So I’ve been thinking in fanfares so when Circus baby talks she talks and acts like she is circus baby come to life. Despite her being possessed by Elizabeth Afton this could be because Scott didn’t want us to find out her true identity right away. A canon reason is that she can shift between her voice and speaking through Baby’s voice box as evident by the private room level. Also we’ve seen the souls presumably talk using the animatronics voice boxes. Or maybe something else? My theory is that the remnant instead influences the robots coding to make them smarter more thus giving them independence and life. Ever wonder why the toy and original animatronics can only move at night when the scrap animatronics can move during the day at the pizza restaurant in fnaf 6 I smell inconsistency. Well what if the original robots and toys are just the characters AI going from coding to an actual mind. It would explain why at night Chica retains her love for pizza because in doubt a revenge seeking soul would care about food. But however the animatronics coding still restricts movement during the day. But why do they attack the night guard well phone guy well technically SCOTT the creator of the games gives us the answer. He states “if he was forced to sing those stupid song for twenty years and I never got a bath I’d be pretty mad”to. The robots want revenge on their creators the workers of Fazbear entertainment thus why they attack their workers only they are responsible for all their suffering being enslaved. Thus why they attacked the night guards and technicians. Also scrap baby calls Afton daddy becuase that’s her creator and was the only one who cared about her. Or she is just Elizabeth Afton possessing baby which she is. But hey that’s just a theory.
Hey, so I'm doing FNaF World runs to get all the endings, and while reading through the guides here I found something that might support your theory that BV is the one in the Happiest Day minigame aka Cassidy. I know I have disagreed with you on this but I think I changed my mind after reading this. O_O
To get the Clock Ending in FW you need to perform certain minigames that allude to the secret minigames that you did get the Happiest Day in FNaF 3. Also note that to be able to begin them you need to wait until Fredbear turns into the pixelated Fredbear plush similar to the one in FNaF 4. After you get all the clocks and go to the last place to get the ending you get a cutscene that repeats what the Fredbear plush said at the end of FNaF 4. You then earn a Crying Child trophy. Yes, not a BV trophy, a Crying Child trophy, the child from the happiest day. This I think is the biggest evidence that connects BV and Cassidy, and I'm shook. You should go read the "Endings (FW)" page in this wiki and scroll to the Clock Ending.
I admit defeat to you, my friend. You were probably right.
Yeah, I was aware of this. I'm surprised I didn't mention it.
I really want to believe that Cassidy is the little girl with black hair but there's just no other explanation for a whole game about what happens after BV's death featuring the Happiest Day minigames.
Unless the Logbook was trying to change BV from Fredbear to Michael and just did the worst fucking job.
Yeah. Like I said before, the novels being in a separate universe leaves enough space for the gender of the characters to be switched for the games. Also the logbook girl might not be Cassidy very easily.
I can't wrap my mind around that either. The logbook does seems to say that BV is Michael, but I don't know how can Michael be while Cassidy is also in the picture. Were they both somehow BV? Was that a retcon? This is a mess.
The whole Logbook is a mess. Yes, the wordsearch says "ITSME," but it also says stuff like "WHATISYOURNAME," and multiple times throughout the book, Mike's real name is put into question. So, are we Cassidy?
I was thinking about that. I was brainstorming about whether Mike was called Cassidy before the Bite or if Cassidy was abducted by William who raised him as Mike. Both of which I think need Mikebot to be a thing, which I'm fine with since robot people are an ongoing theme in TFC and ITP.
People were once talking about Michael's voice in SL sounding robotic. Scott then went on and said that that was a side effect and not intentional. That might have been an indirect rebuttal of Mikebot, so I have no clue of what is true.
Hey, here's an interesting thought I have no other outlet for: We know FNaF 3 is thirty years after something, but we don't know what. What if it's the MCI? What if it's thirty years after 1985, i.e. 2015, i.e. the year FNaF 3 was released? That'd be creepy, and give an indication that maybe 1985 has been the intended year for a while.
We'll, I just checked and the official steam page of FNaF 3 reads as follows:
"Thirty years after Freddy Fazbear's Pizza closed it's doors, the events that took place there have become nothing more than a rumor and a childhood memory, but the owners of "Fazbear's Fright: The Horror Attraction" are determined to revive the legend and make the experience as authentic authentic as possible for patrons, going to great lengths to find anything that might have survived decades of neglect and ruin."
So it takes place after the closure of FNaF 1, which itself takes place 20 years probably after FFP was founded in 1983, so it takes place in 2003. So FNaF 3 probably takes place in 2033. Idk, I figured it out just now.
It was always strange to me that people consider minimum wage dates as an exact range of years, when in reality it's a maximum. FNaF 1 matches the rates from '91 to '96, but it could've easily been before that if the employees were just paid more.
Well I think we should follow what the game itself tells us. Phone guy says in FNaF 1 that the characters have been singing the same songs for 20 years. So if we follow minimum wage then that would mean FFP started in 1976, which we know it didn't because of the VR coins. So using the minimum wage laws in the real world and applying it to the game will result in us ignoring what Phone guy said. So yeah, 2003 is closer to the correct date.
I've never seen someone reverse-engineer it like that before. That's interesting. Unfortunately, minimum wage dates are the indicator for when the first two games happen, so we can't assume FE underpays their employees.
Ferret's solution is 1992 - 20 years = 1972, and I've yet to ask him about the HW coins.
My solution is that it's hyperbole. If it were 21 years, we can't assume Phone Guy would say 21 years, or 19 years, etc., so "20 years" is an unreliable metric, especially given everything we know now.
But that would mean 14 years before, which I doubt "20 years" can be used to refer to that amount due to the big discrepancy. I don't think the pay should be used as an indicator of the date of the games. We know FNaF 2 is in 1987 because it is given to us by Scott, not because of the minimum wage.
Also, there is such things as independent contractors, which are people which earn based on the services provided rather than hourly wages. So we can't be fixated on the idea of minimum wage laws.
I was busy watching a movie at the time you wrote that all out, and I'm admittedly disappointed i didn't get to throw in my two cents on his last comment. I'll just post it here in case you care.
BlackfootFerret wrote: And if William is in both the books, and the games, and both times is associated with Spring Bonnie.. what can we logically infer about Henry?
This has been my basic question ever since the Silver Eyes came out.
Both men run Freddy's in the novels. And two men also run Freddy's in the games.
In FNAF 4 we see Purple Guy fitting someone into Spring Bonnie. And there, in the foreground, the character that has gotten so much more air time than William ever did, even in FNAF 2, is Henry, in his Fredbear suit.
Henry has the square robot head. And William has the round one. Both of which fit into their respective Fredbear and Spring Bonnie heads.
The Silver Eyes showed Henry abducting Michael, while William freaked out the animatronics in his technician outfit.
And Henry is twice (three times now? checking my notes) associated with the color Pink in the novels. While "Dave" William is clearly the FNAF 2 Save Them sprite.
Who can The Pink Possibly be, other than Henry?
It's been years. And still nobody has given me a satisfactory answer to this question.
Especially not MatPat.
1. So what? Let's for the sake of argument assume that Henry wearing Fredbear when he used to perfom in the novels both transfers into a psychopathic obsession with the suit like William with Spring Bonnie (which there's no evidence of) and that the obsession also transfers over to the games. What does that prove? That doesn't prove William isn't a murderer. That doesn't prove Henry is a murderer. That doesn't prove that Springlock Suits are made to be horcruxes. That doesn't prove any of your Afton Family tree. It literally proves nothing.
But returning to reality for a second, Henry has nowhere near the strong obsession for Fredbear as William has for Spring Bonnie. He wears it to perform, but that's about all we hear of it. We only ever see Henry wear it once in a photo, and we have no mention of Henry wearing in in the subsequent 2 novels, whereas William and Spring Bonnie are shown to still be closely tied together in both of those novels. William becomes Springtrap in TTO, and in TFC William uses Spring Bonnie as his decoy when Jessica intially arrives to his bedside, and who is later represented by the MCI kids as Spring Bonnie.
We also have proof of this obsession of William's carrying over to the games as well. He becomes Springtrap in the games, and even after the fire tries to rebuild himself as Scraptrap. He uses Spring Bonnie to commit the MCI, as shown to us in FFPS and hinted at in HW, and speaking of HW, William's avatar in that game is Glitchtrap, a handsewn version of Spring Bonnie. With Henry in the games, we literally have no connection between him and Fredbear. No images of them together, no dialogue, nothing. Yes, the person who wears a Fredbear Suit in FNAF 4 has grey eyes, but that does not make him Henry, nor does wearing that suit imply he's obsessed to the same degree as William. So no, Henry isn't assciated with Fredbear, or at least certainly not to the degree William is with Spring Bonnie. If anything, Henry is more associated with the Puppet in the games as he created it specifically to protect his daughter when he couldn't, and then the Puppet ends up containing the soul of his daughter.
2. Yeah two men ran FFP in the novels, and likely in the games as well. So what? That doesn't vindicate your theory, and you certainly aren;t the only person who thinks that nowadays. Even back in 2015/2016 you weren't the only person who thought this, especially after TSE.
3. How do you know that is Henry? Is it just the grey eyes because Henry is described as having "dark eyes"? Because that's pretty poor evidence. In a set of minigames where you have children with black and actually dark coloured eyes, and even in a game franchise where you claim Henry was represented with a black eyed sprite, you think that this white and grey eyed person is Henry. Do you have any other reasons than this? Also, just throwing this out there, Henry probably has brown eyes because Charlie's official artwork from The Freddy Files shows her with brown eyes, so that's another mismatch between Henry's eyes and this Fredbear guy.
4. Uh, assumptions much. First off (assuming you mean the robot heads in the FNAF 4 minigames) how did you decide which is who's? that seems pretty arbitrary to me. Second, how did you come to that conclusion about their shapes. One looks like a blocky skull and the other looks like a slightly Y-Shaped or T-Shaped head. Nether screams round or especially square to me. Third, how do you know those fit in the heads of Fredbear and Spring Bonnie? How did you figure that out, or are you just assuming it? And how did you decide which fits in which? Fourth off, so what? Even if I grant you all of this, what does this prove? It arguably proves that Henry is more associated with Fredbear than I let on, but as I said, that doesn't prove anything either. None of this goes to prove any of the big points of your theory that all of us have been arguing.
5. Uh, no. TSE showed William using Fredbear, you can tell as the eyes were described as the same way William's are throughout the novel, to lure away Michael and some rando coming out to observe the animatronics acting haywire because a child was taken in front of them. You forget, William is rather distinctive and well known in the community, so it is likely that John would have at least described the technician in the same way as William if there was a connection. Instead the connection is made between William and the murderer through those eyes. What's more, William really wasn't a technician for FFP in the novels. He was the buisness side of FFP, and one of the co-owners. He's have better things to do then come out and observe the animatroinics. Yes, William did make his own robots and tinker with some of Henry's tech, but he seemed to not take on that technician or engineer role while working at FFP. Not to mention TSE literally flat out says William is guilty. Clay Burke discusses how the whole police force knew William was guilty, and how William alwasy mysteriously disappeared whenever a kid was lured away. That literally contradicts what you say about Michael's abduction. If William was that technician, then how would he have "been present for each abduction, and he had mysteriously and breifly vanished at the same time as each child went missing" (TSE pg 351 for reference). It doesn't make sense. So either the police force in universe is lying about all this in an attempt to frame William, and in our universe Scott and Kira completely lied to us while writing this, or you're flat out wring about the nature of Michael's abduction.
Also if you wish to include it, the official graphic novel for TSE shows us what that technican looks like, and he doesn't resemble William Afton at all, so it's very clear that William is not that technician, and it is heavily implied that he took that kid. Not to mention the eyes on Fredbear are the exact same grey dead eyes as William's.
6. No. First off, I'd like to see that third time to check the validity of that, but if its anything like the first two it won't prove anything. So let's dive into that. The first quote comes from page 48 of TSE. "In one corner [of Henry's office] was a smaller filing cabinet, painted a salmon color that Charlie had always insisted was pink." This quote in no way supports Henry being the Pink Guy. This quote first off says that Charlie swore a colour that wasn't pink was pink, so if anything it establishes something being misidentified as pink (oh the irony). More importantly, this isn't even directly tied to Henry asside form taking place in his office. This filing cabinet was Charlie's, the book points this out, so shouldn't this moreso show Charlie is associated with Pink as opposed to Henry? The second of these quotes comes from page 253 of TSE. "The head was tucked under his arm, staring sightlessly into the camera, but Charlie's father was smiling, his face pink and sweaty as if he had been in the costume for a long time." This quote, while perhaps being better than the last, also doesn't support Henry being the Pink Guy. Why? Well for the reason it mentions in the quote itself. It was as if Henry worse the costume for a long time. Human faces turn pink and/or red when wearing thick, heavy, hot masks for long periods of time. That's because our body's send more blood to the top layers of skin in order to better release the heat we're building up from being trapped in that costume. I know for a fact this happened to me when I built and wore my Springtrap costume for Halloween one year. My face was "pink and sweaty" when I took off my mask. Does that make me the Pink Guy now?
Funnily enough, you don't actually have a reference to Henry being Pink outside of TSe, but if this was such an important detail, you'd think that it would have been mentioned at least once in any of the following two novels.
7. The "Pink Guy" is William. You haven't provided any good reasons as to why the Pink Guy is his own charcter and why that sprite can't be William. Let's go over why this "Pink Guy" sprite is most likely William. You have the most obvious detail, comparissons from the books. William abducted and killed Charlie in the novels, the first kill in their timeline. In the games, the parallel event is the TCTTC killing. The victim is the same, the location could very well be the same, the placement in the timeline is the same, and it is likely therfore that the killer is the same.
Expanding off of this, in FFPS, Henry strongly implies, in fact basically flat out says, that William Afton was the person who killed Charlotte, and he certainly makes no implications that he killed her, only that he couldn't save her then despite all his robotics and tech designed to keep her safe, and do he wants to save her now by freeing her soul and letting her pass on.
Next, you have The Freddy Files' "Afformentioned Purple Guy" line. This very much implies that not only is "Purple Guy" the correct designation of the "Pink Guy" sprite, but that it also is the same person as the Purple Guy in SAVE THEM, who even you say is William Afton.
Then there's Scott confirming Matpat's FNAF 2 theory was mostly correct, with the implication of what he got wrong being Phone Guy is Purple Guy (which is coincidentally the only part of that theory that's been outright contradicted since it came out). A big part of Matpat's timeline is only having one killer, who commited both the TCTTC murder, the MCI, and the SAVE THEM murders, and all of them are commited by the Purple Guy, Phone Guy. Just kidding, William Afton.
You also have Scott commetning on PinkyPills depiction of TCTTC about how this rendition of Purple Guy creeped him out. Now take this how you will, but keep in mind that Scott and Pinky now work together, in fact I believe she's the illustrator of TSE graphic novel.
Plus you have other pieces of evidence I won't even get into here, but I'm certain others have pointed out to you. Plus the fact that your view now just overcomplicates FNAf by adding a third Purple Guy into the mix. Two is bad enough already, we don't need a third, and there is no indication there is a third.
8. Oh boy. You just can;t help but throw more shade at Matpat. Look, I get why you don't like him. He's arrogant. He's self righteous. He has his head so far up his own ass he doesn't listen to what the larger community has to say. I find myself disagreeing with more of his theories in recent years then agreeing with them. But he also is the only one of us to date to have at least large parts of his theories regarded as true, twice. So with all do respect, just quit it with the Matpat hate boner you have going on. Just let whatever beef you have with him go. Or do I need to edit a DBZA clip to mention you and the Matpat button instead of Vegeta and the Goku button.
For context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Wfx034wl0
I dunno, I thought your reaction might be interesting since you wanted CC to have a bigger role post FNaF 4, which is also the same reason I concocted this in the first place: After all, he is one of the Aftons. So this is just something I came up with a while ago, and I’m curious if you would like it or not.
So Lucas is my headcanon name for him; in my story, Lucas is the brightest of the Afton kids, surpassing both Michael and Elizabeth academically (though to be fair the latter died as a kid). Between the three of them, Lucas is the genius that inherited all of William’s intelligence. He’s also a total geek that likes Star Wars and Marvel. And a straight-A student, aside from PE. You get the idea.
Lucas also had a close relationship with his mother, Beverly; just like how Elizabeth was a daddy’s girl, Lucas was a mama's boy.
His story is also closely tied with Susie’s family, of all characters. Unfortunately, he also had issues with sleepwalking, and he eventually sleepwalked outside of the house one night. This is where it all went downhill for him; Beverly noticed that Lucas was gone, so she called the police, and drove out to find him. That same night, Susie’s mother, Amanda was driving home after a visit to the vet for her daughter’s dog. Beverly and Amanda got into a car accident, resulting in the former’s death. This happened right behind Lucas, which woke him up, allowing him to see his dead mother’s corpse in the wreck.
Of course, both William and Michael blamed Lucas for Beverly’s death, though Michael hid it until after Elizabeth died. Elizabeth was the only one who didn’t blame her brother for their mom’s death, and after the Bite of ‘83, she was the one who tried to revive Lucas when he flatlined, attempting to “put him back together”. The idea was that Elizabeth was in the middle of transitioning Lucas’s spirit, but the hospital’s staff actually managed to revive him, interrupting Elizabeth’s revival attempt and actually splitting Lucas’s soul in two; one half remained in Lucas’s human body while the other was a disembodied spirit that became Shadow Freddy.
A few years later, Michael moved out and got his own place, leaving Lucas alone with William. Afterwards, Lucas spent the majority of his teen years in the FNaF 4 gameplay areas; William places him there and performed experiments on him in an effort to break him and turn him into one of his successors alongside Elizabeth, using Beverly’s death to manipulate him. Lucas had already blamed himself for his mother’s death, but what his father did to him resulted in him experiencing psychotic depression, hearing Beverly’s voice cursing him for her death.
He would also go on to create the Twisted Animatronics to assist his father’s murders, and eventually, he’d build an android vessel for Elizabeth, essentially freeing her from being trapped in CBE&R as Circus Baby. Lucas became someone who was utterly consumed by hatred and grief, but believe it or not Michael wasn’t who he hated the most. In fact, while Lucas did despise Michael for a long time, he did eventually forgive him for what happened, and even while he held a grudge, Lucas’s older brother still had a place in his heart. As for why Lucas never revolted against William, it was because he knew Elizabeth still loved him, and Lucas cared about his sister’s happiness, so he never made any attempts on his life. His only reason for living and going along with William’s immortality scheme is his siblings; he cares about Michael and Elizabeth and wants them to be able to live forever.
But it doesn’t end there. While Lucas might’ve buried the hatchet for Michael, he never let go of his hatred for Amanda and her family. Lucas blamed Amanda for the car accident that killed his mom and ultimately caused him to suffer a brain injury and a miserable childhood under his father’s care. Amanda Hartmann had three kids; Cody, Violet, and Susie. Cody was actually one of Lucas’s bullies, specifically the one who wore the Chica mask; in a similar vein to Michael, Cody picked on Lucas because he was upset by Susie’s murder. So, Lucas may not hate his brother, but he hates the Hartmann family because Amanda unintentionally set off the chain of events that caused his horrible upbringing. Lucas wanted revenge on Amanda, and he did this by terrorizing her kids with a new device that he invented called the Virtual Domain; it was basically his own little simulated world that he could manipulate himself and transfer souls into, controlling their environment.
TL;DR: Lucas is the Crying Child if he survived the Bite and became evil like William and Elizabeth.
I dunno. This is the general plot for my fanfic. Do you think it would be a satisfying arc for CC or not? You can be honest.