#fnaf movie theory

[chipistrate]

Really quick doodles but y'all see the vision right?? Right????

Vanessa and GF kid/Cassidy being the Michael and CC of the fnaf movie universe is my everything right now I love them to bits

[ruizpizzaria]

FAZGANGG ROLL OUT ( FNAF MOVIE RAMBLES + EASTER EGGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) PT 1

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD ! ! ! !

ok first off i cant put into text or words about how i fucking insane i am about this movie so uhm ahahaha im not gonna or i might explode my head off and end up looking like cc's foxy's plush. THIS MOVIE WAS THE MOST LOVINGLY LOVING LOVE LETTER TO THE FANBASE AND I COULD NOT BE MORE NUTS ABOUT IT

SO IM GONNA WRITE ABT ALL THE LIL EASTER EGGS I NOTICED DURING MY WATCH OF THE MOVIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( many more rewatches to come )

UPDATE : PICS ADDED ! ! !

MATPAT AND CORYXKENSHIN CAMEOS ( NO MARKIPLIER D: )

do i even have to say anything about this??

MATPAT SERVING THEORIES SO HARD HE GOT HIRED AS A WAITRESS

CORY BREAKING ANKLES AS AN UBER DRIVER

the theater went ballistic yeah

SPARKY THE DOG CAMEO / FINALLY CANON LOL

MAN OH MAN WHATT I DDID NOT EXPECT THIS ONE.

In the movie we get a full glimpse of a disassembled sparky suit in parts in service -> max gets stuffed inside this suit later on or a suit next to sparky

the diner that matpat works at is also called Sparky's ( lol foreshadowing )

this is still pretty unreal to me.

FNAF BOOK LORE PLAYS A BIG PART IN THE STORY

There's a scene towards the end of the movie where Abby is hiding from foxy and runs to hide behind some arcade games -> reference to the sequence where Foxy is chasing Charlie in the silver eyes (lighting is almost one on one too)

The animatronics realize they're getting manipulated by afton /spring bonnie when Abby shows them the truth through a drawing depicting spring bonnie's true nature -> reference to Carlton showing the dead children that spring bonnie / afton is their enemy through drawing spring bonnie as their killer

CARL THE CUPCAKE

i just find it kinda funny that the guy eaten alive by cupcake was named carl seeing as how carl was cupcake's fanon name

also he can defy gravity too ig

THE SHIRT CARL ( ONE OF THE GOONS WHO CAME TO TRASH THE PLACE ) IS WEARING HAS A PRINT OF FNAF 6'S DRIVING MINI GAME

Chica's magic rainbow from FNAF world gets its own branded ice cream parlor chain :

EVERYTHING ABOUT ABBY HANGING OUT WITH THE FAZGANG.

Spaghetti and Pizza analogy

this one is a bit more obvious but I like how its used as away to illustrate how mike had to choose giving up abby or cc ( i refuse to call him garrett he is either evan or chris. )

Hospitalized Vanessa Theory

Now that Vanessa is hospitalized could she be filling the roles of cc or mike in fnaf 4 ( mainly cuz of hospital hallucinations )-> shes traumatized by the animatronics and could hallucinate back to her days in the hospital ( if she wakes up or if its a dream sequence or something not sure ) ; also could also work since she's afton's daughter

LIVING TOMBSTONE END CREDITS LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

point where i died in the theater and ascended

so yeah yk id say the trap was sprung successfully

I am the most normal about this movie

[vampvinylz]

MAJOR FNAF MOVIE SPOILERS UNDER THE CUT. THIS IS YOUR WARNING

Alright. This is my theory on the whole “Afton Family” thing. I think Michael, Abby, and Garrett are all still Afton’s, however, they weren’t raised by William.

In the games, we know that Mrs. Afton isn’t relevant to the lore and is absent in the Afton family’s lives.

This is what lead me to think perhaps they were divorced, but William got custody over the children in the game lore. Meanwhile in the MOVIE, Mrs. Afton won custody.

This is what leads to the fork in the universes between the games and the movie.

Since in the movie, the Afton kids weren’t raised by William, Michael and Garrett never went to Fredbear’s Family Diner or inhaled hallucinogenic gas that made them develop fears of the animatronics. Because of this, there is no ‘bite of 83’ in this universe.

Instead, William, angry that his wife took the kids in the divorce, kidnapped Garrett and killed him (rather than Michael)

We see in the movie that “Steve Raglan” pauses when saying Mike’s name.

“Michael Sch….”

After this, he begins to act strange towards Mike. Why? Because that’s his ex wife’s name. That’s when William made the realization that the person in front of him was his son whom he lost custody of and later murdered his brother.

So now to address some questions about this theory:

“But what about the parents?”

The parents that we see in the flashback are likely Mike and Garret’s mom, as well as their step dad.

This would mean that Mike and Abby are likely step-siblings since Abby wasn’t alive pre-divorce (unless their mom was already carrying Abby from her previous relationship with William by the time Garrett disappeared.)

“What about Vanessa?”

Honestly? I’m not sure.

A: She has a different mom and was raised by Afton after the divorce

B: Afton got custody of her, meanwhile in the game timeline, Mrs. Afton/Schmidt got custody instead

C: She just wasn’t born in the game timeline until much later (23 years before Help Wanted.)

I really hope this makes sense bc Im just rambling rn😭I’m also sick and barely coherent so I might rewrite this later so it’s actually comprehensible

TLDR: The FNAF movie lore is similar to the game lore, however, in the game lore, William gets custody of the kids. In the movie lore, Mrs. Afton/Schmidt gets custody of the kids, preventing the Bite of 83, and leading William to kidnap and murder Garrett instead.

[zebracorn-chan]

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

[shinjisfoldingchair]

im definitely not the first person to think of this but i really hope we get something in a fnaf sequel where venessa experiences something similar to FNAF 4 while in a coma.

[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.

[fangirltothefullest]

Just watched the FNAF movie again and I have such brainworms you guys, the lore of the games has me by the throat........

Like I can't let it go, I really think they put Vanessa in Mike's role of the games for the movie, creating a separation of who Mike and Abby are. I'm positive that the blonde Golden Freddy kid, in his striped shirt, is her little brother who was killed (crying child in this movie-verse). He tells Abby he's not Freddy.

Also she's not a security guard but she's been set up by her father, William Afton, to watch the animations and make sure nobody knows about them and to kill anyone who gets too close.

I have too many brainworms. Do we know what Mike's parents do for jobs? Did William recognize Mike from recognizing his brother Garret in him OR more likely did he recognize Mike's father in him and was his father in a more Henry-like, partner-like role? To me the biggest plothole is why did William kidnap Garret? How did he even know he was out there in the woods? Unless he knew their parents, considering most kidnappings are statistically done by people you know.

I just think there's a world where its possible the movie-verse has a whole universe that is adjacent, but not identical, to the games and through that paralell lens we can make sense of the games.

[showtimeatfreddys]

Something that has stuck out to (and bothered) me about the Fnaf movie is how William Afton randomly switched his MO and kidnapped Garrett. All of his other victims (as far as we know) were patrons at Freddy’s who he lured away with the Springbonnie suit.

So why did he suddenly resort to kidnapping Garrett? Why the switch? Was it because Freddy’s had closed by that point? Did he have a particular grudge against the Schmidt family? Had he previously attempted to lure away Garrett and failed?

Maybe I’m just overthinking it, but it doesn’t make sense to me why his ritualistic methods would suddenly resort to kidnapping victims from a completely random place. Serial killers don’t just switch up like that.

Again, maybe I’m overanalyzing and have watched way too much Criminal Minds for my own good. But I can’t help being curious, and I really hope it’s something resolved in the second movie.

[wormsincoats]

Is (FNAF Movie) Mike Schmidt Henry's son?

We learn that instead of Mike being William Afton's son, Vanessa is his daughter, but that leaves many holes in regards to what exactly Mike and Abby's role is within the (planned) trilogy of movies. But, with the knowledge that there ARE, in fact, two more movies planned, following the events of FNAF 2 and 3 respectively, we can start to fill in the gaps with the original fnaf lore, in the way that makes sense with the movie canon, as well as the story's need to fit into a 1hr30 timeslot.

Here's why I think Mike and Abby are actually Henry's kids:

In the movie, "Garrett," Mike's brother, is kidnapped by William Afton. We are told that he dies, but never how, when, or where he ended up, and we are never told why. Clearly, as relevant to the plot as this kid was, we would have gotten something, but we didn't. So, we look to the source material, as messy as it is. Where have we seen something like this before?

Charlotte, Henry's daughter, is approached by William in a car, and she is killed outside of the pizzeria. Since the movie's scene takes place in the Nebraska woods, away from the pizzeria location, it would make sense for William to have to instead kidnap her with that car and take her away, but the resolution stands, while also fitting within the timeline of the movie.

It answers the 'why' that remains unanswered in regards to William's reasoning behind the kidnapping. This is answered by the book lore, lore which Scott himself deemed 'canon' (and came after when he actually figured out what he was doing with the lore, much like the movie), and it suggests that William was jealous of Henry's perfect family, the family which Mike described in the movie as the very same perfect picturesque type, that has dinner together every night and says grace. It also explains why William would be in the middle of the Nebraska woods in the first place, because why else would he be there other than to go camping with his business buddy and their families?

The next movie is supposed to reflect FNAF 2, where all of this would be revealed with the Puppet/Marionette's presence, where Charlotte's soul canonically resides, and where Garrett's may end up in the context of the movie.

It would give further explanation to William's reaction to Mike's last name, other than "oh that's the last name of the kid I kidnapped, ignoring how I know the kid's name in the first place"

Mike's parents' deaths are never actually explained in detail; He mentions that his mother died as a result of his brother disappearing, and that his father "just couldn't handle it," which could easily fit within Henry's known storyline in the real lore.

It would be the perfect opportunity to loop Henry into the story, who was left nearly wholly untouched in the movie (minus one background shot of (supposedly) him working on the animatronics, and the guy playing him happens to look a lot like Mike's father did).

This definitely could be a reach, but it makes sense within the context of the movie, and it makes sense from a writing perspective, especially considering how important Henry is as a character, and how Mike and Abby fit into the overall story. Big props to @painlessnostalgia for pointing this out because it pretty much filled all of the biggest plot holes for me

[paranormaljones]

dude oh my gosh what if Vanessa is the protagonist of fnaf 4 in the upcoming movies? we see her in the hospital at the end of the first movie. what if she's trapped, unconscious, reliving memories of her childhood as Afton's kid in a fnaf 4-esque series of nightmares? we know what happened the last time someone in the fnaf universe got put in the hospital. what if Vanessa, somehow, is the Crying Child in this canon? i know we generally think that the Crying Child dies at the end of fnaf 4, but what if she survived?

i'm not saying this isn't a super far-fetched theory but i'm telling you, if they make a movie about or containing scenes of a child trying to ward off nightmarish versions of the animatronics in their house and the child is a little blonde girl, i'm gonna lose my mind.

[mezzyb0nb0n]

FNAF MOVIE THOERY (SPOILERS‼️)

Mike’s dad is supposed to be Henry

I think Mike’s dad is supposed to be Henry, this would explain why William Afton took Garret and killed him. Biggest piece of evidence for this is in the security tape that Mike watches on his first night, in the tape there’s a clip that shows a man working on an endoskeleton.

If you look closely at this man he looks very similar to Mike’s dad, this could be anyone but it looks way too similar to him. And depending how similar they’re going to make the movies to the games (which has been 50/50 so far) we could theorize that this man is Henry since William and Henry were the main ones who made and worked on the animatronics. Although this is quite a long shot it’s very possible and would add more of a possible motive to Garrets kidnapping and murder. This could also mean that Garret could’ve possessed the puppet, because he could be a parallel to Charlie.

[chipistrate]

So the fifth kid in Abby's drawing is Garret 100%

But uh

Why is Golden Freddy kid nowhere to be found

,,,was my "Vanessa and GF kid are the Michael and CC of the movieverse" theory actually accurate

[valleyfthdolls]

Movie!Cassidy is an Afton - an entirely speculative theory

(CW FOR DISCUSSION OF CANON TYPICAL HARM AGAINST CHILDREN)

A starting note

I do believe our little boy in Golden Freddy is named Cassidy, because Cassidy in the game universe is not confirmed female. Again I remind you all that Scott does not confirm fuck about these games. Fans have a tendency to claim their headcanons or whatever new fanon theories get popular have been confirmed to be canon. This is basically never true. Look at the semi-recent "Gregory is Scott's favorite" ordeal for an idea of how this information is shared in good faith and gets twisted nonetheless. Look at the comments under a fnaf au gacha life video for an idea of how people just straight up lie about that.

Cassidy in the games refers to himself as "he" and "him", we never see his physical appearance enough to make any judgment calls on his gender- any idea of his appearance is totally speculative, just like this theory- and most importantly, Cassidy is not exclusively a girls' name- it's actually a unisex name that started as a masculine one! It derives from the Irish surname Caiside, then became a masculine forename, then as it became anglicized as Cassidy it became unisex. In both modern day and the 80s, it is and was applicable as a boys' name.

Now, with that in mind, on to actual discussion of the Afton theory, and why I think movie Cassidy is one.

They look strikingly similar

Compare, for a moment, the appearances of Vanessa, William, and Cassidy. I'm using pictures of their actors because the pictures of them I could find online SUCKED.

William: Light skin, straight(?) brown hair, blue eyes. Vanessa: Light skin, straight blonde hair (though it's wavy in this picture, it's definitely straight for Vanessa), blue/maybe green eyes. Cassidy: Light skin, straight blonde hair, blue eyes.

The movie does suggest that Vanessa colors her hair blonde from brown (see: the brown roots), however, when she shows the photo of her childhood self and her father off to Mike, young Vanessa clearly has blonde hair as well.

And notably, her roots are just as blonde, suggesting that blonde was her natural hair color, but that it darkened as she got older, only for her to begin bleaching it back to its original color.

Now, blonde hair and blue/green eyes are both quite rare, but not rare enough that it's a dead ringer for a genetic connection. Hell, the Chica girl has blonde hair and blue eyes. However, Susie in the games has blonde hair and blue eyes, and Cassidy in the games very clearly has brown, and likely dark hair as well.

This makes the change to blonde with blue eyes very noticeable, and very noteworthy. And it’s a set of traits that he shares with Vanessa, as well as the notable blue eyes with William, as well as appearing to have a similar face shape.

Cassidy is inexplicably special

Cassidy is the first person who shares the image of Afton as Spring Bonnie with Mike when asked about who took Garrett. He seems more aware than anyone else of William, Garrett, William’s crimes, and what they’re doing.

When Mike asks who took Garrett, Cassidy responds by drawing a rabbit in the dirt- Spring Bonnie. (I will come back to this momentarily.) While the other kids believe Spring Bonnie is their friend, Cassidy seems to know the truth. He knows Garrett is dead, and offers Mike the chance to essentially see his ghost in exchange for Abby.

Furthermore, Cassidy doesn’t ever attack Abby, he doesn’t respond when William tells the children to wake up and go after her, and most interestingly-

Look at this image.

When Abby shows the missing kids what happened to them (in a scene I actually loved, btw, and I will take absolutely no criticism), you can see Jeremy in blue, Gabriel in the top hat, Fritz with the hook hand, Susie with long blonde hair, and… what I believe might actually be Garrett with dark hair and a red shirt. Because one thing is clear- that is not Cassidy.

Cassidy is not being controlled. He is fully aware, and he is angry. Hell, if you listen to his tone when he says “we want Abby,” it’s angry. Forceful. “We. Want. Abby.”

Again, Cassidy knows what is happening. He is angry and vengeful, and he’s the only one. So… why?

Well, honestly, this was my big qualm with the movie. Why was Cassidy special? In my eyes, there are four answers to this. He has a direct connection to William, a direct connection to Fazbear, a direct connection to every missing child that is unique to him, or he was the first or last of the missing kids. These would all set him apart. But we have no reason to believe he has a connection to FE, he was the fourth of the five missing kids as seen in the opening, and it seemed like the five of them were a group of friends. So what makes him special? He obviously knows or has something that sets him apart.

The imagery

Let me rewind now to when Mike first gets his answer about who took Garrett. He finds Cassidy in the woods and asks him for help remembering Garrett’s kidnapper. Cassidy responds by showing Mike a drawing of Spring Bonnie. Again, he knows that Spring Bonnie is evil, but more importantly here, he knows that Spring Bonnie took Garrett. Now, there are three ways he could know. One, process of elimination- the rabbit took him, so it took Garrett too. Two, assuming a relation to Afton, he saw or knew when this happened. Three, it was a matter of association.

Well, I actually doubt it was either of the first two. (You will see why this is not self contradictory in a second.) One, if it was because Spring Bonnie took Cassidy, well, Mike asked about Garrett, not Cassidy. For someone as obviously aware as Cassidy is, this is an obvious logical gap I doubt he’d make.

Two, Vanessa- Afton’s known daughter- didn’t know what happened to Garrett. When Mike asked- "asked"- if she knew, she said "not about Garrett." And while we don't have a clear timeline here (thanks Vanessa for your very ambiguous "in the 80s, kids went missing", we. we know), this was likely Afton's first kill. Meaning Cassidy was even younger then than he was when he died.

So, what do I mean by "it was a matter of association"? And how is this not self contradictory?

Well, assuming Cassidy didn't just. know Afton did it, what might have happened instead actually works even better with the idea that he knew Afton.

Compare the imagery here to that of the photo Vanessa shows Mike.

Spring Bonnie and the toy plane. If he saw Spring Bonnie and Vanessa with Garrett’s toy, seeing Garrett with that toy, he could assume that Spring Bonnie got it from him. Therefore, Garrett was taken by Spring Bonnie- Vanessa and Cassidy’s dad in the costume.

Their relationship

This one I’ll keep short. We only see Cassidy and William interact once. And it’s a very bizarre scene.

William is struggling, clinging to life, and Cassidy is standing, watching. Someone else said he was crying here, but I didn’t see it. Maybe, maybe not. I’m leaving that there. Either way, William reaches out to Cassidy, seemingly for help, and Cassidy shuts the door on him.

Watching the movie back and realizing Cassidy was never under William’s influence, this scene is… confusing, to say the least. Why would William reach for the help of the one child who was never under his thumb? What is he trying to appeal to? And why does Cassidy get the moment of being the one to shut the door on him?

Well, it’s obvious to see through Vanessa and the four missing children under his control that he is very clearly abusive to his children. Which isn’t a surprise to most, but anyway. Through the few minutes he and Vanessa are together, he berates her, strangles her, stabs her in the stomach and leaves her for dead, and Mike remarks that William “really messed [her] up”. He similarly berates and insults the missing kids, calling them pathetic and small. At the same time, however, he relies on his children to back him up. Vanessa is supposed to keep Mike from knowing anything and kill him if he gets too close. The animatronics are supposed to kill children and adults alike on his command. He leans on them. They are supposed to back him up.

And this would extend even to the one who he never controlled entirely if Cassidy was his son. His daughter let him down. His victims turned on him. But he still has one child left who hasn’t let him down. One who wasn’t there for him, but should be. Because that is the job of William’s children.

He reaches for Cassidy, the boy shuts the door on his murderer. The man who abused, betrayed, and slaughtered him all while he was meant to be his dad. William’s son is not going to clean up his messes now. He’s going to make him pay for them.

(ENDING DISCLAIMER THAT THIS IS ALL SPECULATION! I know there are many other explanations. This is just the one I like and I wanted to share it!)

[wakebymoonsleepbysun]

Random theory-esque FNAF-movie rambles

What if Vanessa KNEW the kids before Afton killed them? Like they were her actual human childhood friends? (Though even if she didn't know them when they were alive, it seems pretty clear she grew up with their animatronic selves which is why they get along so well. And like...how fucking sad is that to grow up while all your friends just...don't.)

BUT maybe instead of friends they were bullies? Or maybe not straight up, full time bullies, but just friends she had various fallings out with because they're kids.

IMAGINE THIS.

Lil' Vanessa comes home from school crying because "Susie broke my dolly".

"Don't worry, sweetie. Daddy will take care of Susie."

And now Susie is gone.

"She was mean to you, remember? She deserved it, didn't she? You said you wanted Daddy to take care of it. Now she'll never break anything of yours again...

Remember Vanessa...

You wanted this."

And now Vanessa knows she can NEVER tell anyone. She's complicit. She's just as guilty as her father. She practically asked him to do it. (Did she? He says she did...it's hard to remember...) Also maybe a good ol' fashioned "What would your [presumably dead] mother think?" for good measure.

And yeah. It's no wonder she couldn't just tell Mike the truth. No wonder she couldn't tell ANYONE the truth. Even though, now as an adult, she does have some idea that she was gaslit and that a kid crying about a broken toy is NOT a request for fucking MURDER, but years of Afton's teachings are hard to unlearn. Would anyone TRULY believe that she didn't want this? After all, she went along with it for so long....maybe it really is her fault.

[zebracorn-chan]

Okay so!!!

The dude that got attacked by Mr. Cupcake is named Carl, which is/was one of the most popular fan-made names the fandom gave to it back in 2014; I want to believe this was an intentional joke made for the older fans.❤️🧁

Also, meme because I had to!

[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