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
Great theory, definitely seems like it makes sense.
Now they have to explain the plot holes in the timeline of Toy Story 1 – even though they are moving in a week – there is time to throw a birthday party, then have Andy redecorate his room to be all Buzz Lightyear stuff, even though they would logically be packing stuff away and save the new decorations for his new house.
Andy got sheets for his birthday. Mr. Potato head says “who invited that kid?” Who’s to say they weren’t buzz lightyear sheets
that’s not a plot hole. A plot hole is when something happens in a movie which can’t be explained by the surrounding circumstances. Wouldn’t surprise me if Andy got a bunch of Buzz Lightyear stuff for his birthday and put them up around his room even if he was meant to be packing.
I love this! How do you piece all of that together? It’s so great. I’m reblogging this, thank you! 🙂
Reblogged this on The Disney Diva and commented:
Jon Negroni has put together another wonderful theory that will give you goosebumps! Enjoy!
Once i think that boo of monsters inc was emily cuz she show sulivan jesee when suli is in her room so boo is emily? and andys mom??
i don’t think so.
That’s probably just Pixar being clever. There was a Buzz Lightyear toy in the dentist office in Finding Nemo, but unless Andy suddenly became Australian, then there’s no correlation.
Jessie’s mom got it going on, she had Andy after waiting for so long.. Jessie can’t you see, your nephew is Woody, I know it may be wrong but
Andy’s mom is Jessie’s mom.
This all does make a great deal of sense but, speculating, wouldn’t you assume that Jessie would realize Andy’s mom was her prior owner. Clearly, we see that Jessie is deeply connected to her previous owner but we never see her upset by seeing Andy’s mom or Andy’s cowboy hat (that we can assume she would also associate with her previous owner). One could say that she forgot her owner’s face or small details like the hat but, again, it’s very clear that her memories of her previous owner is very dear to her and very vivid as a result.
A woman in her 30s can look very different to when she was 13 or 14.
Reblogged this on Stuck in the Breeze.
I think it’s a great theory. Where else would Andy have gotten that peculiar old hat, but as an accessory to an original Cowgirl Jessie doll, owned most likely by a little girl? After all, if a hat came with Cowboy Woody, it would look the same as Woody’s, with dark brown trim — not white, like Jesse’s.
Anyhow, Jessie is my favorite Toy Story character, and her sad song is one of my all-time favorite songs anywhere. Thanks for posting this.
Sounds good, but wouldn’t Andy’s mom recognize Jesse when Andy came to own her?
Maybe she did. That was never shown in the movies so we don’t know.
There are also a few (almost) mirrored events that also help support this theory…
The iconic shot of Jessie peering out from inside the dark box after Emily leaves her, is replicated in Toy Story 3 when she is left at Sunnyside. Not only was the shot very similar, but she was dropped off by none other than Andy’s Mum!!! I think that’s quite interesting.
There’s other things like the way Emily roots around under her bed. Did Andy’s Mum not do that a few times as well? Obviously it’s not a very original or ‘Emily-specific’ thing to do – but it could be a subtle hint….
i agree. the way she was packing up toys for the garage sale was very simailar to the way emily dropped jessie off at 13 or 14.
Emily got rid of her Jessie doll, but kept the hat for sentimental reasons? Then Jessie had a reason to be really pissed at her. No, seriously, I doubt its her. Andy’s mom insisted that Woody was an old family toy and wouldn’t sell him in the yard sale, but she gave up Jessie as soon as she was a teenager? That would mean the the family gave up Jessie but kept the hat and Woody. Sure, I’m speculating that Woody came from Andy’s mom’s side of the family, but, this whole theory is based on speculation. I could easily fill the holes in by saying, Andy got his hat from a yard sale or eBay. As a matter of fact, they got Woody from a yard sale too.
“Emily got rid of her Jessie doll, but kept the hat for sentimental reasons? ”
Who knows why the hat was kept. Maybe it was seen as not as childish as the toy so Emily kept it, or maybe her mom had put it aside or maybe it had just gotten lost with other attic stuff. This doesn’t disprove anything.
“No, seriously, I doubt its her. Andy’s mom insisted that Woody was an old family toy and wouldn’t sell him in the yard sale, but she gave up Jessie as soon as she was a teenager?”
I disagree, actually this seems totally reasonable. When kids become teenagers they can tend to suddenly push away anything related to their childhood, even beloved toys. I have seen this with my own kids. But later on as adults they can become nostalgic about their childhood stuff. Emily may have realized as an adult that she regretted giving away her favorite childhood toy and so wouldn’t let her kid make the same mistake.
“this whole theory is based on speculation. I could easily fill the holes in by saying, Andy got his hat from a yard sale or eBay.”
Yes, it is based on speculation, but not arbitrarily. They found evidence and pointed it all out very carefully and you have to wonder why that detail was there in an animated movie if not to suggest something like this. In animation that stuff isn’t an accident or coincidence like it might be in live action production! You could fill in the holes with arbitrary statements but there would be no evidence in the movie to support them where in this case there is evidence.
“Andy’s mom insisted that Woody was an old family toy and wouldn’t sell him in the yard sale, but she gave up Jessie as soon as she was a teenager?”
SHE gave up Jessie as a teenager, yes. But the speculation is that WOODY belonged to Andy’s father, not Emily. And so Woody stayed in the family because the father never gave him up, probably sticking him in an attic just as Andy intended to do. And then Andy’s father gave him to Andy when he was old enough.
Sean asks:
“If Jesse was given away by her owner (now Andy’s mom), how did Jesse end up in Andy’s possession? Garage sale? Thrift store?”
Toy Story 2 – “The next day, Andy returns from Cowboy Camp, and eagerly finds his toys neatly displayed on the bed…along with some new ones. Andy also patches up Woody’s arm in his own special way, and writes his name on the bottom of Jessie and Bullseye’s feet.”
I’m kind of confused about why you think a woman in her mid-30s would behave the same way she did when she was 14. Yes it’s common for teenagers to outgrow their toys and be happy to get rid of them, but then as adults sometimes they recognise their sentimental value or get nostalgic and see the value in holding onto them. By the time she was an adult it was too late for Andy’s mum (Emily?) to hold onto Jessie, but she could make sure Andy (or the family, at any rate) held onto Woody (potentially Andy’s father’s toy).
Also I don’t remember them ever saying Woody came from a yard sale.
got woody from a yard sale? where’d you hear that?
Very good theory, though it slips the fact that Jessie would be, probably, a very popular toy, due to the success of Woody’s Roundup TV Show. Even if the hat belonged to Andy’s mom, it’s a very long shot to assume it was the same doll too.
Still, it’s the kind of theory that’s so much fun to believe in, than try to prove it wrong. 🙂
WR wasn’t popular, it was canceled without a logical conclusion.
They’re Easter eggs. Disney does it too. Pinocchio was in Tangled. Beast and Sebastian were in Aladdin. Belle and Carpet were in Hunchback. Scar was in Hercules. Mrs. Potts and Chip were in Tarzan. Carpet was in Princess and the Frog. Mulan and Dumbo were in Lilo and Stitch. Mickey, Donald and Goofy were under water in the Little Mermaid.
i’m sorry. what?
First I love the idea, and it never showed Andy’s moms reaction when she saw Jesse, she may have been excited or cried who knows, but woody would have had to come from somewhere else because otherwise Jesse and woody would have known each other.
Actually, people’s hair darkens until it starts graying, so it’s not natural to assume that her hair would get lighter with age. She might dye it, but we shouldn’t just assume that.
If Jesse was given away by her owner (now Andy’s mom), how did Jesse end up in Andy’s possession? Garage sale? Thrift store?
(Sorry if this was already answered, I haven’t been able to get through all of the comments.)
Have you even seen Toy Story 2? That whole movie is about how Jessie ended up in Andy’s possession.
(Spoiler: Woody gets stolen by a collector who recognises his worth. Woody meets Jessie and other character dolls from his TV show and the movie follows Woody’s quest to get home, and he takes Jessie with him.)
Thank you, my apologies. I have seen all three movies with my kids, but I confess I probably didn’t pay enough attention. All this backstory has me itching to watch them again. Thank you again. 🙂
Keep them coming!! i like hearing cool stuff like that
I think it’s incredible that some people pay such close attention to movies/Pixar movies. I love it. It’s so fun.
I think this theory is very plausible and it’s great. However, if it is true/was intended, Pixar should’ve dropped a slightly larger hint for a wider audience right near the end of Toy Story 3. It’s already one of the greatest trilogies of all time. That would’ve made it the greatest.
Reblogged this on tails of mr jinx and commented:
really cool!!
This is a good theory and I think has potential to be true, but there are a few alternative explanations. Woody and Jessie were part of a TV show that had lots of merchandise. It’s possible that hat was one of the pieces of merchandise, and they had just run out of Woody hats when Andy’s was bought so they bought a Jessie hat. But here’s a funny thing: when I was reading and got to the image of Jessie, I thought “I bet they’re going to point out how Jessie has a similar hat to Andy, but really, it’s just a red hat with white stitching, that can’t be that uncommon, plus it has a white ribbon (yes ribbon, not lace), I don’t think Andy’s had that”, so I scrolled back up to the second image of Andy to check and the FIRST thing I noticed was the faded strip where it was clear a ribbon USED to be. And I just stared at it like O.O
Reblogged this on Chejozone's Blog.
Very very stupid
This is brilliant! It might not be true, when I zoomed in on the picture of Andy’s hat, it looked like another ribbon of its own, but this can be explained. Perhaps she got the hat fixed because the white ribbon fell off? Anyway, don’t just unprecedentedly call a credible fan theory “very very stupid”! He must’ve put a lot of thought into this. Pixar movies are so brilliant. I don’t doubt that they meant to do all of this! I genuinely appreciate and respect someone who cares about a franchise enough to, without advertising it as fact, come up with amazing explanations to minor background things!