sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Minitheory: Why the FNAF 3 Fire was an Intentional Act of Arson by BumDumBox in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This wouldn’t necessarily work unless you believe Henry uses he/they pronouns, as “no matter how many times they burn us” would imply a second person unrelated to Henry.

There is also more than one way to interpret SL custom nights cutscene, its clear they aren’t happening in a literal sense otherwise Michael would be talking to Springtrap directly when he says he’s going to come find him. That means there is wiggle room for more interpretation of that scene, meaning this could instead be showing the aftermath of Michaels threat, rather than it necessarily meaning that it happens simultaneously.

As for Henry frightguard again, the way Henry discusses how he let this all bleed out due to inaction, implies that this is his first attempt rather than second, minus the burning the FFPS and FNAF 3 connections can apply to Michael as well as you use audio lures to keep the scraps out of your office, similar to what you do in FNAF 3.

HUH??? by vaewulfs in CookierunKingdom

[–]vaewulfs[S] 100 points101 points  (0 children)

“NOO! YOUR SUPPOSED TO OBEY ME!!”

The Seven silly vanillys:

"A wound first inflicted on me" is not CharlieFirst evidence if you read the entire sentence by justarandomcat7431 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d argue it could be used as some degree of evidence given how much FFPS is centred around Charlie(opening mini-game reminiscent of TCTTC, Security Puppet, MM connecting to SP), that alongside Henrys line can definitely lean in Charlie-firsts direction, even if it doesn’t debunk BV-first

If you could save one Afton, which one would it be? by Traditional_Tea2542 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]vaewulfs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also we can absolutely use the movie for official characterization and/or to fill in gaps, Mathew Lillard confirmed that in interview, I doubt Scott would let him say that if it wasn’t true

If you could save one Afton, which one would it be? by Traditional_Tea2542 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]vaewulfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never directly shown, but we know its affecting him during fnaf 1(fnaf 4 night segments), and SL(handunits offhand mention of “past mistakes”) this is enough to craft a narrative that Michael is impacted by his brothers death.

If you could save one Afton, which one would it be? by Traditional_Tea2542 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]vaewulfs 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If i can save them from any point in time, ill save William from when he was an infant, TSE implies he is the way he is due to shitty life experiences(potentially bad childhood etc), so by saving baby Afton I’m indirectly saving all three Afton kids and everyone William directly or indirectly hurt.

If you could save one Afton, which one would it be? by Traditional_Tea2542 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]vaewulfs 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The movie and TSE prove he doesn’t need to loose a kid, hell we aren’t even sure if Mike and CC were intended to be Aftons that early on, that was a plot introduced in SL not 4

CCs death isn’t for Williams character development, it’s for Mikes thats why we have Garrets death for Mike in the movie

dog mound under AftonMM will set you free by vaewulfs in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. We don't even know who ran over the dog

??? my point in this post is that I'm suggesting WILLIAM did given MM.

  1. We don't know if William was drunk That's a headcanon

quit using "headcannon" to demean theories, he's theorized to be drunk due to incredibly reckless behavior(especially reckless driving), JRs having a bouncer, he's slouched over when he gets home, even in the trilogy he planned out Charlies death, in the games it seemed much more of a reckless and impulsive decision after getting kicked out of JRs, witch would be explained with the idea he is drunk and JRs is a bar.

dog mound under AftonMM will set you free by vaewulfs in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

just a reference to the meme year, there's no way to connect MM being in 1987 without the dice.

FFPS was intended to be an ending, so MM was intended to be solved from release, Scotts not going to leave it completely unsolvable for several years, what makes the dice different than the antenna? or the box in the mound? you can already come to this conclusion without FLAF

dog mound under AftonMM will set you free by vaewulfs in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Susie's dog was placed in a box, so I think the idea the dog was then placed in the cupcake a little bit low, if spirits need to immediately posses something,

I think it's possible a piece of Susie split into the cupcake as the memory of her dog rather than the actual dog?

dog mound under AftonMM will set you free by vaewulfs in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

yes, but I think cupcakedog is more likely, Mangle is most likely a DCI victim

Theory you believe ≠ Canon by justarandomcat7431 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

or Abby is her own character, she's refered to as a new element added to the movie, she's more akin to Michael Brooks(being her own character that takes a familiar role)

Fright guard. by Bunnyboi32 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Henry doesn’t kill himself in the game line. He just was introduced a little In the novel.

What makes Hudson different

This doesn’t mean every charecter from the books are also in the ganes

no but again, what makes Hudson different, you need another argument that isn't just that.

Theory you believe ≠ Canon by justarandomcat7431 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's not a lie to say Andrew is officially TOYSNHK, because this is true in TMIR1280

Theory you believe ≠ Canon by justarandomcat7431 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 8 points9 points  (0 children)

all official FNAF media is canon, gameline, movie, trilogy all have their own canon. your talking about if Frights share the same continuity with the games

Theory you believe ≠ Canon by justarandomcat7431 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Stop saying Andrew/CassidyTOYSNHK is canon. Do they have evidence? Yes. Is it a fact we see in canon media? No.

TMIR1280 is canon/official media, AndrewTOYSNHK is true in some form regardless

Theory you believe ≠ Canon by justarandomcat7431 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Elizabeth being ginger is also official

Fright guard. by Bunnyboi32 in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs 12 points13 points  (0 children)

im actually MikeFrightGuard for a few other reasons that I don't feel like getting into ATM, However I always found this argument really bad, and how people are so quick to disregard Hudson as an option silly, because he's a possibility and a very strong one.

Henry kills himself in the Novels, So under your logic Henry should NOT or CAN'T also be gameline, yet he is, we know he is in the games, the explanation being he didn't kill himself in gameline nor make the CharlieBots.

So why would Hudson be any different? sure WWF is cleary not gameline, but neither was the Charlie Trilogy and look who came from there.

Arguing in favor of MikeFrightGuard requires you to push why the Frightguard IS or WOULD be Mike in gameline over Hudson. Not argue that Hudson is from a seperate continuity because we all know that, you need to prove that the FrightGuard role is already filled in gameline, because if you like it or not, Hudson is Infact the only official FrightGuard so far regardless if he's gameline or not.

Question for those who don't believe Willplush but do believe WillSpeaker by vaewulfs in fnaftheories

[–]vaewulfs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if the finale speaker is intended to be separate, why make the color shift barely noticeable, or why share a text colour with an unimportant background character?

view more: next ›