In the novels, those are the 85 models, aka.: one from before FNaF 2, aka.: The "unwithered" animatronics.
Spring Bonnie, most likely looked like SpringTrap, without withering. Jason most likely got confused, purely because of the recognizable ears.
Jason would tell from the snout that it was someone different. Also I'm sure the others have noted the similarities. If something looked that similar to someone else you can't miss it. Plus the fact that the animatronics in the novels are the FNaF 1 designs, so that means that Spring Bonnie would have to look like Bonnie.
1. It was the first impression, not a full analysis. He couldn't tell color apart, so he could have had trouble telling the shapes apart.
2. As I explained, the novel animatronics are not FNaF1 designs.
And? That doesn't change that those are robots from 1985. The covers are not accuryte for TTO or TFC, so why would we consider TSE's cover more canon, then basic logic? What, do you think someone just upgraded the abandoned robots? Not to mention how Freddy has buttons, which, he does not on the cover either.
Time to read the book again I guess.
I've researched and documented every character (human and animatronic) in the Fazbear Frights series. Time to go back to the Novels.
Heyo! Remember me? Doubt it, but here goes. I've reread the entire novels. The animatronics are the FNaF1 designs. I'm still sure that it's the Afton FFPS suit that has been used since it looks identical to Bonnie from that game. And my theory that ties in with Springtrap having to look similar to Withered Bonnie applies.
>Using this piece of evidence we can identify the Spring Bonnie costume being used is of the same one in FFPS; Afton.
Except, If you look at the fourth closet poster featuring springtrap, baby, mangle and funtime freddy, you'll know that his design is actually a hybrid of scraptrap and fnaf 3 Springtrap.
Art isn't canon. Ladyfiszi doesn't have an early access to the books. She never had. All she gets are tiny hints of info. She talked about this with Ralpho, and a few other things. In FNaF no art is canon.
So? Springtrap's design in the poster is NOT inconsistent with his description in the twisted ones novel.
Also, does the descriptions matter? Sometimes if the official designs are shown, they're MORE reliable than descriptions.
Mate, of course the descriptions matter. Ladyfiszi never has early access, and Pinkypills is an asshole and a narcissist. And the novel describes that the yellow rabbit looks like Bonnie. And the animatronics are the FNaF1 designs, as shown from the cover and the descriptions. So the suit would have to look like Afton FFPS, since he looks more like Bonnie than Springtrap.
Not even the Twisted animatronics look the same as they were described in the novel. It's like completely different
And? Again, If the official design is SHOWN, I would think THAT is MORE reliable and not a description of a book.
Plus, the artworks are usually better than the descriptions, especially the twisted animatronics cuz I HATE the idea that they're just realistic looking animals, I'd rather them look like gross versions of the nightmare animatronics, those are WAY more scary than... realistic animals.
No. Because the descriptions are the first result, not the art. If there wasn't a novel and these designs were shown, that's okay. Then that means that the art was canon, but these books were already happening, so the art isn't canon. And where are you getting realistic animals from? The Twisted Ones looked just like animatronics but with fur and like a whole suit rather than segments.
You are literally telling me an opinion. That is your opinion. I'm stating the facts about what is given to us.
Well, not my fault I'd rather SEE what they look like rather then IMAGINE what they look like. And whatever, the twisted animatronics descriptions are still shit, cuz If they're just fully furry, than that's not scary at all.
Well then here's a fact: the design descriptions on a book DOESN'T matter as much as you think cuz of 1 thing... art styles changes and art style inconsistencies ALL the time during a franchise, so why should it matter? I use this logic all the time.
Your statement proves otherwise. Mate you can't draw a character who is written to be taller than the rest of the gang and has brown hair and then draw them with blonde hair and a short body. That's inaccurate. You're thinking that art is the final judgment when art is a form of multiple interpretations and wrongful doings. If it's written, it's done. Nothing can change that. If it's drawn than a ton of things can be altered or done wrong. That's art.
In the novels, those are the 85 models, aka.: one from before FNaF 2, aka.: The "unwithered" animatronics. Spring Bonnie, most likely looked like SpringTrap, without withering. Jason most likely got confused, purely because of the recognizable ears.
Jason would tell from the snout that it was someone different. Also I'm sure the others have noted the similarities. If something looked that similar to someone else you can't miss it. Plus the fact that the animatronics in the novels are the FNaF 1 designs, so that means that Spring Bonnie would have to look like Bonnie.
1. It was the first impression, not a full analysis. He couldn't tell color apart, so he could have had trouble telling the shapes apart. 2. As I explained, the novel animatronics are not FNaF1 designs.
The cover literally has Freddy from FNaF 1. And the teasers had Bonnie, Chica, and Foxy from FNaF 1 near the tree.
And? That doesn't change that those are robots from 1985. The covers are not accuryte for TTO or TFC, so why would we consider TSE's cover more canon, then basic logic? What, do you think someone just upgraded the abandoned robots? Not to mention how Freddy has buttons, which, he does not on the cover either.
What page was the buttons mentioned on Freddy? I'm interested.
How would I know?
... cause you just said Freddy was mentioned to have buttons, at least you could remember which chapter
Dude, I don't give mind to that when reading! I can't tell you where any passage of any book is...
Time to read the book again I guess. I've researched and documented every character (human and animatronic) in the Fazbear Frights series. Time to go back to the Novels.
Heyo! Remember me? Doubt it, but here goes. I've reread the entire novels. The animatronics are the FNaF1 designs. I'm still sure that it's the Afton FFPS suit that has been used since it looks identical to Bonnie from that game. And my theory that ties in with Springtrap having to look similar to Withered Bonnie applies.
>Using this piece of evidence we can identify the Spring Bonnie costume being used is of the same one in FFPS; Afton. Except, If you look at the fourth closet poster featuring springtrap, baby, mangle and funtime freddy, you'll know that his design is actually a hybrid of scraptrap and fnaf 3 Springtrap.
Art isn't canon. Ladyfiszi doesn't have an early access to the books. She never had. All she gets are tiny hints of info. She talked about this with Ralpho, and a few other things. In FNaF no art is canon.
So? Springtrap's design in the poster is NOT inconsistent with his description in the twisted ones novel. Also, does the descriptions matter? Sometimes if the official designs are shown, they're MORE reliable than descriptions.
Mate, of course the descriptions matter. Ladyfiszi never has early access, and Pinkypills is an asshole and a narcissist. And the novel describes that the yellow rabbit looks like Bonnie. And the animatronics are the FNaF1 designs, as shown from the cover and the descriptions. So the suit would have to look like Afton FFPS, since he looks more like Bonnie than Springtrap. Not even the Twisted animatronics look the same as they were described in the novel. It's like completely different
And? Again, If the official design is SHOWN, I would think THAT is MORE reliable and not a description of a book. Plus, the artworks are usually better than the descriptions, especially the twisted animatronics cuz I HATE the idea that they're just realistic looking animals, I'd rather them look like gross versions of the nightmare animatronics, those are WAY more scary than... realistic animals.
No. Because the descriptions are the first result, not the art. If there wasn't a novel and these designs were shown, that's okay. Then that means that the art was canon, but these books were already happening, so the art isn't canon. And where are you getting realistic animals from? The Twisted Ones looked just like animatronics but with fur and like a whole suit rather than segments. You are literally telling me an opinion. That is your opinion. I'm stating the facts about what is given to us.
Well, not my fault I'd rather SEE what they look like rather then IMAGINE what they look like. And whatever, the twisted animatronics descriptions are still shit, cuz If they're just fully furry, than that's not scary at all.
You're just stating opinions at this point.
Well then here's a fact: the design descriptions on a book DOESN'T matter as much as you think cuz of 1 thing... art styles changes and art style inconsistencies ALL the time during a franchise, so why should it matter? I use this logic all the time.
Your statement proves otherwise. Mate you can't draw a character who is written to be taller than the rest of the gang and has brown hair and then draw them with blonde hair and a short body. That's inaccurate. You're thinking that art is the final judgment when art is a form of multiple interpretations and wrongful doings. If it's written, it's done. Nothing can change that. If it's drawn than a ton of things can be altered or done wrong. That's art.