two can easily be explained by the fact that costume pieces for kids don’t always exactly match the toy piece that inspired them. The real question is does the child’s hat on the bed next to Jessie in TS3 match the hat Andy is wearing. And it appears to, minus the white headband.
Hopefully this will link… if not, search youtube for “Toy Story 2: When Somebody Loved Me”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px0j1EHF8Y0 At 0:06 you can see the hat on the bed and you can see the white brim edging on it.
Show us the white hat band Macdaddy! …… and we’ll be satisfied. BTW Jessie’s a cowgirl right? She’s probably got a rifle yes? Wait a minute was she the figure on the grassy knoll? (As we know all good theories get back here eventually). Any way it all sounds feasible to me – you probably have just blown the storyboard for TS4 : Ms ‘Emily’ Davis redemption in a big reveal and reunion with Jessie. Spoilers!
There are just too many holes in this story.
Jessie MUST have seen Andy’s mom at some point and would have recognized her. Since Emily gave Jessie away when she was in high school or college, Jessie had likely seen Emily as a young adult and considering how much she loved Emily, would have recognized her. Her suspicions would have been confirmed whenever a friend or relative was over the house and called her by her first name.
If I saw my child had the same toy I had growing up, I would have at least commented about it. Also remember that those toys just magically appeared in Andy’s room, she would have at the very least questioned where Andy got them from since they are old.
The only real evidence you give is the similarity of the hats. The simple answer to this is that it can be very time consuming to draw 3D objects in MAYA (I assume they still use MAYA) and why draw unique objects if you can easily copy something you’ve already drawn and alter the appearance slightly?
All in all, not convinced.
see:
etbtray says:
February 25, 2014 at 10:35 am
One thing you missed is what Andy calls Jessie. I believe this to be further evidence.
At the end of toy story 2, upon finding Jessie in his room, he calls her Calamity Jane. At the end of toy story 3, when he gives the toys to the little girl, he knows that her name is Jessie. How does he find this out? Could it be that his mother told him because she once had the same doll? I think so.
I think you gave me some kind of Toy Story 4 spoiler =/
I hope there is never a TS4. The Toy Story trilogy is absolutely perfect. Movie 1: What if the toys were really alive and had emotions like jealousy and loyalty? Movie 2: What happens when the toys get old? Movie 3: What happens when Andy gets old? There are no more questions to answer; TS3 closed the circle with Andy giving the toys to Bonnie in one of the most powerful, touching and wrenching scenes in animation (or any form of cinema, for that matter) history. When the story is told, stop telling it — are you listening, J.K. Rowling?
Reblogged this on Nient'Affatto.
i get the feeling my childhood is ruined now =.=
A. I like this theory! and
B. How does one become a “Pixar Theory Intern”? I want to do that when I grow up
Who wants to grow up?
There’s no such thing. It is just a name for kids on tumblr who have their ideas stolen and reposted
There is another (I think) piece of very convincing evidence. At the beginning of Toy Story, when Andy is playing with Woody during the “You’ve Got A Friend In Me” intro, Andy puts Woody on his shoulders and walks with him past a painting on the wall of galloping horses. A very similar painting is on the wall in Emily’s room. I’m watching Toy Story 2 with my 3yo son right now and the similarity of the paintings struck me. Until I get a chance to put in Toy Story 1 to look at the painting I can’t say they are identical, but I think they are. To me, that is just as convincing as the hats! I think this theory is accurate.
Just looked, never mind, I am incorrect š The painting in TS1 is of a desert scene and the painting in TS2 is of galloping horses.
Brilliant. Years later… and something like this is discovered. I’ve always wondered – Andy’s hat is not exactly the same with Woody’s… why? This DOES NOT ruin anything. It actually makes me want to go back and watch the movies again. There is a ‘storyboard’ of Toy Story 2 that shows Emily’s “hair/side of her face” -http://www.mouseplanet.info/gallery/d/91373-2/Jesse.jpg
Very interesting theory! Not sure if I buy it, but here’s some additional possible evidence:
Andy calls Jessie by a different name (“Bazooka Jane”) at the end of Toy Story 2 when he finds her, but by Toy Story 3, he calls her “Jessie”–yet he gives Woody, Jessie, and Bullseye away at the end. If his mother had a Jessie doll when she was younger, it is likely she would have corrected him when she saw his (though she probably would have had some questions about where he’d gotten it!). But if Andy had learned Jessie’s name through any other means, he would likely have incidentally learned the value of the “Woody’s Round-up” toys, and he would have sold them before leaving for college rather than giving them away. Therefore, he more likely learned Jessie’s name from someone familiar with the toys from their own childhood.
However, my own inclination is that Ms. Davis is not Emily, because I don’t think anyone would keep the hat over the doll. If she had been sentimental about that period of her childhood, she would have kept the beloved doll even if she got rid of the rest; if not, she would have donated the hat as well as the doll. She refers to Woody as a “family toy” in Toy Story 2; I would more easily believe that Andy’s hat and Woody doll were hers as a child, than that she had gotten rid of Jessie while keeping the hat and that Woody was Andy’s father’s.
Interesting theory nonetheless!
I wish I could see my Mrs. Beasley doll again! I know, i’m old. lol
My mom has one!
This is genius! And I totally agree with the theory. She had that hat as a kid. And possibly even a Woody doll that was not played with much because he was a boy and she was a girl. And when her soon came about she gave him the Woody doll and he fell in love with it. So she took off the ribbon from her old cowboy hat and gave it to Andy as his own. The sides of the hat are turned up slightly on Andy’s head because as the plastic lace deteriorated over time it became less plyable and drew up the sides of the hat. Brilliant find!
The brunt of this theory is convincing enough that I’m ready to file it away as fact. Confirmed: Emily is Andy’s mom. But there is something that has always sort of bugged me about these movies that you briefly touch on here but don’t adequately account for.
I’m talking about Woody’s history pre-Andy. I’ve always wondered why he seems to have no recollection of life before being owned by Andy even though a) he’s been around since the 1950’s and has assuredly experienced several generations of ownership, and b) numerous other toys in the series demonstrate that toys can and do remember their previous owners for years and even decades. Throughout the movies–particularly the second–the very thought of Andy growing up seems entirely foreign to Woody, as though the concept had never even occurred to him, which makes little sense for a toy that has been alive for 50 years. Woody having been owned by Andy’s father does nothing in particular to address any of this. I also find it a bit too “convenient” that Andy’s father would have owned Woody as a child and Andy’s mother would have separately and coincidentally owned Jessie. These toys are rare enough to be worth a fortune to a museum, but Andy’s parents each happen to have owned one independently? That just doesn’t do it for me.
Combining your theory with another to explain Woody’s apparent memory loss, I’m proposing that both Woody and Jessie were heirlooms from his mother’s side of the family. Specifically, one of Andy’s grandparents owned both toys in the 50’s. They were then passed down, Jessie to Emily and Woody to Emily’s younger brother. Emily eventually outgrew Jessie as we saw, but while her brother was still young enough to love Woody the way Andy later would, he tragically passed away. As is often the case when parents lose a child, Emily’s brother’s room was preserved, untouched, for years. Woody spent those years in an empty bedroom repressing the memory of what would have been the most utterly devastating experience a toy could ever suffer. When Emily grew up and moved out of her parents’ house, she wanted to take a memento of her deceased brother. Given her history with Jessie, out of everything in her brother’s room, Woody carried the fondest associative memories for her. (Watch the yard sale scene again. When Al tries to buy Woody, the toy really appears to mean something to Andy’s mom beyond the mere fact that her son still likes to play with him.)
This backstory explains virtually everything about Woody and his personality. Why he has no memory of previous owners. Why his nearly fanatical devotion to Andy goes beyond what we see from other toys. Why he seems a bit needier than the other toys. Why his fear of abandonment is so deeply rooted. Why he is so stubbornly insistent that he is Andy’s toy and must ALWAYS be Andy’s toy. Why he has so much more trouble letting go than the other toys do even though the whole “kid outgrows toys” cycle should, by all rights, be nothing new to him. Woody suffered a tragedy that he blocked from conscious memory, but which still shapes who he is profoundly.
Well another question I would throw out there is what their memories are while being in a box? For example, all of the Buzz Lightyears seem to not move or be “asleep” in their boxes. However, Stinky Pete is completely aware and awake in his box. Is it possible Woody was either in a box or stored somewhere up until he was given to Andy, so then explaining why he has no memory of his past before Andy?
Oh Pixar… leave it to you to get me to over think an animated movie about living toys…
Buzz’s sentience in general seemed to work differently than most other toys. It was tied directly to his functional mechanical workings. A flipped switch could reset him to a default personality and remove his memories, for instance. So while Buzz’s very life essence could be reprogrammed, there would be no way to do the same to, say, Mr Potato Head, who was made of nothing but molded plastic. It was almost as though the more advanced a toy was mechanically, the less “magical” it was. The Speak n’ Spell (or whatever it was called) was the most computer-like living toy we saw in the movies and also the least animated, while the video game system was not alive at all. I’m getting off-track, though. I guess my theory here is simply that Buzz’s mechanical nature means he can be turned on and off, reprogrammed, and so on, while toys like Woody cannot. Their consciousness, it seems, is more intrinsically engrained than Buzz’s.
In the montage clip from TS2, we see Jessie with her owner (in a montage sequence) and she has red hair and Andy’s mom is a blonde. Jessie also says “we never forget the kids, but they forget us…” and yet if she was in Andy’s house wouldn’t she have mentioned that his “mom” was her owner as a child? If the toys don’t forget, she sure would have there. LOL! So Jessie never points out something so obvious to Woody while telling her story. I applaud the idea but even the director of TS2 & 3 dispelled this.
40-year-old women don’t look exactly the same as they did in middle school, you know. And the toys could just generally not pay much attention to an adult in the house who never plays with them. Catching a passing glimpse of a grown woman out of the corner of your eye every now and then isn’t necessarily going to make Jessie recognize her as someone she knew as a child.
I dont get why this even matters to anyone or why it’s a big deal. Literally just a theory that the mom passes some of her toys to her son….