#FNAF Theories

[zebracorn-chan]

We finally know what Crying Child's name is:

[alexthesillybilly]

An Analysis on William Afton and Henry Emily’s Relationship and Queer Subtext

Since the reveal of Glamrock Bonnie and his room in the Ruin DLC, I’ve thought a lot on the subtext of Henry and William’s relationship, and how it seems like a queer relationship hidden under layers of denial and guilt.  I’ve always loved to analyze and connect small details and I wanted to write something about my ideas. My point here isn’t to convince anyone of anything, just to share my interpretation of their story. So enjoy me rambling for a few pages!

Fazbear Entertainment's Origins

Fredbear’s Family Diner was created sometime before 1983- and since merchandise and other spin-off things had been created at that time, it can be assumed it had been running since the late 70s.  The 70s-80s were an extremely pivotal time for the LGBTQ+ community, for its rights and awareness - this links into another point I have, on the Glamrock animatronics and that being a very queer subculture.  This in itself wouldn’t say anything about their relationship, not really, but when certain throwaway lines are considered - mainly the lines about William’s obsession with Henry (which I’ll discuss more later) and another line I want to analyse a little now.  

As you already know, at Fredbear’s, Henry performed as Fredbear himself while William performed as SpringBonnie. In FNaF World, the loading screen for SpringBonnie simply reads, “Male? Female? It’s a rabbit, who cares.”  Yes, this is just a loading screen. It probably doesn’t mean anything intentionally, but I saw somebody make a really good point on it - credit for the idea goes to this post. It says that SpringBonnie being genderless could’ve had two reasons - one being William lacking the words for a nonbinary identity, and the other being William intentionally keeping SpringBonnie genderless so it could be assumed that they were Fredbear’s love interest. 

As I mentioned earlier, the glamrock subculture of the 70s was extremely queer, with new takes on gender, androgyny, and overall theatrics related to breaking the norms of the 60s.  This adds context to Security Breach’s characters, Glamrock Freddy and Bonnie.

The Glamrocks

Since the beginning of the franchise, both in-universe and as a game series, Freddy and Bonnie have always been together, in every game, even going so far as to be physically connected as Funtime Freddy and BonBon in Sister Location - which in itself could be William’s jealousy and obsession towards Henry intensifying after being kicked from Fazbear Entertainment. But Glamrock Freddy and Bonnie are the most interesting of their variants. These two are basically canonically queer, which is big. 

I have a specific take on their relationship I haven’t seen elsewhere (though I’m sure someone else thinks this, too).  First of all, I’ll do a rundown on how their relationship is portrayed in SB and Ruin. 

In Security Breach, Glamrock Freddy mentions Bonnie a few times - only to say he misses him.  We don’t get any context on him other than that, though the “theory” that is heavily implied is that Monty destroyed Bonnie out of jealousy, which is the theory I’ll expand on after my explanation.  

In the Ruin DLC however, things change.  Through turning off all the Wet Floor Bots, a secret room will open- containing more of these bots, but more importantly, Glamrock Bonnie himself.  He’s destroyed, like the other Glamrock animatronics by this point, but it’s obvious he’s been like this for much longer.  The more important part is his room. 

In Glamrock Bonnie’s room, a few things related to my point can be found - first of all, the Glam Freddy merchandise found around the room, which I could connect into William’s obsession with Henry, but most notably (and as you were probably waiting for me to mention), the poster.  There’s a poster on the wall of Bonnie’s room, of Glamrock Freddy.  It’s written on, and it reads: “You & me forever and ever!  Love, Freddy”.  So, pretty obvious implications here - it gets real hard to argue that they were simply friends.

Now, onto the point about Monty I mentioned earlier.  As is implied, Monty destroyed Bonnie out of jealousy- and likely was planning to do the same to Freddy.  I won’t bring up every example, but many times Monty is seen being violent towards statues, cutouts, etc. of Freddy and Bonnie.  So my theory here is that Monty represents William’s jealousy of Henry turning into violence. 

We’re not exactly sure what William was jealous of Henry about, but it can be assumed it was about family or something to do with the business.  Monty was obviously jealous over fame.  I like to think that Freddy and Bonnie before Monty represent when Henry and William first opened Fredbear’s, before the Bite of ‘83, before any incidents happened.  Then Monty destroying Bonnie and becoming jealous of Freddy, represents when William kills Charlotte and starts becoming the Mr. Afton we know.  The whole storyline of Glam Freddy, Bonnie, and Monty seems similar to William and Henry’s story to me.

But enough about them- let’s talk about the real depictions of William’s obsession and jealousy.

Their Downfall

I’ve mentioned it enough times now.  William’s violent obsession and jealousy of Henry led to Charlotte’s death, likely out of William’s anger because Henry’s family seemed so perfect compared to William’s.  Now I’m onto FNaF 6. 

Henry wants to end the whole tragedy once and for all, and he finds William in the form of Scraptrap.  While setting your old best friend and possible lover on fire and then banishing them to hell might not seem too romantic to most, I’ve always liked to point out that Henry’s final words to William are, “don’t keep the devil waiting, old friend.” Something about Henry still referring to William as a friend even in a time like this, after everything, strikes me some way, that even through all the years of grieving, Henry could never make himself hate William.  Even to the very end, he just can’t do it.

This next one is a bit of a stretch, but then again, this entire essay is built on the idea that two FNaF characters have repressed gay love for eachother, so who really cares what’s more reasonable or not? 

I like to think that Orville Elephant and Mr. Hippo represent what Henry believed could’ve been, if William hadn’t grown violent.  Mr. Hippo talks to the player in Ultimate Custom Night, his stories mainly focusing on him and his friend Orville.  The player of UCN is likely meant to be William Afton himself, trapped in his own hell by Cassidy.  Some of Mr. Hippo’s stories can be read as metaphors.  If you want to read all his dialogue go ahead, but here’s a few lines that stand out to me. (I’ve taken out some repeated words to make them easier to read.)

“Y'know, I never saw any ducks die myself, but I did notice a substantial decrease in the duck population over the course of a few years. I just never thought to stop the man and tell him that he was killing the ducks by feeding them sourdough bread!”

To me, the line “I just never thought to stop the man and tell him that he was killing the ducks,” might be related to Henry not doing anything to stop or confront William about killing the kids until decades later, in fear of losing him.  

“I said to Orville, “You know, sometimes I feel like a fish leaping over and over again, always trying to get somewhere, though I don't know where, only to find myself in the jaws of a beast." He looked at me surprised, "Have you been in the jaws of a beast, friend?" To which I said, "No, of course not Orville." I said, "I simply meant that life can seem like a relentless endeavor to overcome meaningless obstacles, only to meet an equally meaningless fate regardless of your efforts, regardless of the obstacles you passed."

I don’t see this one as really related to William, just Henry’s rambles. I still figured I’d include it, though.

“…Perhaps I met a demise of my own at some point and this is my afterlife or my dream or whatever it might mean, I honestly don't know. Or maybe it doesn't mean anything at all. Maybe it doesn't mean anything at all...”

Another that isn’t related to William, but Henry’s internal feelings that everything he did was all for nothing.  I like to think of it as some of Henry’s last thoughts before dying in the FNaF 6 fire. 

Conclusion

There isn’t really a point to this all- just to tell people about my interpretation, really.  So thank you for listening to me ramble about the toxic old men I think about way too often! Of course, if I don’t say this I think I will be personally assassinated by some of the FNaF fans - THIS IS ALL MY INTERPRETATION!!  I’m not saying this is the canon true story, I just enjoy making little connections to create storylines!  Anyways, if you want to share your own interpretations go ahead!! If you read all this you are incredible ily

[stop-talking]

Honestly? I'm not surprised the FNAF movie is delayed.

They're DEFINETLY struggling to come up with a plot for the next movie. They planned to make three movies if the first went well, but they didn't really leave themselves much room for a sequel.

What do I mean by that? Well...

• The driving conflict of the first movie, that got Mike to work at Freddy's in the first place, was the custody battle with aunt Jane. But they fucking killed her off. (In the movie, it seems like it's possible she still may be alive, but in the book it's pretty much confirmed she's dead.) Abby sees her "lying in a puddle of ketchup" or something when golden freddy comes to get her. And I have a direct quote from Mike.

"You know," he said, "I think my aunt has finally decided to move on." I mean... she kind of did, Mike thought. (Pg 317)

• Oh, and also in the book, it's said Mike gets a nice new job as a contractor after the events at Freddy's, so it's not like they can pull the "Mike can't find a job so he HAS to work at another Freddy's location!" thing again.

• AND, they resolved his storyline with Garrett. He's found the killer, and watched him die. (Even if we know he's not dead). Mike realized Abby is much more important than his dead brother and he no longer torments himself with thoughts of Garrett... so I don't think he'd go poking around in another Freddy's location to "figure out what happened". He knows what happened. And he's finally over it.

• It seems like they TRIED to give themselves something to work with in the end credits. You know, the "C O M E F I N D M E". But honestly? It's not all that helpful. There's no clear way to tell who it's addressed to or who it's from. Everyone seems to agree it's Garrett speaking to Mike as the puppett, but honestly? That doesn't make sense to me.

• I've already explained that I don't think Mike is interested in learning more about his brother's death. He knows who killed him, and watched that man die. Mike is as "at peace" as he's ever going to get. Besides, I don't think Garrett is the puppett!! At all!!

• In the movie, Mike says he feels closer to Garrett at Freddy's. I think that means his soul is LITERALLY there, in THAT Freddy's location. Why else would he say that? Just because there are ghosts there killed by the same man? Also, in the novel, Mike literally sees Garrett's ghost in the pizzeria and it leads him to Springtrap. Finally, the "It's me" messages that keep appearing near Mike. Who else would be writing that shit? It's not just a little Easter egg for the audience. It has to be someone Mike knows. Garrett. (Also I think there's a strong argument to be made that Garrett is co-posessing Golden Freddy with the little blonde boy)

• SO THEN, WHO IS SAYING "COME FIND ME," AND WHO ARE THEY TALKING TO?

Honestly? No clue. But I think there are a few interesting directions they could take things.

1) From Mike's dad, to Mike.

In the movie they sort of imply Mike's dad offed himself, but in the book they reveal he just walked out on them. So he's still out there somewhere, and they could totally reveal he had some kind of connection to Freddy's and William, and it would explain why William drove all the way to goddamn Nebraska to kidnap some random ass kid.

2) From springtrap, to some unfortunate soul dumb enough to set him free

In the games, he was locked away in a bricked off room for like 30 years before being set free, but I don't think these movies are going to have that big of a time skip. Probably a year at most. So I could see the next movie starting with some idiot freeing springtrap.

3) Okay yeah I cant think of anything else.

And I know I'm not a professional screenplay writer but those bitches are anxiously struggling too!! In every interview where Josh Hutcherson (Mike) has been asked about a sequel, he says they're still trying to figure out the story. No shit!! They didn't give themselves anything to work with.

• So basically, Mike has absolutely no reason to go back to another Freddy's location, and the little secret message at the end is almost too vague to be useful.

So, what DID they leave themselves to work with in the next movie? What plot points remain unresolved?

• For one thing, they didn't even give William a fucking motive for killing kids. Or for luring security guards to their deaths. This version of him seems to have a much better understanding of remnant and possession that his game counterpart, but there's no reason given for that either. In the game, he does it all for his dead son. He wants to "fix" him. But they didn't set up any hints to that in the first movie. Mike talked to Vanessa about HIS dead brother, so I feel like if the whole "dead son" thing was the case, she would have mentioned she lost a sibling too.

• Or maybe William would have brought it up at the end when he was getting mad at Vanessa. The "mess YOU created!!" scene. He probably would have said something like, "You know why we have to do this, Vanessa." But he didn't. There's literally no known motive, and it'll be kind of hard to set one up without any breadcrumbs left in the previous movie.

• Mike was TOTALLY falling for Vanessa in the books. Yeah, I know, a lot of people feel FNAF isn't a place for romance, and SCHMELLY isn't a very popular ship... but that doesn't change the face he almost kissed her in the novel. (Also in the book she threw his EMPTY PILL BOTTLE into the river, didn't actually toss bro's meds! So she's a little more likeable!)

"Vanessa and Mike grinned at each other, and Mike felt something zing inside of him. It was a palpable 'wow' feeling that was much more intense than his casual appreciation of her beauty. And the zing felt like it was going both ways. The look Vanessa was giving Mike was one he hadn't ever seen before... not directed at him anyway. Her reciprocation of his feelings was so strong that he felt himself leaning toward her." (pg 186)

(They didn't kiss though, Vanessa blushed and looked away and changed the subject.) Still... now they have to address their little romantic subplot in the next movie as well.

• Vanessa. Just as a character. There's a lot to work with there. Personally, I think it would be interesting to use her coma to tell a story. You know, have her flashback to there's childhood with William and at Freddy's. (Honestly if they don't do that they're dumb and missing a huge opportunity. Why else put her in the goddamn coma?)

• Also, in the novel, they heavily implied she's... a robot? Apparently, her eyes drastically change color and Mike notes she flips from "girl mode" to "cop mode" on a dime. In the movie she just looked bipolar.

"Yeah Abby, let's use the tables for the fort! 😄"

"Mike if you bring her here again I will SHOOT YOU. 🤬"

• But yeah apparently she's a robot. A robot so convincing that even hospital nurses and doctors can't tell. With no explanation for how William could have built that. Or why there's a photo of her and William where she's clearly a child. Did he build a child robot that grew up into an adult woman robot? Or did he build two robots? Or did child Vanessa die and he replaced her with a robot? Who knows!

"Mike watched, mesmerized, as Vanessa's irises deepened noticeably in hue. They went from their usual soft, almost greyish-blue to a deeper indigo. The shift was so pronounced it almost looked computer-generated. It was also enormously disquieting. Mike felt like he was watching a human turn into..." (pg 184)

• So for the next move, Mike has no motive to go visit Freddy's, William has no motive in general, and Vanessa is a robot. The script practically writes itself, am I right??

And then there's the way Scott Cawthon likes to incorporate fan feedback into all of his projects.

(Ex: People complained FNAF 3 wasn't scary, so he made FNAF 4 horrifying)

• I have no doubt he's going to incorporate the fanbase's favorite characters into the next movie. (Ness, Doug, Maxine, Jeremy) Which honestly just complicates the plot further, adding more stipulations to the script.

• Bringing Ness back would be easy? Mike and Abby could have a scene in the diner, I guess, but it's also sort of unnecessary, and I'm not sure MatPat would agree to another cameo. He's retired.

• Bringing Doug back would be more complicated. He's aunt Jane's lawyer... but they fuckin' killed her off. So. Doug is not needed.

• Jeremy could come back? Maybe? He's really a background character... It's not stated whether or not Mike was friends with him outside work, or kept in touch with him after being fired.

• Maxine is a lot more complicated. The actress who plays her, Kathryn Sterling, said herself that she was originally supposed to have a bigger role in the film but it got trimmed down. And THEN there's the way she was stuffed into a purple Freddy suit, which a lot of fans theorize is supposed to be Shadow Freddy. On her TikTok, she basically confirms this, hinting to her character coming back in the next movie and being more important.

So in the next movie...

1) Mike has to somehow have to end up tangled back into Freddy Fazbullshit even though he has NO desire to... (Remember the way he looked at Abby when she asked if they could visit them??)

2) They have to reveal or at least hint towards Vanessa being a robot

3) Mike & Vanessa romance subplot??

4) William needs a fucking motive for killing people

5) The audience needs to be able to tell who "come find me" was said by AND who it was directed towards

6) Bonus points if they can cram in more youtuber cameos & beloved characters from the last movie like Jeremy and Doug

--------------------------------------------------

So yeah. It's a lot to consider when writing. And the clock is ticking, because kids, especially little kids like Garrett's actor, grow up FAST. And ghost kids aren't supposed to grow up. Ghost kids are supposed to be dead.

I do want to say though, that despite the plot holes, I LOVE the FNAF movie. I've watched it 20+ times. It's genuinely one of my comfort movies. I'm excited for the next movie, but I'm also sort of expecting it to be late 2025 before we get to see it.

Scott is notoriously picky. He turned down, like, 8 scripts for the first movie before settling on the Mike storyline. I don't mind waiting, especially considering how difficult this next movie is gonna be to write. Also if you read this whole rant?? Damn?? Kiss me on the mouth rn.

[siddoesstuffig]

hi chat

remember this guy?

he's a kid who wears green, with a freddy mask, who gets in enough trouble to where he's a bully

in into the pit (game) we have jet, who gets in trouble for setting off fire crackers on school campus and has more, and the way you get them is to trade him a freddy mask you find in the attic

notably also has a green shirt (screenshot taken from fusionzgamer)

could this mean nothing? absolutely and in fact it probably does because thats fnaf for you. however,

[redfoxdude07]

If Andrew was Spring Bonnie, that would be super narratively satisfying imo

Like, it would explain why Cassidy is so attached to his character. She's literally the Freddy to his Bonnie. Not to mention how Andrew's connections to alligators seem relevant to Monty and Freddy's relationship. Freddy sees him as a friend while Monty sees Freddy as an obstacle. Apply that to Andrew and Cassidy, and then you'll get an explanation for a lot of both of their behaviors. Hell, if they were both springlocked like some theories say, then it just makes the parallels between them make even more sense. Not to mention how Cassidy is shown to be kind and actively trying to free the spirits while Andrew is so focused on revenge that he actively keeps the children stuck just to torture Afton.

They're literally opposites in every way, but they're so interconnected that Cassidy wouldn't move on without Andrew, at least not until OMC told her to. The fact that Golden Freddy is shown to be shaking, refusing to die, tells me that Cassidy isn't stopping without trying.

Not to mention how the first game that actively depicted Andrew without any other red hearings is Into The Pit, the game where a monster that looks like Afton but very clearly is not, is the main antagonist.

Andrew is simultaneously the opposite of Cassidy but also the MCI version of William. He's not only torturing William in UCN, but the other children are stuck just the same. Stuck in between afterlife and purgatory, just like Afton has been doing to them for almost 60 years. Keeping them all stuck in a prison of never-ending hunting for the man behind the slaughter, even though they might have been able to move on ages ago if it wasn't for Andrew.

Andrew isn't a bad person. He's an angry child whose final moments were hell on earth. He was locked in the backroom for years on years without the others for comfort. The reason he's so separated from the others is because he literally was separated. He wasn't turned into remnant. He wasn't refurbished. He wasn't fused into Ennard in order to free roam the world once more. He was left with the cruel man who barely passed being human before he even died. He was left with his killer alone, and once he was finally freed from the backroom, he even wasn't in control of his new body. It was William yet again, taking his only chance at happiness, or at least contentment for his physical form. It only got worse once William started taking parts from the other animatronics for Scraptrap's body. He wasn't even alone in his torture anymore. He had everything taken from him since the beginning, and I don't think William even remembered he killed him. William thought he was in control, and he was, until he was hurt. Andrew wanted William to feel the pain he's felt for years, stuck in a hell hole while the others were able to walk into heaven.

I haven't read Fazbear’s Frights btw, I just think there's enough evidence for Andrew through other mediums that denying his existence is futile atp. Not to mention how him being Spring Bonnie just really fits his role as the forgotten one that was always there. That one that even the other MCI didn't know about until the end. I have evidence for Spring Bonnie possessed by a kid too btw I just didn't feel like sharing it here lmao.

[madcourtjester]

One theory that’s pretty accepted by the fandom that I do not fuck with is that Monty killed glamrock Bonnie and now hear me OUT!!! Monty was fitted with custom claws to play the bass that as a major plot point can cut through fence and stuff like that but he wasn’t the band bassist until Bonnie was decommissioned because there was no need for him to be. Glam rock Bonnie has gashes on his chest, which people keep saying is a Monty thing, but Monty wouldn’t have even had those signature claws to cause gashes until Bonnie had already been decommissioned because there would be no reason for him to be fitted with them. A message on the Fazwatch literally notes that it was an UPGRADE, a later addition to his model in retrospect so that he could play the bass. IT MAKES NO CHRONOLOGICAL SENSE!!! I think I might’ve picked up this point from a video. I watched ages ago, but it still stands. Like I have to rewatch a playthrough of ruin, but like if anything I would think that the band member he’s most displayed to dislike and be jealous of Freddy. Now do I necessarily think that level of thought was put into it? No. Do they intend to be that Monty decommissioned Bonnie? Eh. But to me, it’s a red herring and it is until I see that shit happen on screen.

Additional note: there is also supposedly a message about Monty being kind of accident prone and at one point having his legs destroyed because someone activated the hurricane bucket in his vicinity and it’s alluded to as a recurring instance so his initial documented aggression might actually be more like a response to the fact that he is frequently injured and be a self protective thing although I admit that’s a stretch

[goblin-the-clown]

I wanted to discuss the theory that if the afton kids didn't die from the animatronics, William would have just killed them anyway. In my opinion, I think this theory is stupid.

First of let's start with the fact that Evan's death was the event that started Williams spiral into insanity. I really don't think he would have been capable of murder before that. He's most likely always had violent urges (as is the case with most serial killers) but he's more focused on his business than acting on them up until that point. So if Evan never died why would he feel the motivation to kill anyone? Let alone his own children for seemingly no reason.

I am a big believer that Afton doesn't love his kids, but there's obviously some level of care for them. At least that's the case with Evan and Elizabeth, since he clearly didn't want their deaths to happen. Maybe it's a desire for normalcy? Before the bite, he's mainly focused on building robots and entertaining children, but the bite changed all of that. If another one of his children were to die there would be no chance of ever getting that life back. That's one possible reason for wanting to bring Evan back. It could also be because of his fear of death, seeing the people around him die reminds him that one day he will meet the same fate. I'm not certain, but we'll be here all day if I keep discussing this.

Also he kept Mike around for that long, he doesn't seem to really care about him, but he still doesn't directly murder him. My theory is that he knew he would be useful to him, afterall, not many other people would be willing to go down into the death bunker to "rescue" his daughter even though she's been missing for years. So yeah, here are the main reasons Afton would not kill his children.

He sees them as useful

He would literally have no reason to

Evan's death was the thing that sent him spiralling in the first place

He doesn't hate them, he just doesn't care about them and killing them would do nothing for him

He'd probably be the first suspect and most likely get caught

[redfoxx2]

We FNAF fans have to accept that maybe FNAF’s timeline is broken.

Not in a bad way.

Like what if the story has multiple endings.

For example one where there are 5 MCI victims and the new story where there are 6 MCI victims.

The game became so big that there is no way all of the lore can fit into a single plot line.

[winterwinnn]

Hi, yes, the Glamtony sketch (I have a rotten brain because of this theory, ok ok) + another one that nobody knows (Travis, you deserve much more) + lol a hc i have on the same theory 😿😭🙌

[of-chaos-and-flame]

So my friend and I are batshit insane and spent the better part of 4 hours tearing the FNaF Movie trailer to pieces.

here’s some of what we found:

Mike drives a 2001 Honda Accord, which means the movie HAS to take place in the 2000s

and considering the state of the car

And the general state of technology (outside of Freddy’s as it was shut down in the 80s and thus the tech was never updated) it’s probably set between 2004-2008

Another thing we noticed is the misdirection regarding time, date, and clothing (more under the cut cuz it’s a longer explanation)

The best example is when Mike is woken up by the Toreador March.

The trailer lead us to believe this is all one scene but if you look closely at what he’s wearing it becomes clear that it’s actually 3 different scenes stitched together

There are quite a few moments like this throughout the trailer

For example, when Vanessa is telling Mike about the Missing Children

It’s clearly a more casual conversation, she’s not even in uniform, she’s wearing a yellow sweater

And Mike does directly respond in the voiceover, but when it cuts to a scene we assume at first glance is a continuation of the conversation

Vanessa is back in her uniform. In all likelihood, this is a completely different scene all together (most likely occurring earlier in the movie, some time during their first meeting perhaps?)

(Side note: I’m aware splicing different scenes is a common thing trailers do to mislead audiences, I know the fnaf trailer isn’t special for it. I just think it’s really cool.)

Another thing we noticed was that the scene with the mystery woman collapsed on the floor

Takes place in Mike’s house, as the recliner is the exact same

And finally my maniac of a friend found the exact toy this fucking kid is holding

Apparently it’s from 1974. So that’s something. And the car is most likely from the late 70s - early 80s, but we couldn’t get a good enough look to be sure.

[zebracorn-chan]

Imagine if Jeremiah from the FNaF Movie ends up being Jeremy in the sequel. 🤩

[alexthesillybilly]

okay if all of this is straight up just. incorrect info. sorry im just behind on the newer games lore so if this is like. really dumb or already a known theory ignore me lmfao

the implied story of glamrock bonnie is that monty destroyed him out of jealousy right. and g.freddy has missed him ever since. and g.bonnie and freddy are gay you cant debate me on this you cant say "you and me forever & ever love, freddy" without it being gay.

what if monty destroying bonnie is a metaphor for william's obsession with henry turning into jealousy, wanting what henry had- leading him to kill charlotte. and freddy missing bonnie is the way of implying henry just wanted the william he knew before- back. bc i think a lot of the fandom agrees monty would do it out of jealousy which ties into why william killed charlotte....idk it just all connected to me lmao

[sillygirl-sketches]

The Bite of 83, Mike’s Afton Status, and Screenplay Evolution

blumhouse has given us enough ample clues that the Bite of 83 will be portrayed!

considering how “garrett’s” actor (presumably CC) took a photo with “young mike,” alluding to the word “brother” in the caption. golden freddy is a confirmed role in the voice actor cast. and mike’s character description states “Riddled with guilt over a tragedy in his past.” also this tweet lol

it all adds up. it makes so much sense for mike schmidt to be haunted by himself inadvertently causing the d34th of garrett, his brother.

garrett, who ironically has no last name listed, unlike “abby schmidt” and “mike schmidt.”

garrett afton, perhaps?

next, let me talk about scott’s announcement on reddit about the final script selected for the fnaf movie, and the preceding screenplays before the “mike script” was selected.

specifically the “random charlie” script:

scott found fault with this particular script because while the characters shared names with their game/book counterparts, that was the only thing in common with them. so, scott seemed like he wanted characters that share names AND character arcs with the game cast.

and look at the “ghost trackers” script:

evidently, scott wanted the main characters to have a connection to freddy’s and not just be random people solving the mystery. he wanted the protagonists to directly have stronger ties to freddy’s.

based on blumhouse hinting at the Bite of 83, Scott’s decisions & preferences while selecting a screenplay for the film, Mike Schmidt’s character description, and “Garrett’s” actor posting a picture on instagram with “Young Mike,” there’s two routes i can see playing out:

1) either mike is NOT an afton, but the bite of 83 still happened —> this gives motivations and “a stronger connection between the protagonist and freddy’s,” as scott explicitly stated that he wanted.

2) or mike IS an afton, and the bite of 83 still happened. —> again, this gives motivations and “a stronger connection between the protagonist and freddy’s,” as scott explicitly stated that he wanted.

either of these interpretations reflect what scott has outlined in what he wants in a screenplay.

Now if mike is not an afton, his sole motivation would be finding forgiveness and redemption, & freeing his brother’s soul who is presumably in golden freddy??

i definitely am rooting for mike schmidt to be michael afton but if that’s not the case, at least we have the bite of 83 being pretty much confirmed, and at least 50% of game!mike’s character motivations will be depicted in the movie. that’s still a win to me!

But that’s just a theory. A GAME THE—*gunshots*

TLDR; bite of 83 is basically confirmed for the movie, mike’s afton status is unknown atp and it could go either way, but the bite will be one of his sole motivations as the protagonist, based on scott’s desire to 1) keep character names in the movie consistent to the characters in the game, & 2) portray the protagonist having strong ties to freddy’s

[grungebutsoft]

Quick poll because I’ve been curious for a while… [Fixed]

Reblog for a larger sample size

[redfoxdude07]

FNAF WORLD IS THE FUTURE:

In UCN, we have 3 Fnaf World characters show up on your desk:

-Tangle

-White Rabbit

-Bouncepot

in Security Breach, we get:

-The Tangle

-Vanny

-Burntrap

The Blob is called The Tangle on the files, and it also has a Mangle head, which is weird because there's no other toy animatronics (except the puppet) in the Tangle

Vanny is self-explanatory. They're literally both white rabbits

Burntrap is a bit of a stretch but hear me out:

-Bouncepot is actively referenced in SB

- If you look at Burntrap more closely, it's pretty obvious he's grown onto the Mimic endo. There's no way he was just flopped onto it. He wrapped his flesh around the Mimic like a plant spreading its roots.

That's it for Burnpot, but I got some more stuff that'll come in a later reblog.