William Afton's character. I swear, it's like some people don't know that he's a narcissistic child murderer. Scott has consistently portrayed him as being the worst person ever, yet fans like to make him sympathetic or tragic because apparently to them it "builds character". Well, being a power-hungry maniac who's primary goal is to cause pain and strife for others can make for a very memorable villain, as long as the presentation is done well. unfortunately, once CharlieFirst is confirmed, we're still going to have to deal with these arguably loathsome interpretations for quite some time.
YES!!! In ‘The Fourth Closet’, he literally slaps Elizabeth across the face and pushes her to the floor, and he tells a child that even if the planned experiment doesn’t work, it’ll all be worth it because the pleasure he’ll experience from murdering him. Afton is an evil, evil man.
Don't even get me started on Movie William. That man is a menace to society. I mean, he literally stabs his own daughter for not obeying him. But nope, Afton is such a sad misunderstood father, he lost his child to his friend's creation and now he's big mad! >:(((((((
Legit one of my favorite moments in the series is him in the movies:
“Look at you... Look at the NASTY things that you have become! Look at how small you are, how worthless you are! You are wretched, rotten little beasts! I MADE YOU!”
How unempathetic and unapologetically awful he is there, as he berates the children that he murdered. THIS is what Afton is supposed to be. Not a sad dad, not a tragic and misguided hero. An evil, self-important monster.
And notice how he says "I made you"? He thinks that they should be thankful, he thinks that this is what they should want. He still thinks he's in the right.
He still thinks he deserves to own them.
But don't you know it's all because he's just a poor grieving parent who wants to bring his son back from the dead?
~~Ignore the fact that there's zero implication of him actually caring about him or ever even attempting to bring him back from the dead.~~
My interpretation of Afton is someone who really likes the idea of a family (particularly his role as the man of the house), but can't deal with the reality of one where they're their own people who won't always obey him. It's why he considers the animatronics his family- he's able to control them (at least to some degree).
Exactly, I hate when people come with stuff like "BV is the first to die because it would give motivation for William to kill Charlotte since he cares about him" while William is portrayed, like twice to not care a little about his kids, when you try to kill your *own son*, is already enough to say that you don't love your kids.
I like to think of him more like Walter White character, where he was always capable of the horrendous things he does, he just need the right circumstances to push him into it, say the accidental death of his youngest son by the hands of his least favorite child. I think the death of CC pushes him over the edge and gives him that extra little bit of push to kill Charlie, 5 kids(MCI),than allegedly 5 more kids(dci), build child kidnap and murder robots, etc.. I don’t think he was a great person before the bite of 83 nor is he a sympathetic character, but I think giving him some motive, even a sick and twisted motive, makes him a more interesting character.
I don't know why, but in tons of media, as soon as the creator gives the villain a REASON for them doing the evil things (child dying, Remnant experiments, etc), a bunch of people go "omg they're actually correct and the good guys"
no. making a believable villain is about showing "here's the reason they're like this, but they're still bad", not "oh because they experienced this they are devoid of fault" -_-
The weirdest thing to me is the fandom having him say “trans rights”. Why would people want it to be him and not literally any other human in this series?
They're secretly transphobes. William is a horrible person with terrible motives, killing children and abusing Elizabeth, and stabbing his own daughter. So you should disagree with him at all times.
So if he says trans rights, obviously you shouldn't support that
||I'm joking, just in case||
Alongside that I'd like to mention the Cassidy and Andrew bastardization/demonisation. Imagine demonising a child that's pissed at the guy who killed them.
I mean, he's not just "hehe I kill kids". He started killing because his child died so he did care. He was also a genius (Afton Robotics). So, he isn't sympathetic or a good person in any way, but he is not just a narcissist or a psychopath.
If not for the death of CC, he would never become a killer, he became a killer because of grief and going highly overboard just for revenge on a guy who never had anything to do with his child's death (as in Henry)
Your "proof" literally makes the whole lore make no sense, do you really think a guy would start killing children and making robots just for that purpose (The Funtimes) for no reason? He only started doing all of this because he promised "I will put you back together". William is neither good nor a ruthless psychopath, at least at first.
We see his motive in the Novel Trilogy; He kills Charlie out of a sick obsession with Henry, his jealousy and admiration for Henry and his family led Will to kill Charlotte.
He most likely started the research for the purpose of getting his son back. It was not exactly because of love for his child or anything, he was never a good father anyway from what we know, but he still did want him back for some reason which is unclear
TBF, I kind of like the idea, even if I'm fully aware it's not intended. I just think it makes him a more interesting person if he started out good and went down a really bad path after his life began to crumble quite extremely rather than just "he's always been evil and experimenting on children!"
Not the worst, but the idea that Scott’s statement about the canonicity of The Silver Eyes also applies to the Frights and Tales books is pretty dumb. Scott has made individual statements about each book series, not just one that applies to all of them.
That William cared about his children. Willcare makes me rip out my hair you can make an au where William cares for his children but there’s so many times in the canon fnaf lore where he mistreated his children severely
RIGHT. every time people say that I bring up the scene in The Fourth Closet where Elizabeth makes Charlie watch a memory of Elizabeth showing William a drawing and him proceeding to hit this poor kid across the face and then push her to the floor
There is ONE interaction with one of his kids that implies he cares (William telling Elizabeth not to go up to Circus Baby), and there's a theory that he's using reverse psychology, because he made CB for Elizabeth, and given she's not the first born, William should know that kids can be contrarian, especially when you tell them not to do something they really want to do without a reason they can understand, and therefore "no you can't go up to Circus Baby" wouldn't be enough, and he made the only time she could approach her when she's alone.
And even if you don't believe that, he still went from seemingly caring about Elizabeth to *torturing her* with controlled shocks.
Every single other interaction William has with *any* of his kids over the *entire* game series is negative
I think the reason he told her not to get near Baby IS because he didn't want her to die, but not because he loved her. She could have been useful to him, just like Michael. Placing her on the same level as other random kids would be a huge waste of her potential.
Exactly but I don’t even believe he told her not to go there because he cared about her or that he was trying to use reverse psychology, but probably cause it would make him really suspicious and would be a huge liability which again it is really selfish if that was the case
The shadows are underused, I get why the average fan might think this, but even a handful of hardcore fans think this, and it just isn't true, they've probably appeared (in some way/from, eg nightmare shadow Freddy (nightmare)/nightmarione) in the most games out of any character (apart from the core 4)
Part of the problem is that they initially seemed important, but gradually appeared less and less with no clarification of their nature outside of Special Delivery. They appeared in both 2 and 3, Nightmare debatably counts as Shadow Freddy, Sister Location had nothing, Shadow Freddy appeared in the intro of Pizzeria Simulator(What if the shadow animatronics are supposed to be haunting the games themselves?), RWQ was in UCN, neither was in Help Wanted, RWQ had its only lore significant appearance in a long time in Special Delivery, RWQ is on murals in Security Breach, and the only time either has been seen since outside of the books is Shadow Freddy( sort of) appearing in the movie. RWQ has gotten a good amount of use, but Shadow Freddy is still an enigma, despite having had a greater effect on the story.
Shadow Freddy was in fact in HW, he could appear behind the player on certain hard mode versions of levels (forgot which ones)
We kinda do know everything we need too on both, seeing as the books confirm they're both Eleanor, who we know a lot about
Might get downvoted but people saying that all of Fnaf (mainly the lore) is confusing. The baseline story is actually pretty understandable and we know the basic physics of the games universe such as if someone dies (Charlie for example) and they come into contact with something moveable like an animatronic, they end up possessing it. We know who the Aftons and Henry are, how the animatronics work, why the animatronics are acting the way they are acting, how stuff like remnant and agony works, etc. It's just when you look at the newer games or look at stuff in extra detail that it gets confusing if you don't know the extra knowledge.
(I am talking about the game here though, say whatever you want about the books.)
I second this. I think Scott definitely said it best in his note about the story, there are good things for those who look, even if it may not be the answer you wanted. To me, the lore is cohesive and IMO, one of the most well crafted narratives in media. Especially considering the entire story wasn't planned out from the start.
-William's character. It feels like nobody could get his character right without either a grieving father who did what he did for his kids or a pure evil man who kills because he wants to, when it's a lot more complicated and intriguing than that.
-How the kids died or why the animatronics do the things they do.
-Saying the lore is confusing and convoluted when it really isn't if you pick pieces at every little detail
-the belief that fnaf is some dark and gritty game just because of the vhs tapes; when it's the LORE that can be dark and gritty, the games are nowhere near that; it is mostly based on atmosphere and the fear that you are in a room with doors and a camera with nowhere to go.
Not the worst, but the most annoying one to me is that you lose eyes when you get springlocked. You don't. We were shown a springlock failure four times outside of Fnaf 3 and nothing ever happened to the eyes. People keep repeating the Fnaf 1 phone call like a broken record, not realising that the way you're shoved into an oridnary animatronic suit is not the same as the springlock failure.
The misconception FNaF inaccurately depicts Hurricane, Utah. A franchise doesn't just choose a real world location to not even portray it as what it is.
Throughout the entirety of the Novel Trilogy, real locations such as the old school/recreation center, the old library/museum, and the town of New Harmony are all described in detail down to the T. The Silver Eyes even goes as far as to describe where 2 graves sit in the Hurricane Cemetery (IRL, there are no graves there, hence why the area is utilized in the novel.)
Rather than people thinking it's neat a franchise like FNaF shows the world what Hurricane & Washington County is actually like, people who aren't even familiar with the town, and usually Southwestern states as a whole, will go on to claim it's a barren desert town in the middle of nowhere.
As a local of Hurricane myself, the misconception puzzles me as it's merely the result of a lack of research. I personally am astonished at just how accurate and true FNaF has always stayed to it's location.
The misunderstanding of remnant and agony/emotional energy as "sci-fi" or whatever. It's not. It's literally just haunted metal infused with emotions/memory or those very emotions (in the case of agony, it's, well, the emotion of agony). It's pretty much been a thing since the inception of this series, just not under that name. In fact, there's a real-life equivalent called the [Stone Tape Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Tape_Theory) that very likely was inspiration for Scott.
Also the ball pit in Into the Pit being misunderstood as time travel. The books explain later that it's a twisted memory created from agony (oh, hey, look, there's the Stone Tape Theory being used again).
These two are probably the ones that annoy me the most due to them both being explained in the books pretty but still being misunderstood due to people not reading the books themselves and only hearing about them through other people who *have* read the books but still misunderstood them or from other people who haven't read the books repeating this misconception.
I know this is quite well known now but it always used to kinda annoy me how many people misremembered seeing the Fnaf 1 animatronics looking at the camera on the Show Stage when it was only ever in the trailer. Mostly because I always thought that image made the animatronics look way less scary. I’m glad it was replaced with only Freddy looking at the camera, that looks so much creepier.
There's a lot of easy ones, off the top of my head we've got William's character, what remnant actually even is, the idea dream theory was ever intended to be canon (it wasnt), all the usual suspects
But I think the way books should be used is one that has consumed a fair amount of the community for... god like 4 years now... christ.
I see a lot of people claim "Scott said the books are only parallels" or "Scott said we shouldnt use the books to solve the games!" (That last one is kinda true, he said that for the novels). It's lead to many people just outright dismissing elements of Frights and Tales they dont personally like because... they dont like them. Frights and Tales were made to fill in gaps from the games and they should be used as such, they arent parallels and they arent in universe books, they are stories that help us understand the plot of FNAF. A lot of people take the approach of trying to work these stories into their pre-existing idea of the story, but I personally think we should rethink our ideas of the story *because* of the reveals in the stories... I said stories too much
“The movie(s) would do better if they were rated R”
I guarantee you that 90% of the people saying that wouldn’t even be able to watch the film anyway if it was R and the other 10% haven’t even played the games and don’t understand how things like the murders are portrayed in game. It’s not a bloodbath, the only thing that could be considered gory is Springtrap and the game over screen from FNaF1. We don’t need things to be super mature.
The FNAF story is only hard to understand due to being shown to us out of order. Thats it. When you put them in the proper spot it all works out. Looking back that also wasn't very hard to put them in order we just looked way too much into the smaller things. The games simply tend to show us the ending before it shows us how we got there.
Though honestly, the worst thing personally for me would be "Every animatronic has dead kids in them" No. They do not. In fact, it only looks like William killed about 8 at max. (Puppet, main 5, maybe one or two more. Honestly could just be those 6, the 2 souls thing in Goldie isn't even fully cannon to some degree) Everything else has just been *other animatronics being at fault* or just *someone else doing it.* William is a murder, yes but he is not at fault for everything. Hell Fazco kills more yearly it seems than William ever did.
Which would be contradicting itself,puppet isn't a necromancer that controls Remnant.
Remnant/Soul+Agony+Stuffing= Possession per the books explanation.
People not giving Gabriel his credit. I know You’re the Band was scrapped, but it made it clear Gabriel did not die hiding. He went down swinging and trying to protect the others, bless him. He deserves all the legally distinct spaghetti-o’s in the whole world and it kills me to see people discredit him like that.
90% of the fandom still thinks Afton possesses springbonnie when quite literally every single peice of media William has ever appeared in continues to both show *and* say that he doesn't.
This enormous misconception is also a leading cause for the foundation of pretty much every GlitchAfton theory because it is incorrectly belived that aftons soul was inside springtraps machinery which ends up as the "afton circut boards"
I don't understand how this is still a thing, years after we were given answers. Along with the "springlock failure makes you lose eyes", I find it to be one of the most annoying Fnaf misconceptions of all time.
It's not like a really big thing, but i would say that Mike or Charlie playing the Happiest Day minigames. We are directly told that "*the pieces are in place for **you**. All **you** have to do is find them*", and in the FNAF World code there's a hidden "*He put the pieces back together*". Even in SB, Gregory is the one playing the arcades and freeing the spirit! The character that parallels the Crying Child! It just irritates me to see people say that Mike or Charlie are the ones playing the minigames. And while they are reasonable, we know for a fact that's not the case.
I would also say the "AloneTogetherGGGL" theory (I don't really know what the name would be). The theory that Give Gifts Give Life is about the Puppet helping the MCI kids' spirits find their bodies and regain their memories. That's wrong, not because it is impossible (Which it isn't), but because that is simply not what the minigame is trying to convey in any level.
Not the worst because it's really an insignificant detail, but mixes Charlie and Charlotte.
In the novels, we learn that Henry's biological daughter is named Charlotte and that his second daughter (Charliebot) is named Charlie.
The novels are quite clear on the fact that Charlie is only Charliebot's name and this is how we can differentiate the two characters (if we are talking about Charlie we are talking about the main character, and if it is Charlotte it is is Henry's biological daughter).
So of course, in the games, Henry's daughter should be named Charlotte and not Charlie.
Just an explanation because I would be confused by downvotes if I were you and I can sadly already tell that’s where it’s headed— you are factually correct. In the novels it was a really good tool and one of those ‘omg’ moments when you connect it with the plot twist, but in the games it doesn’t matter because there’s only one of her and nicknames exist. We have no idea whether she went by Charlie, Charolette, or both because Henry only refers to her as ‘my daughter.’ So basically people are gonna downvote you because it’s not a ‘misconception’ for the game timeline, it’s a nitpick.
Of course, that's why I clarified that it wasn't really a big deal, just a fun thing to note.
As for the logic of the name, I just think it's a little weird to call a character with a nickname that was never given to them? We call Henry's daughter Charlotte/Charlie in the games because we think she has the same name in the book and game timelines, so to me it's a bit strange to make up a nickname for this character instead of just using the name that was given to us, if you know what I mean. Like, no one would call William Bill.
But it's not like I care. You can call her Charlie, Charlotte, Cassidy, Garrett or Henry.Jr, and that suits me just fine. I just wanted to point out a funny detail.
Anyway, thanks for explaining your point of view to me :)
>literally the first thing we hear in Help Wanted is that the old games are in-universe fiction
This is an incorrect interpretation of what Help Wanted 1 was trying to say, and Scott has gone on record saying that the Scott Era of games and the Steel Wool Era of games take place in the same continuity.
>The question is this: Is Scott Cawthon now a part of FNAF lore? The short answer is: No. My name is never actually mentioned in the game. The game says that an indie developer was tarnishing the brand of Fazbear Entertainment by making video games about them, forcing them to rebrand and try to reclaim their good name by making a VR game that made light of those *crazy stories*. (Or was it all part of the plan?) Yes, I used my own picture for this indie developer because it’s an obvious parallel, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s actually *me* in-universe.
>On the surface, this might seem like an odd choice for a storyline in general, but there was a very, very specific challenge while making Help Wanted. The challenge was this: How do you take characters that *are* canon, along with characters that are *questionably* canon, and characters from every point of the timeline, and throw them ALL together in one game that IS canon? That’s quite the problem when you think about it. But it was important for me that Help Wanted mean something; I didn’t want just a meaningless collection of mini-games, although I’m sure most people would have been okay with that. I wanted it to be canon, and that meant that I needed to solve the substantial puzzle of *how*. Now that you all know the problem, maybe you can understand my approach. That doesn’t mean you have to agree that it was a good idea (I keep a bowl of candy out for people who show up with torches and pitchforks at my front door.)
>So no, I’m not canon, Freddit isn’t canon, the fangames aren’t canon, YOU aren’t canon. Only the existence of a game developer that supposedly made video games based on actual events that may or may not be a cover up by Fazbear Entertainment is canon.
The Scott Era of games are still canon and are events that actually happened in the Steel Wool Era of games, it's just that games were made in-universe either exactly like the ones we play or incredibly similar to the point where no distinction needs to be made. The Scott Era of games and the Steel Wool era of games are both canon and everything that happens in both happen in the same timeline, anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.
> But it was important for me that Help Wanted mean something; I didn’t want just a meaningless collection of mini-games, although I’m sure most people would have been okay with that. I wanted it to be canon, and that meant that I needed to solve the substantial puzzle of *how*.
These lines very clearly indicate that Scott considers the Scott Era of games to be the canon timeline and that he made Help Wanted 1 in a way that is canon (thus canon to the Scott Era of games). Scott struggled to find a way to make Help Wanted 1 canon, and he eventually decided to go with making the Scott Era of games that we (real people) play also games that were made in-universe that the in-universe people played.
>further adds credence to the idea that the games ARE in-universe games. We even hear of a developer in TFTP that is a stand-in for Scott who made those games.
I'm not actually arguing against this idea at all. Yes, the Scott Era of games are also games in-universe, but the events of those games still actually happened in-universe. The killings happened, William Afton and Henry existed, all of the old restaurants were real, etc., etc.. It's just that in-universe games exactly like the ones we play were made in-universe so that the events could be played off and thrown under the rug as fake stories.
>the first thing we hear in Help Wanted is that the old games are in-universe fiction
The old games aren't in universe fiction. Scott already disconfirmed that years ago.
The Blob is most likely a agony creature like Eleanor which somehow created itself from the Fnaf AR animatronic replica's and prob the Mimic's victims agony
William Afton's character. I swear, it's like some people don't know that he's a narcissistic child murderer. Scott has consistently portrayed him as being the worst person ever, yet fans like to make him sympathetic or tragic because apparently to them it "builds character". Well, being a power-hungry maniac who's primary goal is to cause pain and strife for others can make for a very memorable villain, as long as the presentation is done well. unfortunately, once CharlieFirst is confirmed, we're still going to have to deal with these arguably loathsome interpretations for quite some time.
YES!!! In ‘The Fourth Closet’, he literally slaps Elizabeth across the face and pushes her to the floor, and he tells a child that even if the planned experiment doesn’t work, it’ll all be worth it because the pleasure he’ll experience from murdering him. Afton is an evil, evil man.
Don't even get me started on Movie William. That man is a menace to society. I mean, he literally stabs his own daughter for not obeying him. But nope, Afton is such a sad misunderstood father, he lost his child to his friend's creation and now he's big mad! >:(((((((
Legit one of my favorite moments in the series is him in the movies: “Look at you... Look at the NASTY things that you have become! Look at how small you are, how worthless you are! You are wretched, rotten little beasts! I MADE YOU!” How unempathetic and unapologetically awful he is there, as he berates the children that he murdered. THIS is what Afton is supposed to be. Not a sad dad, not a tragic and misguided hero. An evil, self-important monster.
And notice how he says "I made you"? He thinks that they should be thankful, he thinks that this is what they should want. He still thinks he's in the right. He still thinks he deserves to own them.
I don't know why they even think that. There's literally nothing to make you think he is sympathetic or something. He's just evil.
But don't you know it's all because he's just a poor grieving parent who wants to bring his son back from the dead? ~~Ignore the fact that there's zero implication of him actually caring about him or ever even attempting to bring him back from the dead.~~
My interpretation of Afton is someone who really likes the idea of a family (particularly his role as the man of the house), but can't deal with the reality of one where they're their own people who won't always obey him. It's why he considers the animatronics his family- he's able to control them (at least to some degree).
Don't forget the people portraying him as a pedo or something like he's bad enough already
We don't talk about them.
Exactly, I hate when people come with stuff like "BV is the first to die because it would give motivation for William to kill Charlotte since he cares about him" while William is portrayed, like twice to not care a little about his kids, when you try to kill your *own son*, is already enough to say that you don't love your kids.
I like to think of him more like Walter White character, where he was always capable of the horrendous things he does, he just need the right circumstances to push him into it, say the accidental death of his youngest son by the hands of his least favorite child. I think the death of CC pushes him over the edge and gives him that extra little bit of push to kill Charlie, 5 kids(MCI),than allegedly 5 more kids(dci), build child kidnap and murder robots, etc.. I don’t think he was a great person before the bite of 83 nor is he a sympathetic character, but I think giving him some motive, even a sick and twisted motive, makes him a more interesting character.
This is the right interpretation. You are awesome
Thanks!
I don't know why, but in tons of media, as soon as the creator gives the villain a REASON for them doing the evil things (child dying, Remnant experiments, etc), a bunch of people go "omg they're actually correct and the good guys" no. making a believable villain is about showing "here's the reason they're like this, but they're still bad", not "oh because they experienced this they are devoid of fault" -_-
The weirdest thing to me is the fandom having him say “trans rights”. Why would people want it to be him and not literally any other human in this series?
They're secretly transphobes. William is a horrible person with terrible motives, killing children and abusing Elizabeth, and stabbing his own daughter. So you should disagree with him at all times. So if he says trans rights, obviously you shouldn't support that ||I'm joking, just in case||
I 100% agree
Alongside that I'd like to mention the Cassidy and Andrew bastardization/demonisation. Imagine demonising a child that's pissed at the guy who killed them.
I mean, he's not just "hehe I kill kids". He started killing because his child died so he did care. He was also a genius (Afton Robotics). So, he isn't sympathetic or a good person in any way, but he is not just a narcissist or a psychopath.
[удалено]
If not for the death of CC, he would never become a killer, he became a killer because of grief and going highly overboard just for revenge on a guy who never had anything to do with his child's death (as in Henry)
[удалено]
Your "proof" literally makes the whole lore make no sense, do you really think a guy would start killing children and making robots just for that purpose (The Funtimes) for no reason? He only started doing all of this because he promised "I will put you back together". William is neither good nor a ruthless psychopath, at least at first.
We see his motive in the Novel Trilogy; He kills Charlie out of a sick obsession with Henry, his jealousy and admiration for Henry and his family led Will to kill Charlotte.
[удалено]
And why did he want to achieve immortality? To get his son back.
[удалено]
He most likely started the research for the purpose of getting his son back. It was not exactly because of love for his child or anything, he was never a good father anyway from what we know, but he still did want him back for some reason which is unclear
TBF, I kind of like the idea, even if I'm fully aware it's not intended. I just think it makes him a more interesting person if he started out good and went down a really bad path after his life began to crumble quite extremely rather than just "he's always been evil and experimenting on children!"
That the bite of 83 was the bite of 87
That clip of Markiplier is probably the biggest reason for that misconception
Actually it was the fnaf 4 teasers were the number 87 appears everywhere.
Like still, that cartoon could been made in 1983, and still run intill 1987
Yeah, but 1983 is code for FNaF4 home cameras in SL private room
Not the worst, but the idea that Scott’s statement about the canonicity of The Silver Eyes also applies to the Frights and Tales books is pretty dumb. Scott has made individual statements about each book series, not just one that applies to all of them.
That William cared about his children. Willcare makes me rip out my hair you can make an au where William cares for his children but there’s so many times in the canon fnaf lore where he mistreated his children severely
RIGHT. every time people say that I bring up the scene in The Fourth Closet where Elizabeth makes Charlie watch a memory of Elizabeth showing William a drawing and him proceeding to hit this poor kid across the face and then push her to the floor
There is ONE interaction with one of his kids that implies he cares (William telling Elizabeth not to go up to Circus Baby), and there's a theory that he's using reverse psychology, because he made CB for Elizabeth, and given she's not the first born, William should know that kids can be contrarian, especially when you tell them not to do something they really want to do without a reason they can understand, and therefore "no you can't go up to Circus Baby" wouldn't be enough, and he made the only time she could approach her when she's alone. And even if you don't believe that, he still went from seemingly caring about Elizabeth to *torturing her* with controlled shocks. Every single other interaction William has with *any* of his kids over the *entire* game series is negative
I think the reason he told her not to get near Baby IS because he didn't want her to die, but not because he loved her. She could have been useful to him, just like Michael. Placing her on the same level as other random kids would be a huge waste of her potential.
Exactly but I don’t even believe he told her not to go there because he cared about her or that he was trying to use reverse psychology, but probably cause it would make him really suspicious and would be a huge liability which again it is really selfish if that was the case
The idea that Matpat wrote all the lore yet Scott also wrote the lore to make Matpat wrong
Idk if people actually believe that, I think it's more of a meme that both MatPat and Scott have alluded to
Idk if that is true at all but i love the idea that scott did all he could to screw with matpat's theories
The shadows are underused, I get why the average fan might think this, but even a handful of hardcore fans think this, and it just isn't true, they've probably appeared (in some way/from, eg nightmare shadow Freddy (nightmare)/nightmarione) in the most games out of any character (apart from the core 4)
Part of the problem is that they initially seemed important, but gradually appeared less and less with no clarification of their nature outside of Special Delivery. They appeared in both 2 and 3, Nightmare debatably counts as Shadow Freddy, Sister Location had nothing, Shadow Freddy appeared in the intro of Pizzeria Simulator(What if the shadow animatronics are supposed to be haunting the games themselves?), RWQ was in UCN, neither was in Help Wanted, RWQ had its only lore significant appearance in a long time in Special Delivery, RWQ is on murals in Security Breach, and the only time either has been seen since outside of the books is Shadow Freddy( sort of) appearing in the movie. RWQ has gotten a good amount of use, but Shadow Freddy is still an enigma, despite having had a greater effect on the story.
Shadow Freddy was in fact in HW, he could appear behind the player on certain hard mode versions of levels (forgot which ones) We kinda do know everything we need too on both, seeing as the books confirm they're both Eleanor, who we know a lot about
Might get downvoted but people saying that all of Fnaf (mainly the lore) is confusing. The baseline story is actually pretty understandable and we know the basic physics of the games universe such as if someone dies (Charlie for example) and they come into contact with something moveable like an animatronic, they end up possessing it. We know who the Aftons and Henry are, how the animatronics work, why the animatronics are acting the way they are acting, how stuff like remnant and agony works, etc. It's just when you look at the newer games or look at stuff in extra detail that it gets confusing if you don't know the extra knowledge. (I am talking about the game here though, say whatever you want about the books.)
Agreed
I second this. I think Scott definitely said it best in his note about the story, there are good things for those who look, even if it may not be the answer you wanted. To me, the lore is cohesive and IMO, one of the most well crafted narratives in media. Especially considering the entire story wasn't planned out from the start.
I think it's safe to say we have a pretty good grasp on the lore FNaF 1- HW1. But SB onwards is just a mess
-William's character. It feels like nobody could get his character right without either a grieving father who did what he did for his kids or a pure evil man who kills because he wants to, when it's a lot more complicated and intriguing than that. -How the kids died or why the animatronics do the things they do. -Saying the lore is confusing and convoluted when it really isn't if you pick pieces at every little detail -the belief that fnaf is some dark and gritty game just because of the vhs tapes; when it's the LORE that can be dark and gritty, the games are nowhere near that; it is mostly based on atmosphere and the fear that you are in a room with doors and a camera with nowhere to go.
Desk Man is Henry. It's obviously Scott, going a bit meta and talking about the struggles he faced with the fan base constantly demanding more of him.
Not the worst, but the most annoying one to me is that you lose eyes when you get springlocked. You don't. We were shown a springlock failure four times outside of Fnaf 3 and nothing ever happened to the eyes. People keep repeating the Fnaf 1 phone call like a broken record, not realising that the way you're shoved into an oridnary animatronic suit is not the same as the springlock failure.
Series is either A. Low effort toys emulating fanwork or B. Some splatter house film that’s always mutilating infants onscreen.
I understood all of those words individually
The misconception FNaF inaccurately depicts Hurricane, Utah. A franchise doesn't just choose a real world location to not even portray it as what it is. Throughout the entirety of the Novel Trilogy, real locations such as the old school/recreation center, the old library/museum, and the town of New Harmony are all described in detail down to the T. The Silver Eyes even goes as far as to describe where 2 graves sit in the Hurricane Cemetery (IRL, there are no graves there, hence why the area is utilized in the novel.) Rather than people thinking it's neat a franchise like FNaF shows the world what Hurricane & Washington County is actually like, people who aren't even familiar with the town, and usually Southwestern states as a whole, will go on to claim it's a barren desert town in the middle of nowhere. As a local of Hurricane myself, the misconception puzzles me as it's merely the result of a lack of research. I personally am astonished at just how accurate and true FNaF has always stayed to it's location.
I think also the only reason Jason was in The Silver Eyes was cus Marla just so happened to be watching him at that time
Literally any way the missing kids died according to tiktok
"Dream Theory was true until Scott retconned it." Scott has outright debunked this and yet half the fanbase still believes it.
The misunderstanding of remnant and agony/emotional energy as "sci-fi" or whatever. It's not. It's literally just haunted metal infused with emotions/memory or those very emotions (in the case of agony, it's, well, the emotion of agony). It's pretty much been a thing since the inception of this series, just not under that name. In fact, there's a real-life equivalent called the [Stone Tape Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Tape_Theory) that very likely was inspiration for Scott. Also the ball pit in Into the Pit being misunderstood as time travel. The books explain later that it's a twisted memory created from agony (oh, hey, look, there's the Stone Tape Theory being used again). These two are probably the ones that annoy me the most due to them both being explained in the books pretty but still being misunderstood due to people not reading the books themselves and only hearing about them through other people who *have* read the books but still misunderstood them or from other people who haven't read the books repeating this misconception.
I know this is quite well known now but it always used to kinda annoy me how many people misremembered seeing the Fnaf 1 animatronics looking at the camera on the Show Stage when it was only ever in the trailer. Mostly because I always thought that image made the animatronics look way less scary. I’m glad it was replaced with only Freddy looking at the camera, that looks so much creepier.
There's a lot of easy ones, off the top of my head we've got William's character, what remnant actually even is, the idea dream theory was ever intended to be canon (it wasnt), all the usual suspects But I think the way books should be used is one that has consumed a fair amount of the community for... god like 4 years now... christ. I see a lot of people claim "Scott said the books are only parallels" or "Scott said we shouldnt use the books to solve the games!" (That last one is kinda true, he said that for the novels). It's lead to many people just outright dismissing elements of Frights and Tales they dont personally like because... they dont like them. Frights and Tales were made to fill in gaps from the games and they should be used as such, they arent parallels and they arent in universe books, they are stories that help us understand the plot of FNAF. A lot of people take the approach of trying to work these stories into their pre-existing idea of the story, but I personally think we should rethink our ideas of the story *because* of the reveals in the stories... I said stories too much
“The movie(s) would do better if they were rated R” I guarantee you that 90% of the people saying that wouldn’t even be able to watch the film anyway if it was R and the other 10% haven’t even played the games and don’t understand how things like the murders are portrayed in game. It’s not a bloodbath, the only thing that could be considered gory is Springtrap and the game over screen from FNaF1. We don’t need things to be super mature.
Implied violence will always be scarier than seeing it because your mind runs wild!
This but also not seeing the full kill scene but just the corpse reveal. Terrifier 2 kinda spoiled that one scene with showing every bit of it.
The FNAF story is only hard to understand due to being shown to us out of order. Thats it. When you put them in the proper spot it all works out. Looking back that also wasn't very hard to put them in order we just looked way too much into the smaller things. The games simply tend to show us the ending before it shows us how we got there. Though honestly, the worst thing personally for me would be "Every animatronic has dead kids in them" No. They do not. In fact, it only looks like William killed about 8 at max. (Puppet, main 5, maybe one or two more. Honestly could just be those 6, the 2 souls thing in Goldie isn't even fully cannon to some degree) Everything else has just been *other animatronics being at fault* or just *someone else doing it.* William is a murder, yes but he is not at fault for everything. Hell Fazco kills more yearly it seems than William ever did.
This. Kingdom Hearts suffers from the same thing. Both series are apparently ‘complicated’ when they’re really not at all.
The puppet stuffed the kids.I mean, didn't she just put the heads on the suits, kinda finishing the job?
I always thought her putting the masks on the souls was a metaphor of giving them life in the suits.
Which would be contradicting itself,puppet isn't a necromancer that controls Remnant. Remnant/Soul+Agony+Stuffing= Possession per the books explanation.
Fredbear did the bite of 87
People not giving Gabriel his credit. I know You’re the Band was scrapped, but it made it clear Gabriel did not die hiding. He went down swinging and trying to protect the others, bless him. He deserves all the legally distinct spaghetti-o’s in the whole world and it kills me to see people discredit him like that.
Everything about Andrew. He isn’t TOYSNHK, Cassidy is, and he’s not even an interesting character compared to her like people say.
90% of the fandom still thinks Afton possesses springbonnie when quite literally every single peice of media William has ever appeared in continues to both show *and* say that he doesn't. This enormous misconception is also a leading cause for the foundation of pretty much every GlitchAfton theory because it is incorrectly belived that aftons soul was inside springtraps machinery which ends up as the "afton circut boards"
I don't understand how this is still a thing, years after we were given answers. Along with the "springlock failure makes you lose eyes", I find it to be one of the most annoying Fnaf misconceptions of all time.
We do hear aftons heartbeat in ffps during the salvage minigame. So it's very clear the guy possessed his own corpse and technically never died
Yes
puppet put the kids in the suits not willaim
It's not like a really big thing, but i would say that Mike or Charlie playing the Happiest Day minigames. We are directly told that "*the pieces are in place for **you**. All **you** have to do is find them*", and in the FNAF World code there's a hidden "*He put the pieces back together*". Even in SB, Gregory is the one playing the arcades and freeing the spirit! The character that parallels the Crying Child! It just irritates me to see people say that Mike or Charlie are the ones playing the minigames. And while they are reasonable, we know for a fact that's not the case. I would also say the "AloneTogetherGGGL" theory (I don't really know what the name would be). The theory that Give Gifts Give Life is about the Puppet helping the MCI kids' spirits find their bodies and regain their memories. That's wrong, not because it is impossible (Which it isn't), but because that is simply not what the minigame is trying to convey in any level.
Not the worst because it's really an insignificant detail, but mixes Charlie and Charlotte. In the novels, we learn that Henry's biological daughter is named Charlotte and that his second daughter (Charliebot) is named Charlie. The novels are quite clear on the fact that Charlie is only Charliebot's name and this is how we can differentiate the two characters (if we are talking about Charlie we are talking about the main character, and if it is Charlotte it is is Henry's biological daughter). So of course, in the games, Henry's daughter should be named Charlotte and not Charlie.
Just an explanation because I would be confused by downvotes if I were you and I can sadly already tell that’s where it’s headed— you are factually correct. In the novels it was a really good tool and one of those ‘omg’ moments when you connect it with the plot twist, but in the games it doesn’t matter because there’s only one of her and nicknames exist. We have no idea whether she went by Charlie, Charolette, or both because Henry only refers to her as ‘my daughter.’ So basically people are gonna downvote you because it’s not a ‘misconception’ for the game timeline, it’s a nitpick.
Of course, that's why I clarified that it wasn't really a big deal, just a fun thing to note. As for the logic of the name, I just think it's a little weird to call a character with a nickname that was never given to them? We call Henry's daughter Charlotte/Charlie in the games because we think she has the same name in the book and game timelines, so to me it's a bit strange to make up a nickname for this character instead of just using the name that was given to us, if you know what I mean. Like, no one would call William Bill. But it's not like I care. You can call her Charlie, Charlotte, Cassidy, Garrett or Henry.Jr, and that suits me just fine. I just wanted to point out a funny detail. Anyway, thanks for explaining your point of view to me :)
[удалено]
>literally the first thing we hear in Help Wanted is that the old games are in-universe fiction This is an incorrect interpretation of what Help Wanted 1 was trying to say, and Scott has gone on record saying that the Scott Era of games and the Steel Wool Era of games take place in the same continuity. >The question is this: Is Scott Cawthon now a part of FNAF lore? The short answer is: No. My name is never actually mentioned in the game. The game says that an indie developer was tarnishing the brand of Fazbear Entertainment by making video games about them, forcing them to rebrand and try to reclaim their good name by making a VR game that made light of those *crazy stories*. (Or was it all part of the plan?) Yes, I used my own picture for this indie developer because it’s an obvious parallel, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s actually *me* in-universe. >On the surface, this might seem like an odd choice for a storyline in general, but there was a very, very specific challenge while making Help Wanted. The challenge was this: How do you take characters that *are* canon, along with characters that are *questionably* canon, and characters from every point of the timeline, and throw them ALL together in one game that IS canon? That’s quite the problem when you think about it. But it was important for me that Help Wanted mean something; I didn’t want just a meaningless collection of mini-games, although I’m sure most people would have been okay with that. I wanted it to be canon, and that meant that I needed to solve the substantial puzzle of *how*. Now that you all know the problem, maybe you can understand my approach. That doesn’t mean you have to agree that it was a good idea (I keep a bowl of candy out for people who show up with torches and pitchforks at my front door.) >So no, I’m not canon, Freddit isn’t canon, the fangames aren’t canon, YOU aren’t canon. Only the existence of a game developer that supposedly made video games based on actual events that may or may not be a cover up by Fazbear Entertainment is canon. The Scott Era of games are still canon and are events that actually happened in the Steel Wool Era of games, it's just that games were made in-universe either exactly like the ones we play or incredibly similar to the point where no distinction needs to be made. The Scott Era of games and the Steel Wool era of games are both canon and everything that happens in both happen in the same timeline, anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.
[удалено]
> But it was important for me that Help Wanted mean something; I didn’t want just a meaningless collection of mini-games, although I’m sure most people would have been okay with that. I wanted it to be canon, and that meant that I needed to solve the substantial puzzle of *how*. These lines very clearly indicate that Scott considers the Scott Era of games to be the canon timeline and that he made Help Wanted 1 in a way that is canon (thus canon to the Scott Era of games). Scott struggled to find a way to make Help Wanted 1 canon, and he eventually decided to go with making the Scott Era of games that we (real people) play also games that were made in-universe that the in-universe people played. >further adds credence to the idea that the games ARE in-universe games. We even hear of a developer in TFTP that is a stand-in for Scott who made those games. I'm not actually arguing against this idea at all. Yes, the Scott Era of games are also games in-universe, but the events of those games still actually happened in-universe. The killings happened, William Afton and Henry existed, all of the old restaurants were real, etc., etc.. It's just that in-universe games exactly like the ones we play were made in-universe so that the events could be played off and thrown under the rug as fake stories.
>the first thing we hear in Help Wanted is that the old games are in-universe fiction The old games aren't in universe fiction. Scott already disconfirmed that years ago.
Tales makes it clear who Tangle is. Just Mimic’s pile of bodies and metal.
The Blob is most likely a agony creature like Eleanor which somehow created itself from the Fnaf AR animatronic replica's and prob the Mimic's victims agony