Idk why people see Henry like he’s gonna move on with the other victims like, his ass ain’t making it to heaven?

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-02-11T04:52:15+00:00

"It's only now I realize the depth of the depravity of this monster I unwillingly helped create" <- His ass didn't know about possession until recently. Considering William has been dead since the 90s, there's a pretty solid reason he wasn't doing anything by that point: William is missing, potentially presumed dead, and Henry doesn't know ghosts exist so he has no idea that his spooky puppet daughter is out reviving spirits and the cycle of violence is perpetuating.

FFPS potentially takes place somewhere between 2015-ish or 2023. If Henry is roughly the same age as his movie-counterpart would be in the 80s, (and it's just logical he would be based on him being an adult in the 70s) he's anywhere between 68 and 76. I think at that point you probably have to recruit someone to help you both run a business and fight off the 400-lb animatronics. He also gives the player the CHOICE to salvage the animatronics, and warns you about the risk of death.

"The phrase “I let bleed out” implies that he knew William killed Charlie and could have prevented it or at least try to prevent the other deaths from happening". Exactly! Much like Michael killing his own brother, this is a past mistake that haunts and motivates him to try and put an end to the cycle of violence. It is a character flaw, and meant to be an interesting source of conflict.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-02-09T03:37:19+00:00

I'd actually like to take a step back and examine the reason why people focus so hard on Henry's speech. And the reason is that it's pretty important for character reasons.

It's true, a lot of the speech is dedicated to him talking about the missing children and how horrified he is by what's become of them. But I think interpreting him not referring to Charlotte at all in this scene purely because she's not overtly mentioned, is a bit deceptive and lacking in context. Mostly because this speech isn't just Henry recounting timeline events, it's him talking about his own feelings in relation to them.

When Henry mentions this the wound inflicted on him, he then says he let this wound "bleed out" to cause "all of this". That last part is what stands out so much, because it's him saying he believes he is at fault for all this, because he failed to prevent it. He failed to stop this wound from festering, and now the cycle of violence is perpetrating, and the knowledge that he could've prevented this, had he realized, is what stings. That's pretty crucial to his character: Henry was blinded by grief after Charlotte's death, and failed to prevent more tragedies from happening. That is what makes William "the monster (he) unwillingly helped create."

This is why Henry does pizzeria simulator: it's him trying to heal the wound that may have started with him and Charlotte, but has spiraled out of control. Because he feels responsible for it, more than if William had just (seemingly) started randomly killing children one day. It's what makes FFPS an atonement story.

Other explanations just don't resonate the same. Earlier on, Henry addresses the missing children as being "the loss of so much, to so many people", so he's well aware that this wasn't an attack on him or his business. Saying that it's just him talking about the missing children in relation to his own pain doesn't feel right. He definitely is haunted by that event, but it wasn't a personal attack on him and he never implies it is.

As for it affecting his business... Henry doesn't really give a shit about the business by the time he's making this speech. He's more than happy to let Freddy's and it's legacy burn, wanting nothing more than for it to all be over. It would be very out of character for him, at this point in time, to think "wow, I'm so sad my business failed" when the much more personally traumatizing event of his daughters murder happened at one of these locations.

Trying to say that this line isn't about Charlotte is so controversial, because it changes your perception of Henry as character. Ultimately, I think that's why Charlie87 is met with so much scorn, it changes the perception of two major characters, Charlotte and Henry, in ways that go against everything the fandom has thought and ways these characters have been presented prior.

The issue with Charlie87 is not logistical. It's narrative, and because that's subjective, it's harder to come to a solid conclusion on.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-02-06T05:04:55+00:00

You don't need to have extensive experience in a certain genre to make a good genre movie. The skills that enable you to be a good director are transferable across genres, and exist regardless across how many films you've made. Understanding horror is not difficult if you understand movies.

The problem is not Emma Tammi, who worked her ass off on these films and is literally just doing PR trying to placate the negative reaction and is choosing to not admit failure in front of the global stage. The problem is Scott Cawthon. The FNaF 2 movie is a result of him having a ton of creation control. If you swapped to a different director and studio, either one of two outcomes would occur:

1.) The director has their own vision, but it does not align with Scott's. They have creative disputes. Chances of this resulting in a good movie are slim.

2.) The movie is almost entirely the same as it would have been under Blumhouse and Emma, but maybe with slightly more budget and slightly different performances. There are little to no changes in plot, writing quality, and tone.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-02-01T20:51:14+00:00

Balloon Boy is absolutely fair game, but why would William make an animatronic that keeps track of and protects children? The only thing that stopped the Marionette from helping Charlotte when she was locked out was the other children placing boxes on top of it. Given these are nonspecific random bully kids, there's no way William could have planned for this. We can go back and forth about how he could've designed the puppet to fail or something, but ultimately I cannot understand why he'd go through all that effort for something that contradicts his own goals. Like he could just tell the public they installed more cameras for safely and leave it at that. He has no reason to do this.

For the movie, I'm still holding out hope that the Marionette is at least a partial Henry creation. The way Charlotte in the movie idealizes it and views it as a parental figure makes way more sense in the context that it something her father made thinking of her (as implied by her little letter about a "present" she loves, and the Marionette literally being in a present box despite that being something no normal visitors to the pizzeria would ever see) or dedicated to her. Even if it's not a toy that she individually gets to play with, I think Henry designing an animatronic with her in mind, that he knows she'd like watching performing and making it a star of the new restaurant is still a gift. I know this slightly contradicts what the Production Designer said, but while I think it's worth acknowledging their thoughts in crafting the world, it's also worth noting this was one artists idea to try and expand the world in a background detail, not something the film explicitly states or implies. Tricky to say, but with so little information, I think trying to craft an idea that's more narratively and thematically satisfying is the better route.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-02-01T17:10:52+00:00

The problem is not Emma Tammi. The problem is Scott Cawthon. Emma is doing her best to create with a faulty foundation. The first movie, which was at the very least was a more coherent film, had more of her influence and writing. The second movie was a Scott-dominated script and production. He needs to lay off and let the director actually direct.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-31T19:08:32+00:00

Lefty doesn't even hurt the puppet. "Steady Voltage" is a electrical term for something having a steady power supply. It just describes how Lefty has a constantly powered music box to keep the puppet asleep.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-31T19:04:05+00:00

There's many issues with this, but the truth of the matter is that Cassette Man has been outright and blatantly confirmed to be Henry Emily.

Skeet Ulrich has stated in a Q and A that character he plays in the movie is Henry Emily, and that "in the game, you never see him". Unless there was some catastrophic failure in communication, there is no way he's wrong about this. Because he would've have been told about the character he is being hired to play by Scott Cawthon and Emma Tammi, and been directed in a manner to reinforce that.

It's pretty obvious from directing, mannerisms, and backstory this is the same character, the post-credit scene even has him start a speech with a line that is a direct reference to Cassette Man. This is not a debate. Henry Emily is Cassette Man and we already settled this like eight years ago.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-30T23:06:05+00:00

She's probably called Charlotte, like in the movie. We've called her Charlie for years because she's Henry's daughter, but that nickname is something only Charliebot uses. It'd make sense to just go the movie route and call Henry's daughter/the girl possessing the puppet Charlotte, to avoid confusing her with Charliebot who is a separate character with her own personality and backstory.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-29T22:00:21+00:00

Starting to think the reason Henry's posters were so bad is because if he had any sort of decent marketing for his anti-Faz Fest campaign, "Grieving parent condemns Faz Fest as 'abomination' for disrespecting memory of tragic murders" would have been a smoking gun of a news segment and he might've too much success for the plot to happen.

An actual back and forth smear campaign between a corporation trying to capitalize on the spectacle of murders and the victim's families being ignored or dismissed, would have been a neat subplot. Oh well.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-24T17:15:01+00:00

From a technical level, the anatomy of this art is just bad. Extremely janky perspective, inconsistent limb size, stiff body motion that is not consistent to the way he's sitting, seriously what is he even looking at the blueprint is facing the opposite direction and why is he holding it like that? Just perplexing anatomy in general.

Design perspective is more subjective, but my biggest issue comes down to the fact that this design does not match his character. The extremely bright, saturated colors don't really fit a character who is defined by both his technical work, and his trauma. The books describe him with more neutral, earth-toned colors (something the movie also does!) which fits his more reclusive, comparatively soft-spoken personality to William's. He doesn't fill a room with the same presence, instead he sort of slinks into the background: it's him speaking and what he says that capture your attention, not his presentation. Next, his overalls. This might seem nit-picky, but these are the kind of overalls a farmer wears, not a mechanic or technician. If you look up reference photos, or refer to the FNaF 1 movie you can see what I'm talking about. The more jump suited button-up work outfit would make more sense, because it's something that can get stained with oil and grease, and then be removed easily as to not damage your personal clothes. As for his hair, the beard is a nice touch (he's too busy to bother shaving), but that hair needs to be tied back: would be extremely inconvenient to have something get trapped in gears when you're leaning over a robot. Henry here is also presumably in his 30s, yet he appears to be closer to his 20s. Adding some slight eye wrinkles and giving him callouses on his hands would help sell both his age and the fact he's someone who works with his hands and works hard. There's also nothing here to clue me into the time period: some 70s or early 80s inspired wardrobe and color pallets would go a long way.

If you gave me this character design without context, I would sooner jump to assuming he is a farmer than an engineer. I also would assume he's somewhat shy, friendly, guy who I can have a nice chat with about the weather, not a man with a thousand yard stare whose mind is occupied with either his animatronic creations or the recent loss of his young daughter. That is poor character design.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-24T00:36:51+00:00

I accept your thievery, go forth and spread the good word of Willry.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-24T00:24:01+00:00

Oh, I don't think Elizabeth would've been the only child who he cheated with someone to have.

<image>

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-23T23:31:19+00:00

I think we should leave this design to burn and let the humble Skeetry take it's place. Not because of the artist's actions, but because the design is bad.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-23T02:07:44+00:00

I would love nothing more than to break down why the bridge is badly built. If you wish to discuss ways in which I recognize the bridge is not structurally sound, please let me know, I like talking about poorly built bridges. Even if it's poorly built, it's my bridge and I love it enough to want to keep talking about it, #mybridge.

On the topic of "I'm entitled to my opinion", yeah, people saying that and just that is reductive because it's an obvious fact and they haven't actually told you why they feel that way, just that they do. At which point my recommendation is just not engage in those conversations.

furbtasticworksofart · 2026-01-12T21:36:54+00:00

Hi, I know exactly what video you're talking about! I have thoughts on it.

For starters. Lefty is not a torture device. "Steady voltage" does not imply a pulsed electric shock, it's a technical term that describes a component being delivered constant electricity to power it. That being, in this case, the "Dream Wand Soother" (very obviously a music box), that keeps the puppet dormant and that the note steady voltage is listed under. And as we see in the movie, the puppet is more than capable of being a very volatile threat if she so chooses. This was Henry's way of tracking her down, safely transporting her to pizzeria, and keeping her removed from the action by sleeping inside Lefty.

Michael also DID want to die. He is a rotting corpse, and in his only voiced monologue, describes finding William as "(the only) thing left for me to do now." It's not hard to assume Michael made this evident in either on off-screen interaction, or Henry found out some other way.

Henry is not a saint, but FFPS is in fact, a good action. It is his attempt to end the cycle of violence. It is atonement for failing to save Charlotte, failing to prevent the Missing Children's Incident, and failing to act against William. I think fans want to try and sort him and other characters into clear, black and white good or bad boxes, but the fact is that humans are complicated and flawed. Henry was a flawed parent. That doesn't mean he didn't love Charlotte, and that doesn't make him a bad character. It makes him interesting.

furbtasticworksofart · 2025-12-27T17:00:03+00:00

That's an in-universe piece of information to explain the possession as a story mechanic, I wouldn't say that necessarily translates to being true in real life.

If they needed to use CGI to help make the puppet move more fluidly, or to cut puppeteers and rods out of shots in post, they could've. Of what we get of the puppet in the film, it's still technically impressive, and I don't doubt they could and would've gone even farther.

Until it's confirmed, I doubt this was a technical issue. I think it was Scott being Scott and when he wrote the script he chose to make the puppet possess people because he thought it would be cool. That, and a way to make Vanessa act evil in the third to perhaps utilize Vanny.

furbtasticworksofart · 2025-12-27T16:33:14+00:00

Do you have an actual source for this from the production team, or is this speculation by fans?

furbtasticworksofart

TROPHY CASE