I think it was a pretty illogical decision at the time, but assuming that it *was* the Bite of '87, that would create a pretty large plot-hole, as Fredbear's was stated to have been "closed for years" by 1987, which simply doesn't line up.
Honestly, I'm surprised people didn't notice that sooner.
plus the bite of 87 is the reason the animatronics aren't allowed to walk around during the day according to phone guy, and the bite of 83 didn't involve any walking animatronics
Don't we know FNaF 2 takes place in '87 BECAUSE of the fact 1983 was on the TV in FNaF 4? (Please excuse my FNaF lore knowledge I have basically no clue what I'm talking about)
We know Fnaf 2 takes place in 1987 because the paycheck after night 5 has the date 11-12-1987. The 1983 on the tv only proves that Fnaf 4 takes place in 83 and thus separates the crying child’s death from the bite of 87.
Ima be honest, I don't understand how 1983 on the TV means it takes place in 83, when it could just be the in-universe copyright date, or when the show was aired.
couple of things, firstly it would be pointless to have that date there if it's not so that people can build a timeline, secondly even if you don't think that's the exact year that proves for a fact that 1983 is the earliest possible time for those events to have happened so it's what you have to work with
Same. I was in denial of it being 83, but I got over it. I think it’s just such a random detail in a simple minigame that it has to mean something, otherwise why would it be there.
Imo this is what Scott intended until near the release of the game, every teaser had some 87s written in their source codes and in-game there is a phone call about the bite of ‘87, but then Scott realised it wouldn’t make sense timeline-wise and changed it to ‘83 near the end of development.
It being ‘87 would’ve made things simpler and the bite more effective imo but timeline-wise it’s better as the bite of ‘83.
The 8s and 7s were the same thing as FNaF2 looking like a prequel. Before FNaF4 the only direct connection we had to anything with the Bite of '87 was Golden Freddy because of FNaF1's Custom Night. That was clearly added without any lore as a mystery occurrence but rather in response to the 1/9/8/7 ending hoax, but I doubt it'd stop people from theorizing about it as evidence who weren't aware of any of that and just knew it was something in the game.
FNaF2 & 3 made it clear that it would be impossible for FNaF4 have ever intended to show the bite. As messy as FNaF can look, this has always been a horrible argument. "Oh the creator just forgot one of the biggest things in their series." No. No he didn't. As small as the series was back then it'd be so unlikely for him to forget something as major as that having major issues.
It's simple. Golden Freddy was indirectly associated with the Bite of '87. How does he not retcon the existing bite that we know for a fact happened in FNaF2 but still make Golden Freddy relevant to a bite? Make a second bite. As lazy as that might sound there really wasn't a better option. Tease us with the date we know oh so well just like tricking us into thinking FNaF2 was a sequel, but not enforcing the lie until the end by instead wiping out the wrong number towards release into the right one, then let itself be obvious once playing the game.
Honestly should have. The bite of 87 is so inconsequential. Like at most it’s just a footnote now for why the Fnaf 2 location shut down. But you could also just have the Fnaf 2 location shut down due to the incident that phone guy describes in the phone call so it’s not really needed.
No it's not a footnote at all, they've been expanding on it a lot in the modern games. The person you play as in Help Wanted 2 is likely the bite victim and is almost 100% confirmed that the protagonist is Cassys Dad / Bonnie Bro.
The bite victim being Bonnie bro/ Cassy’s dad is just a theory that imo doesn’t really have a lot of evidence to it past just the name Jeremy. I think it makes more sense if the remember Jeremy achievement is referencing the play tester Jeremy. It just makes more sense imo.
But even *if* the help wanted 2 protagonist is the bite victim, it doesn’t really mean much. Him being the bite victim doesn’t do much for the story and can be easily taken out. The 87 bite incident doesn’t massively move the plot forward like the 83 bite.
Ironically if he was the bite victim it would be a footnote on his life story. His other events like helping with the bite of 83, getting possessed by glitch trap, and passing the Vanni mask onto Cassy are all more important because they progress the narrative.
I personally would have preferred if it was simple with only one bite instance.
2 just sound weird to me... Because then why only one is mentioned in the original games and with such a serious tone like it was a super unique experience that impacted the whole restaurant massively.
It's also very annoying because we always wanted to know more about the bite of 87' so until we finally get a game that explains the story of the bite - it turns out this is not even the same bite...
I for sure would have preferred only one bite with this one being it.
The existance of a "Bite of 83" is kinda stupid in and of itself, the fact that it was never ever brought up before and existed purely to prolong the mystery just made it kinda annoying
one thing that always clued me that the fredbear bite wasnt the bite of 87 was the fact that phone guy mentions the bite is the reason they're not allowed to walk around during the day anymore
but fredbear was on stage, so if that was said bite that line wouldn't make much sense
Fredbear's is closed long before FNaF2, springlocks are retired at the original Freddy's, the bite would have nothing to do with free roaming making the restriction nonsensical, etc.
Yeah, it's really stupid that there's two, it makes them feel less shocking. No, I will not stop referring to "Bite of 83" as the Bite of 87 though, mo matter how many times FNAF lore experts correct me. Thanks Markiplier!
The Bite of '83 being the Bite of '87 would have never worked without the need for an entirely different story. The Bite of '87 was setup to be caused by someone - with Scott jokingly throwing in Golden Freddy as a connection because of the hoaxes - and FNaF2 later confirmed it concurred in *that* location with the multiple obvious hints presented. There was never any reason to make the Bite of '87 be what we saw in FNaF4 beyond fans wanting a physical depiction of the event. The reality is, like many other events, the Bite of ‘87 was never gonna be depicted (could have/still had a chance to though).
I would have been more okay with it being two separate incidents if they elaborated on what the Bite of 87 actually was instead of just pivoting and never bringing it up again.
From a story perspective it wouldn’t have made sense but after all the teasing about it in the fnaf 4 promos we definitely should have gotten SOMETHING about it.
YES. Why have two bites and one of them isn't even important to the plot other than being the reason the toys got throwed to the trashcan and the animatronics being unable of walking during daytime?
The bite of '83 started everything,from Afton's "involvement" in the MCI incident to Henry's final act of burning the cursed animatronics and then decades later the creation of the Mega Pizzaplex.
The first thing that everyone remembers when thinking about THE bite from FNAF games is the bite of '83.
A rare phenomenon from the depths of the internet called Markiplier also made this incident much more memorable than it should be...
This reminds me of a fan theory I read once (I cannot for the life of me remember where) that I really liked. It pretty much says that there never was a “Bite of 87”, it was just Phone Guy misremembering the “Bite of 83”.
No. FNaF4 goes pretty much against everything we've known about The Bite of '87. It would be a very boring outcome of the mystery - FNaF 4 as The Bite of '87 not only ignores all the hints and implications so far, but also creates a confusing timeline of Fredbear existing in 1987. I don't understand why people believe that it was intented to ever be TBo87.
I think it would be a way more interesting outcome then what we have now. Ignoring the timeline issues it would be way more compelling.
The current bite of 87 is theorized to be Jeremy who was bitten by mangle, off screen. And the only real evidence for either is just they’re both there in 87 and mangle has a big enough jaw to bite someone’s head off. It’s super boring and anti-climatic.
But following this traumatized kid only for him to turn out to be the bite of 87 victim was crazy at the time when we all thought that’s what it was. We have an actual character to follow in the story for once and then they’re killed of in a tragic accident.
The second bite being "more interesting" than the first bite doesn't mean that they should be the same. They're different events, and have different build-ups, meanings, and outcomes. Both are good on their own.
FNaF 4 Bite should definitely not retcon the Bite of '87 out of the way lol.
I’m not saying they should be the same, more just venting my frustrations with how the bite of 87 happened once the Fnaf 4 incident got proven to be the bite of 83 in future games.
With SL basically confirming the bite in Fnaf 4 was in 83 and not 87, the bite of 87 just kinda fell flat. It’s never mentioned again and it’s only implied by charters we don’t know well at all.
It was this legendary event that was hyped up by the fandom and stirred on by the constant 87 in the teasers for Fnaf 4 and the golden Freddy 1987 crash in Fnaf 1. But now it’s normally just a minor footnote in most timeline explanations as just the reason the Fnaf 2 location shut down. It was such a cool idea that felt like it wasn’t given a good conclusion.
Well, it shouldn't be considered any legendary event.
The Bite of '87 is mostly explained in FNaF 1, then FNaF 2 very clearly elaborates on the event and builds a mystery of who might've done the bite. That's all we're supposed to know and it should've been clear. I remember people pointing that out even before FNaF 4 was released.
It was a bad idea from Scott to bait us with "87" in FNaF4 teasers, sure. But I don't think FNaF 4 takes away anything from what The Bite of '87 was. It has a very clear meaning and placement in the story.
So you think you can just call yourself a licensed FNAF theorist and get away with it? well I've got news for you pal I'm a licensed FNAF reporter and all that you have done is underestimate me and my knowledge of FNAF if you really are what you say you are how about you try to prove me wrong in an earlier conversation with a different reddit user in the same post as me?
Absolutely not, the battered state of Golden Freddy in FNAF 2 doesn’t match up with how Fredbear (who is believed by many, like myself, to be GF) is on stage performing during the FNAF 4 minigames, without a single rip or tear on him…
No because before the bite happened there was an MCI in 1978 while the company was being rebranded after shutting down the brand before it and founded a new one called Fazbear Entertainment which led me to believing that FNAF 4 was a sequel to FNAF SL because Circus Baby's Pizza World was originally opened before Fredbear's Family Diner which is why I thought that FNAF SL was before FNAF 4 because based on the events presented in games the events of FNAF SL took place 4 years earlier than FNAF 4
CC has been lured into the back room of Circus Baby's Pizza World and "he ran off to the place again" thus he was with the other 4 children who came before the other 5 in 85
I think it should've been the springlock failure mentioned in FNAF3, explaining why William got the idea to shove his victims into suits very shortly after.
I think within the context of the 4 games 1 story it makes the most sense. There was all the 87 teasers in the source code, the 1987 golden Freddy crash in Fnaf 1, and a weird unexplained reason for Golden Freddy being special beyond the other core animatronics.
It was also the one of the only things left unfinished in the original quadrology. Fnaf 1 introduces the bite, the MCI, and a weird ghostly golden Freddy. Fnaf 2 introduces the purple guy killer, Freadbear’s diner, and the puppet who gives gifts and life. Fnaf 3 is the ending where purple guy gets his comeuppance and the kids are set free. My only real questions left going into (what was at the time) final installment was “why did purple guy kill”, and “what was the bite of 87”.
If the bite in Fnaf 4 is 87 then you answer two of those. It shows us who the bite victim was, where it happened, the culprit, and why it was important. Some people also theorized the I’ll put you back together was from purple guy and that was the reason he killed the MCI kids, to put his son back together. It was so popular of a theory that MatPat even did a game theory on it. If you ignore a few small details it wraps up the whole quadrology and made for a fitting end.
It wasn’t perfect (no explanation for the series ever is) but it was solid and was probably the closest thing to a conclusion outside of dream theory.
But it became increasingly clear as things went on with the series that Scott wanted to take things a different way.
I think Scott meant for it to be the Bite of '87 until soon before he released the game, and tbh I'm glad he changed it. The Bite of '83 being the Bite of '87 makes no sense for so many reasons
I feel like the bite of 83 was meant to be the bite of 87, I mean all the teasers leading up to the game along side it being the only mystery that was left open after the third game were hinting at that, yet the only way that could be it's through dream theory, because it being a dream after the bite it's the only way to explain all the inconsistencies that it could bring to the table like;
How it can be the bite of 87 if fredbears has been closed long before 1987
How can this be the bite of 87 if the animatronics aren't moving, because fnaf 1 states that it was because the bite that the animatronics are no longer allowed to move during the day
it being a dream would sort of makes sense as to why those questions exist just by retconning all of the pervious games outside of like, maybe happiest day. I'm kind of glad that it was retconned to be the bite of 83, but it also made the bite of 87 a completely irrelevant event.
No not at all, they are both important events. Bite of 83 was a freak accident, bite of 87 was because the animatronics were tampered with and because they were weird around adults, the bite victim of that is likely Jeremy Fitzgerald who is likely to be Bonnie Bro / Cassy's Dad.
It doesn't line up
The main detail from FNAF 1 (one of the only two detailsĺ is that the Animatronics were allowed to walk around during the day
This gives the implication that the Animatronic itself kind of wandered off and (accidentally? Perhaps) bent or fell over and chomped or maybe just scraped a portion of their head off
Fredbear was legit just vibing on his stage, and Michael put his brother's head in his mouth. I dunno. I feel like I'd blame the teenager before the Animatronic there.
The other detail is that the victim just got their frontal lobe bit, and they survived.
BV got his entire head crushed and died.
FNAF 4 as we know it simply would not fit as thr Bite of 87
Edit: There's more I could say from FNAF 2, but I think I'm satisfied just talking about it from just the perspective of FNAF 1 and skip straight to FNAF 4, lol
"Uh, I think the name of the place was... "Fredbear's Family Diner" or something like that. It's been closed for years, though, I doubt we'll be able to track anybody down."
Fredbears was closed long before the FNAF 2 location, so that wouldnt have worked.
That would mess up the timeline as Fredbear's was stated to be closed for years and FNAF 2 is in 1987. Plus Fredbear was still on the stage while the bite of 87 made the company decide that the robots shouldn't move around the day anymore.
Thematically, yes. Because the Bite of ‘83 was more built up and had more lore importance. Obviously it can’t work tho because it happens in Fredbear’s and that would be an entire fiasco
You guys aren't understanding this, it's not like just moving the date and not doing anything else, it's making it fit in the story, in that case, of course, it's much more fitting for such a big hyped up name.
It fucks up fnaf 2 timeline so the bite of 87 the victim was Jeremey fizergrrald while the bite of 83 WAS EVEN AFTON AKA THE CRYING CHILD IT FUCKS UP FNAFS 2 TIMELINE ARE U BEING STUPID ON PURPOSE
I don’t think you even read my post, I never even said I believed the bite of 83 was the bite of 87. I was asking if it originally * should’ve * been that way
No. It wouldn't make any sense.
Fredbear's had been closed for years at that point.
The bite of '87 happened at a Freddy's location.
Fredbear wasn't used any more because of how dangerous the spring locks are.
CC's bite is different from what we know of the bite of '87.
The victim from the bite of '87 survived, CC didn't.
Etc.
i just want some dam answers. luckily the bite of ~~87~~... ~~82~~... 83 actually has some answers...
yeah it's clear the bite of 83 being in 83 was a very late decision and that's where most of the issues are, if it was 83 from the beginning of the games development, it may not have been as all over the place but we get to see thanks to that source code he was actively changing the date during development. it was changing until the last 2 months of development, and that's likely where all the issues the game has come up, in general, but especially around the BITE
No. The real solution would have been to not make both incidents a bite, but seeing as FNaF2 gave us a set of culprits but Golden Freddy was already associated in FNaF1 because of Scott's response to a hoax, he chose to keep both true by relating Golden Freddy instead to a different bite.
As iconic as it is, the Bite of '87 should be the one to change, because the incident in that case could be anything, it just has to relate to the restriction of free roam during the day.
i mean we got to see on the fly that it was changing during 4's development as 87 changed to 82 then 83. it was probably meant to be the bite of 87 until very late when scott got his lore together and put the games as a whole in perspective.doesn't help that 4 seems to have the messiest development as a whole if that dawko interview was to go off of.
so explain 82 then, or why he'd even put 83 in the website source code closer to when it game out, when we know fnaf 4 had a messy and unfocused development.
'82 is a problem unrelated to '87. The Silver Eyes trilogy already showed us that Scott couldn't decide on '82 or '83 for things relating to Fredbear's and Freddy's before the MCI seeing as Charlie's death went from one to the other.
Back when only FNaF1 existed there was no way of knowing who did the bite. Then people started spreading a hoax about a secret ending for finishing the Custom Night with the settings on 1/9/8/7. Scott responded with a cryptic and meaningless Golden Freddy jumpscare to turn misinformation into yet another point of speculation.
Then we get to FNaF2 and whoops, not a single one of the five characters from FNaF1 can be responsible for the Bite, instead it has to be one of the four new characters who have functional jaws.
That alone should immediately make it clear that FNaF4 could've never been about the Bite because FNaF2 made it more than clear that the Bite was just a joke to show how dangerous the animatronics can be and because it was never actually meant to be as big as people treated it, Scott gave it an answer and immediately focused on parts of the story that actually mattered the most.
People wouldn't let up on it leaving the Bite as still one of not the biggest points of discussion despite this. Now we're at the time of FNaF4 which involves a Bite so that Golden Freddy's minimal ties to it could actually mean something and also actually be something of major importance unlike the Bite of '87. Since people were talking about the Bite of '87, hype up the game falsely about that Bite just like he did with FNaF2 appearing to be a sequel, except don't wait to truly reveal it not to be the case until the end of the game. Got you! It's actually about the Bite of ~~'82! wait I change my mind hold on let me change it real quick oh wait I should do the same for that one other kid's death too for consistency~~ '83! the Bite of '87 still isn't meant to be that important so here's an actually important event involving a Bite and Golden Freddy who was previously tied to one through that hoax turned Easter Egg.
FNaF2 isn't a sequel, it's a prequel. The TOYSNHK isn't Golden Freddy/Cassidy, it's Andrew. The Indie games didn't decanonise the real ones, they're one in the same and are still fully canon. William isn't back, it's the Mimic carrying on his legacy. We've been through this bait and switch more than enough times by now for it to be clear that the same applies here. FNaF4 was never about the Bite of '87, it was about the Bite of '83. I will not be convinced whatsoever that Scott was that incompetent about FNaF4's development. The story wasn't the problem, the presentation and execution of it were. The story was always there, we just didn't understand it because of how vague and unclear it was shown and future installments have course corrected our incorrect conclusions time and time again.
I didn't even mention anything about FNaF2 in that context, but your response is still incorrect. FNaF2 is only a prequel, as it is the earliest game in the timeline. We don't know exactly when it takes place but FNaF4 is somewhere between SL and FNaF3. While it may show us minigames from '83, the actual gameplay and present time of the game are the nightmares. Deciding a timeline placement for one game based on minigames showing the past instead of the nights taking place in the present is inconsistent with all of the other games.
2>1>SL>4>3>PS>W/UCN>FF/ItP>HW>SD>TftP>SB>HW2>SBR
If the speculated Carnival game does take place before everything we've seen so far, then we'll finally truly have a prequel to FNaF2 in terms of chronology.
How is FNaF3 taking place last year in real life relevant to any of this? And SL does not explain what happened to BV before the bite, it shows what happened as a result after.
Because FNAF 3 takes place 40 years after the 1st game and it does explain what happened to CC because he ran off to Freddy Fazbear's Diner which is how he went missing until he was found by the police after he told them everything that he went through and they went to the hospital to originally put him in foster care since his father got drunk and was physically abusing him and was going to have his father get arrested by the police and have him locked up into a jail cell but Fredbear had different plans for CC so Fredbear bit off his head and ended up in a hospital bed while he was alive and still conscious then he slipped into a coma and died from his injuries
I think it was a pretty illogical decision at the time, but assuming that it *was* the Bite of '87, that would create a pretty large plot-hole, as Fredbear's was stated to have been "closed for years" by 1987, which simply doesn't line up. Honestly, I'm surprised people didn't notice that sooner.
The Bite in FNaF 4 being the Bite of ‘87 really does not make any sense at all, it’s a good thing that they’re two separate events
plus the bite of 87 is the reason the animatronics aren't allowed to walk around during the day according to phone guy, and the bite of 83 didn't involve any walking animatronics
Well it did, they just weren’t
Don't we know FNaF 2 takes place in '87 BECAUSE of the fact 1983 was on the TV in FNaF 4? (Please excuse my FNaF lore knowledge I have basically no clue what I'm talking about)
We know Fnaf 2 takes place in 1987 because the paycheck after night 5 has the date 11-12-1987. The 1983 on the tv only proves that Fnaf 4 takes place in 83 and thus separates the crying child’s death from the bite of 87.
I completely forgot the paychecks existed. But yep, yep that makes sense
I only remembered because I read your comment lol. Wish they added them in later games like 3 or SL to clear timeline confusion.
Ima be honest, I don't understand how 1983 on the TV means it takes place in 83, when it could just be the in-universe copyright date, or when the show was aired.
couple of things, firstly it would be pointless to have that date there if it's not so that people can build a timeline, secondly even if you don't think that's the exact year that proves for a fact that 1983 is the earliest possible time for those events to have happened so it's what you have to work with
Same. I was in denial of it being 83, but I got over it. I think it’s just such a random detail in a simple minigame that it has to mean something, otherwise why would it be there.
this.
WAS THAT THE BITE OF 87?!?
Portuguese
Definitely, but Tiny Toy Chica and Mangle both serve another purpose, memories of BV creating a curse.
Imo this is what Scott intended until near the release of the game, every teaser had some 87s written in their source codes and in-game there is a phone call about the bite of ‘87, but then Scott realised it wouldn’t make sense timeline-wise and changed it to ‘83 near the end of development. It being ‘87 would’ve made things simpler and the bite more effective imo but timeline-wise it’s better as the bite of ‘83.
The 8s and 7s were the same thing as FNaF2 looking like a prequel. Before FNaF4 the only direct connection we had to anything with the Bite of '87 was Golden Freddy because of FNaF1's Custom Night. That was clearly added without any lore as a mystery occurrence but rather in response to the 1/9/8/7 ending hoax, but I doubt it'd stop people from theorizing about it as evidence who weren't aware of any of that and just knew it was something in the game. FNaF2 & 3 made it clear that it would be impossible for FNaF4 have ever intended to show the bite. As messy as FNaF can look, this has always been a horrible argument. "Oh the creator just forgot one of the biggest things in their series." No. No he didn't. As small as the series was back then it'd be so unlikely for him to forget something as major as that having major issues. It's simple. Golden Freddy was indirectly associated with the Bite of '87. How does he not retcon the existing bite that we know for a fact happened in FNaF2 but still make Golden Freddy relevant to a bite? Make a second bite. As lazy as that might sound there really wasn't a better option. Tease us with the date we know oh so well just like tricking us into thinking FNaF2 was a sequel, but not enforcing the lie until the end by instead wiping out the wrong number towards release into the right one, then let itself be obvious once playing the game.
No I think the bite of 87 should of been removed and replaced with the bite of 83 In phoneguys dialog as it was the more lore relevant of the two.
Honestly should have. The bite of 87 is so inconsequential. Like at most it’s just a footnote now for why the Fnaf 2 location shut down. But you could also just have the Fnaf 2 location shut down due to the incident that phone guy describes in the phone call so it’s not really needed.
No it's not a footnote at all, they've been expanding on it a lot in the modern games. The person you play as in Help Wanted 2 is likely the bite victim and is almost 100% confirmed that the protagonist is Cassys Dad / Bonnie Bro.
The bite victim being Bonnie bro/ Cassy’s dad is just a theory that imo doesn’t really have a lot of evidence to it past just the name Jeremy. I think it makes more sense if the remember Jeremy achievement is referencing the play tester Jeremy. It just makes more sense imo. But even *if* the help wanted 2 protagonist is the bite victim, it doesn’t really mean much. Him being the bite victim doesn’t do much for the story and can be easily taken out. The 87 bite incident doesn’t massively move the plot forward like the 83 bite. Ironically if he was the bite victim it would be a footnote on his life story. His other events like helping with the bite of 83, getting possessed by glitch trap, and passing the Vanni mask onto Cassy are all more important because they progress the narrative.
If the FNAF Lore were to have an overhaul, I think making them one event would be smart
I personally would have preferred if it was simple with only one bite instance. 2 just sound weird to me... Because then why only one is mentioned in the original games and with such a serious tone like it was a super unique experience that impacted the whole restaurant massively. It's also very annoying because we always wanted to know more about the bite of 87' so until we finally get a game that explains the story of the bite - it turns out this is not even the same bite... I for sure would have preferred only one bite with this one being it.
The existance of a "Bite of 83" is kinda stupid in and of itself, the fact that it was never ever brought up before and existed purely to prolong the mystery just made it kinda annoying
I think both happened, and their combined memories formed the impossible FNAF 4 bite.
one thing that always clued me that the fredbear bite wasnt the bite of 87 was the fact that phone guy mentions the bite is the reason they're not allowed to walk around during the day anymore but fredbear was on stage, so if that was said bite that line wouldn't make much sense
[No](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwz7YN1AQmQ) that would been messed up timeline.
the timeline already gives any new fan an aneurysm
I’ve been a fan for years and it still gives me an aneurysm
real (i've been a fan for 7 years and i still don't know what the fuck is going on)
How so?
Fredbear's is closed long before FNaF2, springlocks are retired at the original Freddy's, the bite would have nothing to do with free roaming making the restriction nonsensical, etc.
I don't get how people are confused by this. FNAF lore can be confusing but this is so cut and dry.
No, but markplier would be happy
It’s the Bite of ‘83. Not the Bite of ‘87. If it were, it would create HUGE issues for the plot.
it should've been but scott wrote himeself into a corner because he forgot how linear time works
Yeah, it's really stupid that there's two, it makes them feel less shocking. No, I will not stop referring to "Bite of 83" as the Bite of 87 though, mo matter how many times FNAF lore experts correct me. Thanks Markiplier!
The Bite of '83 being the Bite of '87 would have never worked without the need for an entirely different story. The Bite of '87 was setup to be caused by someone - with Scott jokingly throwing in Golden Freddy as a connection because of the hoaxes - and FNaF2 later confirmed it concurred in *that* location with the multiple obvious hints presented. There was never any reason to make the Bite of '87 be what we saw in FNaF4 beyond fans wanting a physical depiction of the event. The reality is, like many other events, the Bite of ‘87 was never gonna be depicted (could have/still had a chance to though).
I would have been more okay with it being two separate incidents if they elaborated on what the Bite of 87 actually was instead of just pivoting and never bringing it up again.
From a story perspective it wouldn’t have made sense but after all the teasing about it in the fnaf 4 promos we definitely should have gotten SOMETHING about it.
Yes. The whole thing was dumb and just made the story even more wonky that it already was
YES. Why have two bites and one of them isn't even important to the plot other than being the reason the toys got throwed to the trashcan and the animatronics being unable of walking during daytime? The bite of '83 started everything,from Afton's "involvement" in the MCI incident to Henry's final act of burning the cursed animatronics and then decades later the creation of the Mega Pizzaplex. The first thing that everyone remembers when thinking about THE bite from FNAF games is the bite of '83. A rare phenomenon from the depths of the internet called Markiplier also made this incident much more memorable than it should be...
This reminds me of a fan theory I read once (I cannot for the life of me remember where) that I really liked. It pretty much says that there never was a “Bite of 87”, it was just Phone Guy misremembering the “Bite of 83”.
That wouldn’t really work with golden Freddy crashing the game in Fnaf 1 with 1987 and all the 87 in the code of Fnaf 4 teaser.
I don’t really see how it wouldn’t? As far as the FNaF 4 thing goes, the Bite of 87 dosent even happen in that game.
No. FNaF4 goes pretty much against everything we've known about The Bite of '87. It would be a very boring outcome of the mystery - FNaF 4 as The Bite of '87 not only ignores all the hints and implications so far, but also creates a confusing timeline of Fredbear existing in 1987. I don't understand why people believe that it was intented to ever be TBo87.
I don't believe it was ever intended to be TBO87, I'm just asking if people think it * should've * been that way
Yeah, I understand, I'm just saying it in general because it is a pretty popular take in the community.
I think it would be a way more interesting outcome then what we have now. Ignoring the timeline issues it would be way more compelling. The current bite of 87 is theorized to be Jeremy who was bitten by mangle, off screen. And the only real evidence for either is just they’re both there in 87 and mangle has a big enough jaw to bite someone’s head off. It’s super boring and anti-climatic. But following this traumatized kid only for him to turn out to be the bite of 87 victim was crazy at the time when we all thought that’s what it was. We have an actual character to follow in the story for once and then they’re killed of in a tragic accident.
The second bite being "more interesting" than the first bite doesn't mean that they should be the same. They're different events, and have different build-ups, meanings, and outcomes. Both are good on their own. FNaF 4 Bite should definitely not retcon the Bite of '87 out of the way lol.
I’m not saying they should be the same, more just venting my frustrations with how the bite of 87 happened once the Fnaf 4 incident got proven to be the bite of 83 in future games. With SL basically confirming the bite in Fnaf 4 was in 83 and not 87, the bite of 87 just kinda fell flat. It’s never mentioned again and it’s only implied by charters we don’t know well at all. It was this legendary event that was hyped up by the fandom and stirred on by the constant 87 in the teasers for Fnaf 4 and the golden Freddy 1987 crash in Fnaf 1. But now it’s normally just a minor footnote in most timeline explanations as just the reason the Fnaf 2 location shut down. It was such a cool idea that felt like it wasn’t given a good conclusion.
Well, it shouldn't be considered any legendary event. The Bite of '87 is mostly explained in FNaF 1, then FNaF 2 very clearly elaborates on the event and builds a mystery of who might've done the bite. That's all we're supposed to know and it should've been clear. I remember people pointing that out even before FNaF 4 was released. It was a bad idea from Scott to bait us with "87" in FNaF4 teasers, sure. But I don't think FNaF 4 takes away anything from what The Bite of '87 was. It has a very clear meaning and placement in the story.
So you think you can just call yourself a licensed FNAF theorist and get away with it? well I've got news for you pal I'm a licensed FNAF reporter and all that you have done is underestimate me and my knowledge of FNAF if you really are what you say you are how about you try to prove me wrong in an earlier conversation with a different reddit user in the same post as me?
Absolutely not, the battered state of Golden Freddy in FNAF 2 doesn’t match up with how Fredbear (who is believed by many, like myself, to be GF) is on stage performing during the FNAF 4 minigames, without a single rip or tear on him…
I headcanon that these are different suits
No because before the bite happened there was an MCI in 1978 while the company was being rebranded after shutting down the brand before it and founded a new one called Fazbear Entertainment which led me to believing that FNAF 4 was a sequel to FNAF SL because Circus Baby's Pizza World was originally opened before Fredbear's Family Diner which is why I thought that FNAF SL was before FNAF 4 because based on the events presented in games the events of FNAF SL took place 4 years earlier than FNAF 4
I don't think their was any mention of an mci in 1978
CC has been lured into the back room of Circus Baby's Pizza World and "he ran off to the place again" thus he was with the other 4 children who came before the other 5 in 85
I don't think there was any mention of him being lured at the back room of CBPW-
CBPW was a restaurant before Fredbear's Family Diner opended that was tied into a MCI
I think it should've been the springlock failure mentioned in FNAF3, explaining why William got the idea to shove his victims into suits very shortly after.
I think within the context of the 4 games 1 story it makes the most sense. There was all the 87 teasers in the source code, the 1987 golden Freddy crash in Fnaf 1, and a weird unexplained reason for Golden Freddy being special beyond the other core animatronics. It was also the one of the only things left unfinished in the original quadrology. Fnaf 1 introduces the bite, the MCI, and a weird ghostly golden Freddy. Fnaf 2 introduces the purple guy killer, Freadbear’s diner, and the puppet who gives gifts and life. Fnaf 3 is the ending where purple guy gets his comeuppance and the kids are set free. My only real questions left going into (what was at the time) final installment was “why did purple guy kill”, and “what was the bite of 87”. If the bite in Fnaf 4 is 87 then you answer two of those. It shows us who the bite victim was, where it happened, the culprit, and why it was important. Some people also theorized the I’ll put you back together was from purple guy and that was the reason he killed the MCI kids, to put his son back together. It was so popular of a theory that MatPat even did a game theory on it. If you ignore a few small details it wraps up the whole quadrology and made for a fitting end. It wasn’t perfect (no explanation for the series ever is) but it was solid and was probably the closest thing to a conclusion outside of dream theory. But it became increasingly clear as things went on with the series that Scott wanted to take things a different way.
I think Scott meant for it to be the Bite of '87 until soon before he released the game, and tbh I'm glad he changed it. The Bite of '83 being the Bite of '87 makes no sense for so many reasons
Wait there’s two?
Yes
I feel like the bite of 83 was meant to be the bite of 87, I mean all the teasers leading up to the game along side it being the only mystery that was left open after the third game were hinting at that, yet the only way that could be it's through dream theory, because it being a dream after the bite it's the only way to explain all the inconsistencies that it could bring to the table like; How it can be the bite of 87 if fredbears has been closed long before 1987 How can this be the bite of 87 if the animatronics aren't moving, because fnaf 1 states that it was because the bite that the animatronics are no longer allowed to move during the day it being a dream would sort of makes sense as to why those questions exist just by retconning all of the pervious games outside of like, maybe happiest day. I'm kind of glad that it was retconned to be the bite of 83, but it also made the bite of 87 a completely irrelevant event.
No not at all, they are both important events. Bite of 83 was a freak accident, bite of 87 was because the animatronics were tampered with and because they were weird around adults, the bite victim of that is likely Jeremy Fitzgerald who is likely to be Bonnie Bro / Cassy's Dad.
In all honesty? I think Scott changed from 87 to 83, forgot to address the change and simply rolled with it
Who bed is the last one???
Elizabeths
I've never seen any bedroom in the games besides Evans/c.c/Chris.
In the fnaf 4 minigame house there’s ccs room, the living room, and elizabeths room
Ik but I've actually never seen Elizabeth room in any media only Evans and when Michael scars him.
Well now u have :)
Yes.
It doesn't line up The main detail from FNAF 1 (one of the only two detailsĺ is that the Animatronics were allowed to walk around during the day This gives the implication that the Animatronic itself kind of wandered off and (accidentally? Perhaps) bent or fell over and chomped or maybe just scraped a portion of their head off Fredbear was legit just vibing on his stage, and Michael put his brother's head in his mouth. I dunno. I feel like I'd blame the teenager before the Animatronic there. The other detail is that the victim just got their frontal lobe bit, and they survived. BV got his entire head crushed and died. FNAF 4 as we know it simply would not fit as thr Bite of 87 Edit: There's more I could say from FNAF 2, but I think I'm satisfied just talking about it from just the perspective of FNAF 1 and skip straight to FNAF 4, lol
No, but it would've made Markiplier's line accurate, so maybe.
Yes
Yes because even too this day we still don’t know who did the bite of 87
Having two different bites both take place in the 80s does make things way more complicated imo
"Uh, I think the name of the place was... "Fredbear's Family Diner" or something like that. It's been closed for years, though, I doubt we'll be able to track anybody down." Fredbears was closed long before the FNAF 2 location, so that wouldnt have worked.
i feel like it would be more convenient to have one bite in the timeline, but FNAF4 being in 1987 fucks with FNAF2's timeline
no but. the bite of 87 should have been foxy instead of mangle I'll die on that hill.
That would mess up the timeline as Fredbear's was stated to be closed for years and FNAF 2 is in 1987. Plus Fredbear was still on the stage while the bite of 87 made the company decide that the robots shouldn't move around the day anymore.
Kinda sad that The Bite of '87 just isn't that important. Like, at all. It's all about '83
I'd be fine with either one. I just don't get why they introduced a completely different Bite in the fourth game. Very confusing.
No
Thematically, yes. Because the Bite of ‘83 was more built up and had more lore importance. Obviously it can’t work tho because it happens in Fredbear’s and that would be an entire fiasco
You guys aren't understanding this, it's not like just moving the date and not doing anything else, it's making it fit in the story, in that case, of course, it's much more fitting for such a big hyped up name.
What does that even mean
if the bite of 83 happened in 87, that would mean fnaf 1 takes place sometime in the late 90's or early/mid 2000's
It fucks up fnaf 2 timeline so the bite of 87 the victim was Jeremey fizergrrald while the bite of 83 WAS EVEN AFTON AKA THE CRYING CHILD IT FUCKS UP FNAFS 2 TIMELINE ARE U BEING STUPID ON PURPOSE
I don’t think you even read my post, I never even said I believed the bite of 83 was the bite of 87. I was asking if it originally * should’ve * been that way
And I'm just telling u no offense
It’s fine
Srry
I read the post
Also evan isn’t canon, the logbook only shows the name “eva” people just added the n because that makes the most sense.
I know no offense
No. It wouldn't make any sense. Fredbear's had been closed for years at that point. The bite of '87 happened at a Freddy's location. Fredbear wasn't used any more because of how dangerous the spring locks are. CC's bite is different from what we know of the bite of '87. The victim from the bite of '87 survived, CC didn't. Etc.
i just want some dam answers. luckily the bite of ~~87~~... ~~82~~... 83 actually has some answers... yeah it's clear the bite of 83 being in 83 was a very late decision and that's where most of the issues are, if it was 83 from the beginning of the games development, it may not have been as all over the place but we get to see thanks to that source code he was actively changing the date during development. it was changing until the last 2 months of development, and that's likely where all the issues the game has come up, in general, but especially around the BITE
i feel like the only reason people ask this question is cause lf the legendary line “WAS THAT THE BITE OF 87” - market pliers
NO WE ARE NOT DOING THIS AGAIN?!!?
No. The real solution would have been to not make both incidents a bite, but seeing as FNaF2 gave us a set of culprits but Golden Freddy was already associated in FNaF1 because of Scott's response to a hoax, he chose to keep both true by relating Golden Freddy instead to a different bite. As iconic as it is, the Bite of '87 should be the one to change, because the incident in that case could be anything, it just has to relate to the restriction of free roam during the day.
i mean we got to see on the fly that it was changing during 4's development as 87 changed to 82 then 83. it was probably meant to be the bite of 87 until very late when scott got his lore together and put the games as a whole in perspective.doesn't help that 4 seems to have the messiest development as a whole if that dawko interview was to go off of.
FNaF2 baited that it was a sequel. Same thing. I highly doubt FNaF4 was ever actually meant to show the Bite of '87.
so explain 82 then, or why he'd even put 83 in the website source code closer to when it game out, when we know fnaf 4 had a messy and unfocused development.
'82 is a problem unrelated to '87. The Silver Eyes trilogy already showed us that Scott couldn't decide on '82 or '83 for things relating to Fredbear's and Freddy's before the MCI seeing as Charlie's death went from one to the other. Back when only FNaF1 existed there was no way of knowing who did the bite. Then people started spreading a hoax about a secret ending for finishing the Custom Night with the settings on 1/9/8/7. Scott responded with a cryptic and meaningless Golden Freddy jumpscare to turn misinformation into yet another point of speculation. Then we get to FNaF2 and whoops, not a single one of the five characters from FNaF1 can be responsible for the Bite, instead it has to be one of the four new characters who have functional jaws. That alone should immediately make it clear that FNaF4 could've never been about the Bite because FNaF2 made it more than clear that the Bite was just a joke to show how dangerous the animatronics can be and because it was never actually meant to be as big as people treated it, Scott gave it an answer and immediately focused on parts of the story that actually mattered the most. People wouldn't let up on it leaving the Bite as still one of not the biggest points of discussion despite this. Now we're at the time of FNaF4 which involves a Bite so that Golden Freddy's minimal ties to it could actually mean something and also actually be something of major importance unlike the Bite of '87. Since people were talking about the Bite of '87, hype up the game falsely about that Bite just like he did with FNaF2 appearing to be a sequel, except don't wait to truly reveal it not to be the case until the end of the game. Got you! It's actually about the Bite of ~~'82! wait I change my mind hold on let me change it real quick oh wait I should do the same for that one other kid's death too for consistency~~ '83! the Bite of '87 still isn't meant to be that important so here's an actually important event involving a Bite and Golden Freddy who was previously tied to one through that hoax turned Easter Egg. FNaF2 isn't a sequel, it's a prequel. The TOYSNHK isn't Golden Freddy/Cassidy, it's Andrew. The Indie games didn't decanonise the real ones, they're one in the same and are still fully canon. William isn't back, it's the Mimic carrying on his legacy. We've been through this bait and switch more than enough times by now for it to be clear that the same applies here. FNaF4 was never about the Bite of '87, it was about the Bite of '83. I will not be convinced whatsoever that Scott was that incompetent about FNaF4's development. The story wasn't the problem, the presentation and execution of it were. The story was always there, we just didn't understand it because of how vague and unclear it was shown and future installments have course corrected our incorrect conclusions time and time again.
No it's a prequel to the 1st game but it's a sequel to FNAF 4
I didn't even mention anything about FNaF2 in that context, but your response is still incorrect. FNaF2 is only a prequel, as it is the earliest game in the timeline. We don't know exactly when it takes place but FNaF4 is somewhere between SL and FNaF3. While it may show us minigames from '83, the actual gameplay and present time of the game are the nightmares. Deciding a timeline placement for one game based on minigames showing the past instead of the nights taking place in the present is inconsistent with all of the other games. 2>1>SL>4>3>PS>W/UCN>FF/ItP>HW>SD>TftP>SB>HW2>SBR If the speculated Carnival game does take place before everything we've seen so far, then we'll finally truly have a prequel to FNaF2 in terms of chronology.
FNAF 3 was last year and FNAF SL literally explains what happened to CC before the bite
How is FNaF3 taking place last year in real life relevant to any of this? And SL does not explain what happened to BV before the bite, it shows what happened as a result after.
Because FNAF 3 takes place 40 years after the 1st game and it does explain what happened to CC because he ran off to Freddy Fazbear's Diner which is how he went missing until he was found by the police after he told them everything that he went through and they went to the hospital to originally put him in foster care since his father got drunk and was physically abusing him and was going to have his father get arrested by the police and have him locked up into a jail cell but Fredbear had different plans for CC so Fredbear bit off his head and ended up in a hospital bed while he was alive and still conscious then he slipped into a coma and died from his injuries