I don't think the Crying child should have a justification for being scared of the animatronics, the entire concept of FNAF is capitalizing on how many children were scared of Chucky cheese animatronics, just like how some were scared of clowns or dolls, the fear is not really a result of a true traumatic experience (most of the time) Also Henry has no reason to believe the death of the Crying Child was somehow what made William a murderer, since it was an accident and I'm sure William wouldn't be stupid enough to try to justify himself in front of Henry.
Crying child doesn’t need a reason to be afraid. If people really want a reason it is given in fnaf 4. He sees someone helping an employee into a suit. Then he proceeds to misunderstand what’s happening and becomes afraid of the animatronics.
@@Mediocre_Comments Thinking about it actually, disregarding Dream Theory and thinking about the springlocks, it would actually be slightly scary to see an adult be put and a suit with metal still inside (even if compressed and not hurting them).
Not just Chuck E Cheese's animatronics but also their predessor, ShowBiz Pizza and also Scott's failed game characters that looked too much like those before mentioned animatronics. I am wondering where Elizabeth is during the whole FNAF 4 game.
another much more obvious problem with the theory that elizabeth died before CC: its literally beat over our heads in Babys dialogue how many children were in the room. Elizabeth was the ONLY child in the room. She says it like 100 times.
Another thing is that Elizabeth was probably no even born yet by FNaF 4, as shown in Mangle's teaser for Special Delivery. It reveals that the pink "bed" in the room with the mangle toy was actually a crib, so she never shows up in 4 because the room was built in anticipation for her birth. As for why the Mangle toy is... well... mangled... Mike probably just liked breaking toys, since the foxy plushie is also destroyed.
@@rainbowzzzplayzzz Afton also had to know about Remnant when making the Funtimes. He could've only learned from his killings, the earliest of which took place months after the Bite of '83.
@@THtdh Not only would this possibly explain the Mangle toy in her bedroom but also that one picture frame on the wall that is far smaller than the rest. The frame is in the FNAF 4 house by the Grandfather Clock.
Also, I'm just noticing (probably because of the comment regarding Elizabeth not being born yet) that Elizabeth, to my knowledge, has *never* mentioned Crying Child at all throughout her appearances. When we see her in SL, she looks roughly around C.C.'s age. You'd think the two could be close because of that. Also, with how outspoken and curious she's characterized to be, you'd think she'd absolutely bring up her missing brother at least once (even if it is to emotionally affect Michael (whom she thinks is William) like using Elizabeth's voice during the Private Room).
You want CC to die first because it builds a better narrative, I want CC to be the first because I want William doing a drunk driving hit and run on an unsuspecting child canon, we are not the same.
I'm in the camp of "security puppet isn't in response to any specific event." The books have had multiple stories with the theme of parents being too busy and putting their children in the care of animatronics where they then die. It is SUCH a clear parallel to Henry and Charlie, and has been done at least twice I can think of off the top of my head. From there, I think narratively you could take it as Charlie is either first or second. Crying child first gives William an extra layer of resentment towards Henry, but Charlie first and then crying child could give an extra push to William experimenting with remnant- he knows that it's possible because of the puppet, and then when it's his son he tries to do it intentionally.
What if Charlie's death happens while the CC is in the hospital? I don't think we know how long CC is in there before they die. The CC gets bit, William gets angry, while CC is in the hospital William kills Charlie and sometime after Charlie possesses the puppet and William sees that there might be something beyond, his son dies.
I think William seeing the puppet would be important enough to get a hint of in the games. We don't get that ever, though. We only get a purple guy going back to the fnaf 1 location and dismantling the animatronics for some reason, right before he gets springlocked. Fnaf 5's bunker and CBPW do not fit into the timeline in any logical way unless major strides are taken to ignore what fnaf 1-4 were about.
@@kingofflames738 The first half makes total sense to me. I don't think that William is ever confirmed to be present to see the puppet. In fact, there's actually almost 0 evidence to suggest the CEO(s) of Fazbear Entertainment ever set foot in any of the locations outside of Fredbears. Why would William suspect the puppet is haunted unless he found the body and the puppet together? Ultimately I think if that is what really happened, we would've gotten some kind of implication or hint to guide us in that direction, but we never get anything of the sort in the first 3 games.
I always assumed Bite Victim was the 1st and Charlie was murdered by William because Fredbear was made by Henry, that's just what made the most sense to me, in William's psychotic mind he just assumed it was Henry's fault and did a bit of stabbing, realized the stabbing made something cool happen to the sock puppet, and then did more stabbing
I could see William not just assuming it’s somehow Henry’s fault, but actively blaming him _because_ it was Fredbear. Bonnie was also on the stage then, presumably in animatronic mode, and I’d bet a lot that had it been Bonnie that had been able to/done the bite/ending of CC that Afton would have reacted differently. If you look at it as two different kinds of skilled engineers (and not walling off William-pun not intended-to being the “business guy”) who both went into business and used their _personal_ mascots/characters/and, let’s be blunt, fursonas, had Golden Bonnie been the one to take out CC, William would have behave differently. Especially if we contextualize him as someone who _wasn’t_ fully just a psycho. If William was able to love his family-even if he probably felt like he failed with FoxyBro-which it’s heavily implied he _actually did_ love his family, then he’s not out doing random acts. CC got deleted at the “hands” of his “old friend’s” suit/personal Character and if they were already on rocky ground for a differing vision of the robots and the franchise, William snapping into psychopathy when CC passed, and him wanting to inflict the same kind of agony (hmmmmm) on Henry, goes from making sense, to also explaining why once he saw both the Puppet and Fredbear behaving as possessed/not just robots, he hyperfixated on the experimentation to rescue/bring the soul of his youngest son back in some form. And was consumed by desperation and obsession. Which is making me want to go re-read _The Heart of Darkness_ because, as I’m typing, I can’t help but think of Spec Ops: The Line. If it had been Bonnie who had crunched CC, and William snapped in a different way, I could see him, since he valued/values CC and Elizabeth more than FoxyBro (imo), when they’re both gone, had he lost both to his creations (Golden Bonnie and Baby) he’d probably taken a long walk off a short pier. It’s William’s obsession turned madness with, if nothing else, after Elizabeth, the loss of _both_ kids he loved more, that drove him to not remotely caring who else he hurt as long as he got his way to try and free CC from Fredbear, and give him back a life. Though it would be more… poetic justification had William gotten springlocked basically immediately after Elizabeth possessing Baby (iirc he did not). Before CC and Elizabeth, _everything_ was finally going as right as it could. Sure there were tensions at home, and he and Henry disagreed on some things business wise, but his life was stable-ish. (Especially if his wife was still around, which doesn’t answer the “girl’s bedroom” problem in FNAF4.) And having it all snapped away from him, literally, and his rage outpouring into the first MCI leading to that same rage still being there to keep him alive after he got springlocked, because all of it was basically over a matter of months and not years, would make perfect sense. William caring at all about CC and Elizabeth shows he’s not just a psycho who kept doing some stabbing. He basically went off the track and stayed there due to everything else falling apart after CC was gone. And in my personal head canon, William felt it needed to be one-to-one in terms of why his targets were _children_ even if you ignore that kids are easier to trick, lure, and overpower than a full grown adult. Like he got it in his head he could only “rebuild” or rescue CC from Fredbear if it was done with the soul-energy/remnant that was from other children. Which in and of itself, is not a decision based on any proof and would speak to how far over the edge his grief, madness, and obsession drove him.
Pretty much agree with all of these points, especially the interpretation of Mike as the Midnight Motorist runaway. Honestly I feel like the setup Matpat used in his newest timeline for these events makes the most sense to me. I will say in regards to text color, I strongly feel the fruity maze segment was Scott trying to debunk this stuff. You see, clearly all William speaking, in both yellow and blue. Fazbear Frights actually canonized this in a weird way as "how Susie sees dialog" but I honestly believe the original intention here was just Scott saying "Guys, ignore the text color, it's not important." Will say, good catch on the Sister Location thing. I don't think I've ever seen that text before but it sort of supports my thinking - which is that Sister Location is meant to happen after Fnaf 1, as supported by both the Forth Closet placement and now the upcoming movie having Abby (who is at a minimum an Elizabeth parallel) still alive.
>as supported by both the Forth Closet placement and now the upcoming movie having Abby (who is at a minimum an Elizabeth parallel) still alive. I DO have a problem with this, admittedly. The problem being that she definitely has to be young, and it has to be a gap between Freddy locations opening/closing. The generally agreed upon date being 1986 or so. We also know she cant be THAT young either, because she's already graduated from a crib to a bed (typically between 1 and a half and 3 years old) by 1983. The problem being, of course, 1983-1993 is a whopping *10* year gap, and she certainly doesnt look like either an 11 or 13 year old (at the very minimum, potentially older) :V
@@higueraft571 Yes but she also needs to be old enough to be sassy and disobey daddy to see Baby. Also, most really little kids wouldn't be articulate enough to be her in the Sister Location cutscenes. Her being 11 makes the most sense honestly. 11 - 13 year olds will disobey and will argue with parents but still young enough that she is a kid to the animatronics.
Crying Child dying first does just seem to make more sense both from the available evidence and narrative wise. Otherwise the FNaF 4 minigames are pretty inconsequential. I think FNaF 4 existing to demonstrate the first tragedy experienced at Fazbear's is more compelling.
@@tilerandomdies first...from Baby...after a Freddy's location closed...a company that didn't even exist until after Fredbear's shut down...after the bite of 83...yeah no.
@@BlackScreenProductions125 this also removes the jealousy justification for William if you think about it. William would've managed to create these super advanced animatronics before 1983. How would he be jealous of Henry when he is just that good at robotics?
there’s a lot of reasons why crying child dying first makes a ton of sense, but the one question i have in response is the quote “don’t you remember what you saw? you know what will happen if he catches you” from psychic friend fredbear. if crying child dies first, this quote doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. does someone have a reason for this to make sensev
Oh god, that man_sitting thing... that's amazing. And it makes me wonder how many "it's in the files, so shut up" thought-terminators have just been accepted because people were (quite reasonably) not bothered about checking. I think one of the most useful insights that you provide is to look at this issue from a viewpoint of what would make sense as a story that someone would be trying to tell. That aspect can get a bit lost, I think. Like, if the order is "CC, then Charlie, then the others", there's a logical throughline there. The accidental death of the CC serves as an inciting incident, William takes out his rage and grief on Charlie opportunistically, and later events show him becoming a much more deliberately and methodical killer. If the order is "Charlie, then CC, then the others", Afton is a murderer whose kids happened to also die. That's less of a problem with Elizabeth, because she does die as a result of Afton being a murderer. But the CC's death has so little effect on events that it could've been a footnote... but instead it's the subject of a whole game. I guess someone could argue that CC's death is there to explain the origin of Mike. But Mike is barely even a character at that point in the games. Nothing really points to him being the protagonist of the previous games (or to them all being the same person) at that point in the games, so it's sort of pointless. Still, the fact that we see CC's death in detail, in a game where upwards of a dozen children die in total, should be effective proof that it's a really important one. But what makes it important, if it's just the next murder committed by a murderer? I don't think it'd be wrong to say that, if CC's death isn't an inciting incident for William... it actually makes it pointless for CC to be William's kid at all. Like, CC could just as easily be someone else's kid, and the impact on the story would be the same. William's already a murderer before then, so... who cares? Sounds monstrous to say that about a child's death, but it's true. If Charlie's death is the first, it honestly makes it more logical that CC would be Henry's child rather than William's; and that Mike is Henry's child too. I mean, why not?
Just to further add to this, a lot of the secrets in FNaF SL were made to confirm William's familial relations, particularly with CC and newly established Michael Afton. So it isn't just tied down to FNaF 4, so the significance is enough for CC's death to have an entire game surrounding it, and further lore about them being made during the series.
@@LimboTheWatcher Also, something that confirms Michael is the runaway kid and that the bite victim died first is the fact that the route that Afton takes to get home from Jr's matches the route that the bite victim takes to get to Fredbear's in the FNaF 4 minigames
Way to say nothing in so many words. He already addressed these arguments in the video, that the narrative significance of events comes down to personal preference. But when looking at canonicity over convenience in one's headcanon, it's undeniable that CC has seen something to make him afraid of the springlock suits. Therefore it's most pragmatic if we open our minds to the possibility of other events taking place before CC's death, when personal opinion is the only thing locking CC death first in place.
@@umargul6048 "Why was toy Chica missing her beak?" Not important details. Crying child's crying is literally what causes his death and gets that Freddy's location shut down. That's a detail much harder to gloss over.
Abel and maybe even lillith if you are part of the groups with the belief that Adam had a wife, lillith, before eve and if being cast to hell for disobedience is considered dying
In my opinion, the reason of cc having fear of animatronics: or he has just a normal fear with the uncanny valley from the empty eyes in the animatronics, or its because mike and his friends using masks from the characters that he like make this fear happen, or its because of the stories from pigtail girl, but who knows
Great video! I also personally think that the Bite Victim/CC died first because from a narrative stand point that flows better than Charlie dying first. At least to me, it makes sense. And I agree, I feel like William was a bit of an already unhinged individual and it was the death of CC that made him go over the edge and then kill Charlie, and from there it all unraveled. I also say William was already a bit murderous because he IS a businessman and CEO afterall. In the FNAF universe (and IRL lol) we do end up having plenty of examples of corporate individuals just being downright dastardly and not really caring about human life.
>we do end up having plenty of examples of corporate individuals just being downright dastardly and not really caring about human life. Not to mention, factoring in the idea that first murder made him aware of Remnant... We have yet MORE evidence of people killing and dying for the sake of Eternal Life. Chinese Emperors, Alchemists seeking the Philosopher's Stone, and Spanish Explorers/Invaders being VERY well known examples of that. Hell, these were simply vague ideas and claims without much solid proof. William Afton has *solid, concrete evidence* of this being real... And, after the MCI, not only real but reproduceable (even if he has to murder some people for it) So you've got an unstable man pushed over the edge, who strikes in the moment, discovers the Holy Grail, and from then on acts with much more purpose. Both to shit on Henry's Legacy, to tarnish it, and to pursue this goal. MAYBE to restore his family, or maybe for his own gains?
William was always a bad dude. Plus Crying Child first doesn't make any sense since William was watching C.C. in the bunker where he was experimenting with remnant.
@@__Soya__ >Plus Crying Child first doesn't make any sense since William was watching C.C. in the bunker where he was experimenting with remnant. The theory i subscribe to, the SL bunker was originally attached to Fredbear as a Storage/Workshop basement level, with an office where William (and Henry?) would monitor his kids, design, and build Animatronics (or at the very least repair the ones in use, such as Fredbear and Spring Bonnie). After it closed, he expanded the location and repurposed it for Circus Baby's Pizza World, and later Entertainment and Rental. That explains why there's a Springlock we have NEVER seen before (possibly) in the location, and why it'd be connected to his (two?) homes, and Fredbear's. And of course why William has a personal office there (Although, it could be because the location was owned by Afton Robotics as well too, for a while). You have cameras for monitoring the child he's pitting against his older brother, cameras in where Michael was tormented after CC's death, and maps for places such as Fredbear's, *which would not have both Springlock stage locations marked, and be in the same layout as seen in FNAF 4 if it was made AFTER the Springlock Failures/MCI.* (Not to mention the location closing) >William was always a bad dude. Initially wasnt *so* bad he managed to get laid, three times :V
I never thought of the stomach mouth referring to how the enployees put the suits on. Also, the placement of the mouth is right at the waist, exactly the level your pants would go. So perhaps he saw someone slipping on the torso of the outfit while that person already had the lower half on.
I agree with you and think Chica was the first re-animated by a third party (not by their own will). Meaning Charlie's ghost inhabited the puppet on it's own, but the others did not "organically" latch onto anything. I've wondered if the puppet's motive to "give gifts" was it sensing the spirits floating around aimlessly and by "grounding" or "anchoring" them to objects it somehow calmed down the vibe. In FNAF 2 we need to keep the puppet soothed via the music box. Were the floating spirits irritating the puppet and it put them in the characters to relieve it's own anxiousness? Details that can be tied back to the actual game mechanics I think are important, because Scott's storytelling-style is heavily embedded in the gameplay itself instead of the video games being broken up into un-related "gameplay" and "narrative" sections (which is why MM drives people nuts because we ARE the orange man, we're not sitting back as passive observers to be told ABOUT the orange man). He has repeatedly made us "play through" aspects that we could be directly told, but instead we're made to go through the motions; so does the game mechanics of the puppet tell us anything about how the puppet works as a haunted object?
Considering the mechanics of most of the animatronics are 'flash lights and shut doors before they get in', I don't think the mechanics are a good teller for the character's motivations. Hell, Fnaf 2 is so early on in the series that I assume that the puppet was originally added in for creepy factor. A possessed puppet with the soul of a child in it? Fits right in with the rest of the cast of Fnaf 2's spooky creeps. Music box that eeriely winds down until the puppet hunts you down to jumpscare you? probably just added in to create pressure on the player while they deal with the rest of fnaf 2's cast. It's really, really easy to overanalyze fnaf. I think the easiest answer is that fnaf 1-4 have lore that is inconsistent with the games 5+ on. Steelwool tried to hint at this with the start of Help Wanted, by eschewing the old games as attempts by Scott to obfuscate what actually happened. We'll never really know the real truth of the original games, because the real truth was dream theory (which was widely disliked, to such a degree that Scott himself retconned it with the 5th and 6th games)
I think with the security puppet Minigame it was invented to protect Charlie from William to make sure she would be in Henry’s sight in some fashion to keep her safe, I say this because the security puppet is programmed to protect a child with a Green Wristband and the only child that wears one in the Minigame is Charlie, it creates an interesting thought about Henry that he probably wouldn’t care as much if another child dies as long as it’s not Charlie, and considering his behavior in Pizza Sim I think it’s totally in character. think what’s interesting about what you said about being skeptical on the Crying child being the one who escaped due to how the character is presented beforehand, is that the exact same reasoning is why the samurai Freddy series doesn’t work as an analogy for Mike and CC’s relationship, Samurai Freddy swears that today is the day he finally stops the fox only for him to fail or get distracted along the way, CC isn’t that proactive, he’s usally just trying to have a normal day only for his brother to spook him a bit, and he doesn’t do anything about it.
Idk why idea of Afton being deranged even before the bite victim feels correct in the sense that it brings the series back to it's roots as a "sadistic POS that kills children." Instead of this 'sorta' sympathetic villan that became a mad scientist
I mean, even "sympathetic" mad scientist he was still unstable and a shitty person before he snapped, it just so happens his killing just nail the fucking JACKPOT of all Jackpots, concrete evidence of something an ungodly amount of people have died for from just pure faith :V
I'm really thinking it was Crying Child who died first because FNAF 4, FNAF 2 and, Adventure Fredbear's tagline being "Where it all started" in FNAF World seem to heavily imply that the events of series started in FNAF 4. Plus, as you mentioned, the Puppet has zero presence or mention in FNAF 4 (not counting the non-canonical Nightmarionne) despite being one of the most significant characters in the series (not only, at least partly, responsible for the MCI Kids possessing the OG Animatronics but personally creates Happiest Day (or, at least, is an instrumental part in its completion)). Plus, the Puppet's various appearances throughout the series. It's.....really weird that *everyone else* in the series up to FNAF 4 (the OGs, the Toys, the Shadows, Spring Bonnie/Springtrap) makes a cameo appearance but The Puppet just.....doesn't.
I feel like CC dying first has to be correct because FNAF books keep hammering in the theme of "Scientist loses child which causes them to go insane" then do something morally wrong.
Also the "I will put you back together" line from William, seeing that the game that immediately follows it introduces remnant seems like... well it kind of seems like Scott trying to yell at you "William is trying to bring his son back". Isn't it kind of sus that remnant is introduced in the same game which tries to establish the "William Afton- Psychic Fredbear -I will put you back together" connection? It always seemed to me as a simple development of mystery. We had Whodunnit answered Howdunnit also kind of answered But we didn't answer the Whydunnit, which Sister Location attempts to do when Scott realized he cannot just cope out with a dream and has to actually treat it like a murder mystery. "Shit, now I have this character named William that is the killer but why? Why does William kill Charlie? Uh fuck... um, maybe revenge for his son dying? And maybe he's trying to bring him back through like paranormal ghost-science-magic? Sure that fits."
>seeing that the game that immediately follows it introduces remnant seems like... well it kind of seems like Scott trying to yell at you "William is trying to bring his son back". Isn't it kind of sus that remnant is introduced in the same game which tries to establish the "William Afton- Psychic Fredbear -I will put you back together" connection? Or, more simply, it tried to explain his motives as more than "he kills children xd", and provided something as his Goal, something we know Baby is (accidentally) a product of... We really dont even know IF William said "i will put you back together" at all. Hell, FNAF 4 implies the Puppet was the one speaking at that time. Not to mention of course, William never DID "put him back together" :V
@@higueraft571sorry for incredibly late response (life got in the way) but Michael says in Sister Location that William told him to put Elizabeth back together and also we see that the psychic friend Fred bear was just him talking through a walkie talkie. It was originally supposed to be the puppet but pretty sure that's retconed.
Another problem with BV seeing Elizabeth die is that Baby's child killing claw doesn't activate until there's only one person in the room meaning BV physically can't have been in the room at the time Baby killed Elizabeth.
5:14 Assuming we don't see her. A case can be made for Pigtails-Girl to be Elizabeth - similar hair color, same eye color, has toys of the animatronics like the broken Foxy toy in the girl's room. Circus Baby's hair is even reminiscent of her pigtails, if you follow the theory that CB was _literally_ designed with Elizabeth's likeness in mind. 12:00 An argument can be made for the Afton family having two houses. Both house layouts in FNaF 4 (minigame and main game) are shown as separate in Sister Location, and while the FNaF 4 minigame house is seen in a clearly residential area with a playground, the Midnight Motorist house is in the middle of a forest, like what we see in the FNaF 4 title screen. 12:55 Wow! What amazing insight! /j
Imo, a big factor that decides whether BV or Charlie dies first is the identity of the Fredbear Plush. Modern evidence strongly suggests it's William, mostly Fazbear Frights in "The Real Jake." Sister Location's safe room reinforcing the connection, and William being the one telling Michael to put Elizabeth "back together" like the plush says to BV. This also gives a reason as to how Afton began his spree; he was always a little demented, but his son dying was enough for him to kill Charlie in a drunken stupor, only to become obsessed with the feeling of ending a life. This would mean that there's no supernatural happenings that we can observe in the game, indicating that nobody's died yet. The alternative is that the doll is possessed by Charlie, meaning she's already been killed. The doll seemingly teleporting, being capable of being heard in the pizzeria when it isn't present, Glitchbear's whole thing, and the FNAF 4 Halloween teaser and FNAF 6 teaser where the Puppet is either visible/connected to a Freddy plush if you brighten the image to the point that the brown plush turns bright yellow. And while I personally believe this was the original intent by Scott (ESPECIALLY because of FNAF World), the evidence just doesn't hold up as much when compared to what we know now. While I personally prefer the Charlieplush narrative, I do believe BV dies first in the story because... idk, it makes more sense? The idea that the first death was an accident provides more impact and relevance to why BV's death was so important that it had to be the entire reason for FNAF 4's minigames to lead up to it, even if I also like the timeline where Afton was always killing kids for the hell of it and Charlie's puppet possession was ground zero for everything else happening. I can't believe I was an MCI83-er up until a few years ago, it's amusing to me to see how much that theory's eroded with time 💀
@@higueraft571I really think the Fredbear plush is a holdover from fnaf 4's Dream Theory. There's no reasonable explanation for what the fredbear plush means or represents.
@@ahealthkit2745 Yeah, it's definitely one of the more... odd aspects. Although Dream Theory doesnt even cover it. Supposedly the world we see him in IS the Real World, and everything else is the Dream, yet Fredbear does Weird Shit in the "real" world too...
I think Evan (crying child) had to have died first. It would have to be that way in order to justify the puppets existence in the first place. I don't think William started off as a psychopath interested in child murder and eternal life and killed charlie just because he could. He didn't know about remnant or any of that back then. So he has no point to slaughter kids yet. He also would have no reason to target Charlie unless he had a specific reason to get back at Henry. Fredbear is Henry's creation and crying child was bit by fredbear. The puppet was made to monitor the children, it wasnt there just to protect charlie. It was there to prevent another evan incident and to monitor them. Because they clearlt didnt have enough if kids were able to get that close to fredbear. The only reason it didn't protect Charlie was because it wasn't able to. The puppets existence must've taken place after the bite of 83. You don't even see any mention of a puppet or any sight of a puppet in the flashbacks with Evan do we? Because it doesn't exist yet! No plushies, toys or anything. The 2nd William makes the most sense and I think was Scott's original intention. I think the books and comics leaned into the first. Making him an evil psycho in the beginning. But I just see a father that was pushed to his breaking point and made a promise to his children to bring them back by any means necessary. And in the end becoming a monster.
I kind of like the idea of William as not a full-on psychopath but someone with those kinds of tendencies. Like, I kind of like the idea that he cared about his family even if he had some real fucked up ways of doing it, that losing his son broke him on some level, and that while he may have been more or less neutral towards violence against the innocent earlier in his life, that made him wanted to do it to make Henry pay for what happened. Something about him being relatively harmless (not out of virtue but lack of motivation) before becoming bitter due to a tragedy sort of expands the legend of the cursed past of the pizzeria chain, things sort of convene for it all to go sour.
i like the timeline of CC dies -> will kills charlie to "get back" at henry -> puppet comes back -> will kills more kids to try to bring back CC makes the most sense to me
Right, which is the reason I believe Charlie died first. I think that point specifically is inarguable when it comes to the death, Mike apologizing is damning evidence for that too.
The bit about CBPW being the location where the springlock failure happens actually doesn't make any sense, because we know that CBPW was shut down before it's grand opening due to gas leaks. So the spring lock failure MUST have happened at a different location. My best guess is Fredbears/Freddy's 0. In all honesty, the way the canon is treated before fnaf 5 and on is so different from fnaf 3 and before. Fnaf 1-3 seem to imply that there are other things going on behind the scenes. People tampering with animatronics, ghostly apparitions of animatronics that are too old to be present (golden freddy, shadow freddy & bonnie). We never hear anything about William Afton or Henry Emily until fnaf 4, 5 and 6. Before fnaf 4, I really think there could have been multiple killers, who aren't Afton.
I think its preety obvious that the crying child was first just based off a single statement that Scott made during fnaf for. In the halloween update he said that Nightmare Marionne is not cannon while Nightmare BB is which was a weird comment but implies that Puppet doesn't exist yet. It was probably made by Henry after seeing the crying child get killed to protect his own child
Also people say that the dirt lump in midnight motorist hints at Evan (bite victim) dying first which I believe makes more sense. Also I just feel like having William become deranged because of grief and trying everything to figure out possessions is more interesting then him being a psycho off the bat
Part of me wants to think perhaps (if we do use Book Dave as a reference) CC saw his father in a nonfatal springlock failure? Would also instill a fear - these 'monsters' can hurt people. I guess that'd come down to who tested the original springlock suits.
Possible but Scott saying that "what happens in shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child" doesn't fit with that does it? It was like just an employee putting the suit on after the animatronic walked by itself to the back room. Gives the impression the animatronic ate the guy.
The fact that the suits CAN eat the wearer, and apparently often enough there are warnings everywhere but apparently no OSHA oversight, tells me they are designed with disaster in mind. And not much good comes from workman's compensation.
My personal take on the "crying child is a inciting incident for William" is that throughout all of FNAF William really hasnt actually shown any care for his spawn but he has always shown himself to be arrogant and egotistical. In 4 he's at minimum neglectful of CC and either locked CC in the backroom himself or Mike somehow got the keys(implying they were either given to him my William or William was similarly neglectful of them) and using the plushie only really exacerbates the CC's fears rather than calming him down at all In SL in the very dialouge where his name is introduced to us, he's just as arrogant to the investors as he is as Scraptrap He just never has striked me as the sort of villain that a tragic backstory works with. I think the tragic parent readings ignore basically all of Willaim's dialouge throughout the whole series in favor of the one "i will put you back together" line that seems wildly out of character for him.
I don't think he's a good person in any regards, but I think him losing a kid could almost be a sort of Ego blow. Like tragedy is tragedy, and that doesn't reflect well on him since it was his neglect that caused it, so he wants to bring Henry down to his level because of a superiority complex, his business partner who outshines him has to also be a neglectful parent who loses a kid. IDK I'm just spit balling but there are several ways for William to still be awful and have the crying child be the impetus for his character.
To say he hasn't shown any care for his children is just wrong, he warns Elizabeth repeatedly not to go near baby and has a surveillance system to watch over his house while he's away. He's not father of the year but he has shown that he at least cares to some extent. He hasn't really ever shown himself to be arrogant or egotistical in the games, in SL he isn't being either of those things he's just talking about the features of baby. Most of Williams lines come from him as an undead animatronic which the whole tragic parent angle covers as by that point he's been fully warped into a crazed psycho killer. That line from FNAF 4 isn't out of character though as it's his kid and there's nothing in the games that goes against him acting like this that can't be reasonably explained.
@@johnman8398William only cared about Liz's safety as to how it would reflect on him. If his daughter went missing at his own restaurant, what would people think? When the Funtimes were moved to the Rental Service, William ordered them to be administered painful electric shocks. And he was fully aware that Elizabeth possessed Baby at the time. To show how William really felt about his kids, here's an interaction between him and Elizabeth in The Fourth Closet. Elizabeth: Am I not good enough for you? William: No. You're not. Does that sound like a father who "loves" his children? William is also somewhat egotistical. It's more subtle compared to other villains, but he had an inferiority complex towards Henry, and in the novels, he always boasted about how he was "better" than Henry. Oh and here's basically how he treats the other 2: "Michael, I'm sending you down into a bunker full of my murder-bots to "save your sister" because I'm too much of a selfish coward to go myself and to make sure you go I will guilt trip you about you killing your brother even though it's also my fault for forcing him to have the party there." Crying Child: "I know you're scared of my robots and Michael's being a dick, but instead of helping you, I'll make you fight off monstrous versions of my robots and then gaslight you with a walkie-talkie inside your stuffed bear as I can't be bothered to be there for you. Also I'm going to be spying on you with cameras I set up all over town from my underground lab, where I'm building murder-bots from the future. Yes, you're going to have your birthday party at Fredbear's, I ain't changing my mind. What, you're scared? I don't give a fuck."
@@siresquawks always liked to think he thought of him as more of trophies and prized objects than actual people as since William clearly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder and probably straight up ASPD along with Bunnycall as a possible parrael to the Afton's he might have pleasured the time he spent with his kids but he doesn't love them as people just extensions of himself as that's how Narcissists view their children. (Pleasure and love are not the same) I still like BVfirst in this regards as him losing his Golden Child sent him down a spiral into further down his insanity and rage eventually deciding to torture Michael in his dreams (Probably because if he killed him he would have been caught but given "He will be sorry when he gets back he most definitely physically abused Michael after or even before the bite) and his jealousy and resentment towards Henry ending up in the murder of Charlie but I absolutely agree with the idea he was a terrible father and horrible person even before the BV dies. Hell, although I disagree with the idea William was purposely telling Michael to bully his brother if we are to believe Willplush and it's implications then it absolutely matches how Narcissistic parents fuel infighting in their children like Fredbear's line "He hates you" and how William allows the bullying to happen showing he's taking advantage of Mike's bullying in order to push the bite victim further into his influence. As for Elizabeth he probably saw her as BV 2.0 a replacement until the BV is "Put back together" then she'll most likely go back to being the lost child again. A main argument Willcarers will use to justify William caring is that he told Liz to not go towards Baby but a bigger piece of proof is that he shut down and ultimately fucked up his whole operation after she died. If he truly didn't care then why not continue with Circus baby's? He must have been atleast so shocked to his core that he shut it down. TL;DR: You can still have William start killing after the BV dies and have him be a complete sadistic asshole
To me at least, it'd make sense if couch potato was Henry. If the minigame is supposed to happen right after charlie's death. If Henry was at the restaurant, even if he wasn't supervising his daughter 24/7, he could have, at least, made sure that she is able to enter the building. This can work as either Wiliam luring Henry out of the way to kill Charlie or, the idea I prefer, that William remembered that he'd return home to be greeted by Henry and that, in his drunk anger, motivated Charlie's murder. And since they worked together for a while, it's not hurt by couch potato's dialogue
Could be but that person in the couch was meant as a throw away character, I think. All inconsequential characters are bald and grey, just like the kids that locked Charlie outside. I think Scott didn't realize just how important that fans would make said character. ePrhaps the new Help Wanted 2 will clarify what's going on.
I personally believe that the couch person is Henry and the runaway kid was Micheal. From a storytelling and thematic standpoint like you’ve theorized in the past, it fits the characterizations of all parties involved. My only problem with this theory, is if this is truly taking place as it is set up in the code to be happening immediately after Charlie is murdered, why would Henry be leaving his young child presumably alone at the restaurant. Easiest assumption is oh Charlie’s other parent was present at the pizzeria; but how did they not notice their child was not inside/locked out. Other idea is Henry is comfortable leaving her at the facility because of security puppet but that is just such a huge leap in logic imo. Just take a broad view of this. Henry was presumably a close friend of the Afton family, given their relationship as business partners, referring to William as a old friend, and when directly speaking to baby; both used her original name and some semblance of familiarity when questioning he. It all sets up for the two families being very close, not hard to imagine the kids calling the others cousins and uncles etc. With this headcanon in mind, it would make sense for Henry to just bring Charlie over while he watched Micheal. Only caveat I could imagine is if William’s drunken anger was common place than I could see the idea of Henry leaving Charlie at home. But still, even for the 80s, to leave a >6 year old home alone without any older children is a very big stretch even for that decade. That’s my only issue with the idea of Henry being the person on the couch. In terms of storytelling, he is/should be the couch person.
I always headcanon'd that Henry was the Freddy sprite we see in the TCTTC minigame inside a springlock suit and the player slowing down is Henry getting worried about charlie because he doesn't know where she is.
I think you can still make the argument “why would Henry be leaving his youngest child presumably alone at the restaurant” because regardless of him being the couch potato, Henry just isn’t there in Security Puppet anyways lol
Honestly, how i interpret it: William is known for his Rages, as even Couch Guy/Henry already anticipated what's coming next, telling him to go easy tonight. Both because he's watching Michael while William's out and about, and because the Security Puppet (alongside the other Children and the Staff) SHOULD be able to ensure his daughter is safe at Fredbear's. Of course, we know she ISNT inside, nor safe (or alive), but he wouldnt.
11:30 it's not really a 180 as him following fredbear before being traumatized by seeing an animatronic and a corpse, plus no one understanding him makes a lot of sense then Michael decides not to use a door for some reason.
THANK YOU FOR CLEARING UP THE "LIZ DIED FIRST" BULLCRAP!!! I’ve never once thought that Elizabeth died first, because it makes literally no sense. One, it implies that William created murder robots for no reason. Two CBPW had to have opened AFTER 1983. And three, it’s pretty much already established in the game itself that CC misinterpreted the employees putting on suits as them getting eaten by said suits. It annoys me how I see "Liz first" almost everywhere now. So thanks for speaking about this. Anyway, I’ve always believed the Crying Child died first, but I never even realized how Midnight Motorist would solidify that! Now it’s even more clear. I don’t know how I didn’t put the pieces together since I already decided that Mike was most likely the runaway anyway. 😅
5:16 nah I think we see her, we see a young girl playing with her off model merchandise in the park in the middle of the minigame map and she looks alot like Elizabeth
I'm under CC first camp because I like to look at things from a narrative POV and Billy simply being insane is to boring and lame for me. CC dying first gives a clear motivation for his actions. I don't even care about evidence
CC dying first makes so much more sense from a writing standpoint. I highly highly doubt we'll ever get conformation, but Charlie dying first makes the story so much more boring. Man I wish this game actually had a proper narrative structure. It's completely gone past the "fun to figure out, confusing story" to just flat out terrible writing with impossible plot holes everywhere.
i always thought the idea of nightmare fredbear's stomach relating to elizabeth's death was a neat connection. but there's a major issue; circus baby is _programmed_ to _count kids_ and make sure there's no one around to witness her. to me that pretty much kills any chance of the two being related.
Also, I'm noticing (probably because of the comment regarding Elizabeth not being born yet) that Elizabeth, to my knowledge, has *never* mentioned Crying Child at all throughout her appearances. When we see her in SL, she looks roughly around C.C.'s age. You'd think the two could be close because of that. Also, with how outspoken and curious she's characterized to be, you'd think she'd absolutely bring up her missing brother at least once (even if it is to emotionally affect Michael like using Elizabeth's voice during the Private Room).
I want to say Evan Afton was the first to die. His death would have been the ignited fuse to send William down a destructive path, causing him to kill Charlie in a drunken fit of rage.
Thanks for bringing up how the FNAF 2 Phone Calls imply Fredbear's closed earlier than FNAF 0, it's a pretty important detail most theorists take for granted.
So currently watching the video, figured I’d leave this comment as I’m going through it just about a couple things - this bit is mainly about your comment regarding the person on the chair watching TV, really just about the tone of dialogue you mentioned, mainly focussing on if Mike is the person on the chair, why he may sound like he does. I think it’s important to remember the more ‘douchey’, energetic tones and dialogue are when he was with his friends and bullying his brother, and the more toned back and calm one is when he’s talking to his father, who we’re fairly certain he has at least an estranged relationship with. Which, if you also use his sister location speech, he is also very formal with his dialogue, using words like ‘Father’ instead of ‘Dad’ and not exactly using a lot of slang or shortened words, granted he did just die, but figured it’s worth a mention to say Michael may speak differently than he would write. Also something I was thinking about when you mentioned the back room and BV being locked in it, I think it’s entirely possible William may have locked him in there. We’re fairly certain William is Fredbear plush, but if you notice, the time BV is locked in the animatronic storage is one of the only times he doesn’t speak to BV. I could argue it’s just been taken off him by Mike, but we never see BV holding it in the first place in the sprite, so that’s really speculation, but I’m fairly confident Mike locked BV in his room as that’s what Fredbear plush implies at least. And small thing I noticed you say - saying BV only has hatred or fear towards the animatronics, however when William speaks to him in one of the minigames and says “He knows you hate it here.” Which was in regards to Fredbear Family diner. Ultimately, I do think you raise some good points, I think people do clutch onto one thing and use it to say ‘Oh Charlotte absolutely died first’ in regards to Henry’s speech, when that’s obviously pointing towards Williams physical actions and him having killed Charlie first out of all his murders. It doesn’t necessarily mean she died first. However, I do have to admit, I lean closer towards the Charlotte dying first side of things - and I will say, I don’t think we’ll ever get a concrete answer unless Scott literally just says, which I doubt will ever happen. But I think it’s also entirely possible that the thing BV misunderstood in the dark was the puppet trying to save Charlotte. If he was, and I do personally believe he is the runaway kid, then it’s entirely possible he was the first to stumble upon the puppet and Charlotte, seeing a murdered girl held in an animatronics arms, a ‘misunderstanding in the dark’ so to say, leading to his fear of animatronics. It could also support some of Williams Fredbear plush dialogue ‘Don’t you remember what you saw?’ ‘No! You know what will happen if he catches you!’ - Implying the BV knows something will happen if an animatronic catches him, well ‘knows’, it’s all a misunderstanding in the end lol. This could also answer why William is manipulating BV through the Fredbear plush, as BV saw Williams first murder basically, and he’s keeping tabs on him, trying to control him. If you couldn’t tell, I lean closer to your ‘Dave Miller’ William Afton proposal XD. But like I said, great video man, it’s good to get the discussion going, and apologies for the length of the comment.
Also also also, a detail here from Midnight motorist... Its implied that the Windows was broken from the Outside if you look at the Sprites... That does that mean? I dont know yet, but its a detail that would explain the Animatronic Foot
I think the main problem with assuming the couch person is Michael is that it would mean the person in the bedroom is the crying child, so why would Michael be protecting him when he also consistently bullies him. The dialogue doesn't match the characterization of young Michael that we see in fnaf 4
Theres no way Elizabeth dies first maybe second or third but William had a whole collection of child murdering robots atleast Charlotte died before her.
My interpretation was that William is a narcissistic fuck from the very start but NOT a sociopath. He is an awful human being with sociopathic tendencies, but he isn't pure evil and he DOES love his children... in his own way. That being said, the moment when CC dies, it breaks him and he gives in into his sociopathic nature. It doesn't justify him but makes him tragic and very interesting as a character.
I do agree with basically all your points in this video. Very well thought out, too, so awesome job with that! I do think, though, that William was always at least somewhat deranged from the start. Normal people don't usually start killing children out of grief lol. William was (most likely) always capable of murder and is most definitely some sort of psycho, I just think that something needed to happen first in order to bring that part of him out.
Regarding Elizabeth, yeah the argument based solely on her being missing is questionable, the bigger thing for me is the toy in FNaF4 that is presumably of Funtime Foxy (edit: and the Sister Location breaker room map that still shows Fredbear's and its animatronics, as if it was open at the same time this place was built). No way is she _first_ either way though, wouldn't make any sense to do all that before even knowing about Remnant and possession. Currently I lean to Charlotte -> Elizabeth -> Crying Child for those reasons, but... eh. As you conclude in the video, it's really hard to prove anything one way or another here, kinda just have to go with what makes the most sense to you narratively at this point.
The SL map point assumes this room wasn't just already there or the bunker being older than the rental service. Infact, it's relative proximity to the FNaF 4 gameplay room may imply it was more part of that than anything.
@@siresquawks >or the bunker being older than the rental service. Honestly, my theory about this... The Bunker likely began as simply a storage/RnD and Workshop area for Fredbear's, being expanded after it's closing to suit William's needs (possibly similar use for Baby's location, before becoming a fulll-on Rental Facility). Which would ALSO explain the presence of Springlocks that we hadnt seen before. As for "not it's intended use"? Not too certain...
I am surprise you didn't add in the HW DLC and Silver eyes into your theory. But I think more CC died first as shown his settings in the game had flowers which would means spring or summer time while HW DLC has "Fall fest 83" and Silver Eyes charlie version died around halloween so it be later in the same year.
elizabeth not being in fnaf 4 is probably because she was with her mom. as security breach implies that the aftons were divorced. thus elizabeth would just be away with her mom in said period. st least thats my take for an in-universe explanation
My favorite trope in FNaF is taking a prominent feature of a character and using it for a nickname if said character is nameless, like “Phone Guy”, “Purple Guy”, “Tape Girl”, “Crying Child”, “Orange Guy” and “Couch Guy”
Honestly I've lost track of so much bullshit in this franchise because of all the books and other such lore related nonsense but my personal timeline goes: William blame Henry for his son's death (bite of '83) kills his daughter which haunts the puppet. William notices the puppet is haunted so he does the 5 missing kids incident to test if it can replicated which leads to the original Fazbear's Pizza being closed (1985). This eventually leads him to create a sister location to further gather remnant which then ultimately leads to his daughter's death and his other son's scooping. This is the timeline that makes the most sense to me without turning into a convoluted mess. I just think if Charlie died first William's youngest son getting chomped on becomes a full on non sequitur event which I personally hope it wouldn't be.
hearing you say Dave Miller gave me flashbacks to Dayshift i'd honestly really love to see you cover Dayshift in some way considering it's popularity is slowly fading due to it not getting into the Fanverse for various reasons
The “did Elizabeth or CC die first” argument has always frustrated me as well. But questions to ask are like “Why did Mike bully CC in the first place?” “Why was CC SEVERELY afraid of the animatronics?” (That one’s probably easy to answer) or even “why did William even create the funtimes to kidnap and kill?” And like the cameras in SL. Did William not want to lose another child but he died anyways? This would actually explain even more of his motivation to kill Charlie (because it is thought that Henry was helping William build the funtimes, specifically circus baby, shown in fnaf world I’m pretty sure) but at the same time that conflicts with the “why did William create the funtimes to kidnap and kill” because how would he have found out about remnant before killing Charlie? :P
>“why did William even create the funtimes to kidnap and kill?" Honestly, my theory is this: Charlie dies by William's hand, she possesses the Puppet, and he sees this. He theorizes how it works, and attempts to reproduce it, causing the MCI. Seeing the RESOUNDING success, and the closure of Freddy's, he develops (or finishes developing, if he started building before the MCI had occurred) the Funtimes, and announces his Location. Elizabeth dies, the location is shut down and repurposed as a Rental, while he shelves that project. Following which, the "DCI" occurs, and either after this or FNAF 1, he collects the initial test's Remnant, and injects it into the til-then useless Funtimes. Before soon after dying himself.
11:06 I agree with your po nT but a counter point , my birthed talks lifelessly and dead when in private but then talks like the whole expample you gave when he’s among his peers
Another nail in the coffin for CC witnessing Elizabeth die, SHE ONLY KILLS WHEN ONE PERSON IS IN THE ROOM! He literally couldn't have been there because Baby wouldn't have killed Elizabeth if he was!
This is hard because I could see multiple potential reasons for each case. Charlie •"Wound that was first inflicted on me" •William says he'll put CC back together, implying he had an experience before that confirmed his belief, maybe being Charlie/Puppet. •The Funs being designed with the purpose of hunting down children would imply William has at least a basic understanding of animatronic possession instead of just some random inclination to kill. •"I will put you back together" and "Put Elizabeth back together" •The Puppet from a technological standpoint just doesn't seem as advanced as the Funs. •Charlie is personally killed by William as opposed to just having one of the animatronics do it, once again implying that the Funs/Baby's was created after. Crying Child •An genuine accident wouldn't be counted amongst William's evil deeds for Henry. •Elizabeth's empty room may have been an custody agreement deal if you believe Mike is in the chair. •If you believe MM was instead Mike running away and not CC, that could imply both younger siblings died before Charlie's death "ealier* that night. •Mangle was in Elizabeth's room, implying Baby's was at least in development at the time and CC got hurt at an location where neither the Funs or the iconic four existed. Elizabeth •CC may have witnessed Baby take Elizabeth •Elizabeth's empty room, implying her possible death if you believe Mike was the one running away and it was just William/Mrs Afton in the chair. •Mangle in Elizabeth's room, meaning Baby's Circus World had to have been a thing before CC's accident and may have closed down before •William may wanted to keep CC away from Baby's and animatronics in general after what possibly happened to Elizabeth. •The little mound in MM may have Elizabeth's unmarked graved due to her covered uo death. There's definitely more I could say to make an argument for each one, but yeah. I personally think it's Charlie > Elizabeth > CC OR CC > Charlie > Elizabeth. The one constant I believe, is that Elizabeth dies AFTER Charlie. *For C/E/CC* C - Willaim kills Charlie after snapping on his way to Freddy's. Possibly drunk or upset about his potentially fractured family. E - William learns of the possession of Puppet and/OR becomes a deranged killer, designing the Funs as a means to accomplish either task. Elizabeth meets her end at the hands of Baby though and William covers uo her death before shutting down BCW. CC - Mike terrorizes the Crying Child, possibly out of either resentment of the their fractured family much like William or because William tells him to, the fear amplified by the Crying Child either witnessing Elizabeth's death or witnessing an employing getting into a suit. This leads to the infamous bite and William vows to put him back together, confident he'll find a way as he studies Puppet/Baby. *For CC/C/E* CC - CC developed a slight fear of the animatronics after seeing an employee get placed into a suit, thinking the employee was being eaten (this fear likely growing as the animatronics likely became more uncanny, which tracks as IRL, some kids were aftaid of the OG Chuck E Cheese animatronics). With an dejected Mother, the potentially higher level of care for Elizabeth from his parents and William's own abusiveness (and potential alcoholism), Mike exploits this fear and decides to bully the child despite having some care for him deep down. This culminates in the infamous bite and CC is placed in a hospital, stuck either in a coma or brain death. C - Like before, he murders Charlie out of a moment rage and the jealousy of Henry's seemingly perfect life, possibly drunk. He tries to go back to a Bar but is refused as he was kicked out earlier that night due to his anger issues and drives home after with the intent on releasing the rest of him anger out on Mike. Mike ran off to Freddy's that night like he had been already out of grief, his own Mother not noticing he was gone due to her dejected state. E - He learns of possession in one way or another, deciding he'd try to replicate for CC, visiting the child in the hospital with a promise to put him back together. With this, he'd need a new place, new animatronics, and the death's of more children to begin experimenting. Unfortunately, this is when Elizabeth meets her end at the hands of Baby and the closing of BCW before he could attempt his plans. With that, he decided he'd do what he needed to do in the original method; killing by his own bare hands. All in all, I don't think William would just randomly design the Funs to kill children without SOME kind of twisted starting point (even if he's long been an psychopath), so I cant really see Elizabeth as the first. The catalyst to his serial killer nature and purposely trying to create possessions had to either be after the death of his child CC (which lead to him killing Charlie out of rage fueled by grief and slowly learning about the supernatural aspects) or after he killed Charlie out of a jealousy fueled rage (once again, eventually learning about the supernatural). I don't see a valid reason he'd create the Funs, which ultimately caused Elizabeth's death, without either *Charlie* or the *Crying Child* dying *FIRST*
About that "Elizabeth isn't here in FNAF 4 so she died first" debate: we must keep in mind that when FNAF 4 was made, it was supposed to be the last game. Sister Location wasn't in the original plan, it was originally a quadrilogy, so we can't use the girl's room being empty as an argument for "Elizabeth died first": she didn't exist when FNAF 4 was made and might not even have been thought of at the time. I think it would be absurd to call her the first death when so many elements point to her not being so.
@@Valentinothepissbabyboi But the Crying Child's death was an accident, whereas Elizabeth's was the result of her being alone with a robot her dad specifically programed to kill children (so still an accident, but wouldn't have had happened if William wasn't a murderer). So what you're saying is that someone had to die before Elizabeth? Because if so I completely agree Also when we think about it, there doesn't need any tragic event for a child to be scared of the animatronics: look at the amount of children who get scared when they see people in costumes for example (I remember avoiding the characters in Disneyland when I was younger because my sibling was terrified of them). So even if nothing happened yet, CC being scared is completely valid, especially with an older brother jumpscaring him with a foxy mask every chance he gets. My theory is CC died first, and that was probably the last straw for William who went insane and committed his first murder, probably Charlie as an act of revenge. The next murder might be the missing child incident, and then after William parts ways with Fazbear Entertainment and creates Afton Robotics, Elizabeth dies. But again that's just a theory, when it comes to FNAF we can never be sure 💀
@@Valentinothepissbabyboi bruh, there was a girl's room in the house. A child's, not an adult's room. She was planned to exist, she might have had gained relevance later on but an Afton daughter did exist in fnaf 4. The only question is if she was dead at that point in 1983 or not.
@@pinkicechuu funtime's are meant to lure and kidnap children, not to kill. Nonetheless her death was an accident. It's quite hard to say why William would engage in build such animatronics if he does not know about remnant and didn't commit his killing spree.
Great video! I think we really needed an overhaul of the knowledge we have so far, especially what we can use and what we cant. Im personally of the opposite camp tho, charlie first lol. I agree that that CC dying first is narratively better, but then I think about stuff like the animatronic footprints and the Mangle toy being in elizabeths room (implying the funtimes are being made or have already been made, therefore elizabeth dies before CC). I literally just made a Midnight Motorist vid too if u wanna watch not to plug but I think youll find it interesting even thought you may not agree :)
Glad you liked the video! However, I heavily disagree on the Elizabeth matter however. Funtime Foxy exists in Freddy's 2.0 making them an unreliable tool for dates, as they aren't a character specifically tied to Baby's pizzaworld-if it were a Baby toy or something like that, that could be helpful. We also just don't know what the animatronic footprints are, or if they're even "animatronic" footprints (it doesn't help that at least during my search there aren't any characters with 3 separated toes, all character's wither separated toes are either blocky and not rounded or connected). Not to mention the mangle toy connects more to Mangle's quest than anything, whether it be foreshadowing or memory bullshit.
The person in the coach for me its have to be cc watching fredbear and friends, and cc have a bad day because of mike and his friends bullying him with the characters that cc likes
People have gone wild since 2015 and i see it within certain assumptions. For example The MCI isn't in 85, FNaF 4 shows this over and over. Plushbear isn't William, Scott said FNaF 4 was solvable on its own in the context of the previous 3 games. Noone can make the arguement with just fnaf 4 it's william especially when the Plush talks when William in on screen. It's most likely a spirit. Charlie or Cassidy. The Game over and over hammers BV saw something related to the Yellow Suits and told to run when a person in one appears. The Plush talks and acts possessed. BV calls the 4 plushies his friends. They show up again in his deathbed. And you can notice the chance in plurality. At one point they say "we are still your friends" and when it's just Plushbear. He says "i" this ain't william. This is just a small bit to all to show fnaf hasn't complicated this the fans have. Charlie is the first victim as per Henry's word and the rest soon followed in 83 and BV knew the kids.
IMO C.C. died first, which is directly the reason why Charlie was murdered: William lost his way and/or blamed Henry for spring locks that led to his son's death, so he took his revenge.
Heres why I think that Elizabeth died first. William's darkness started with the divorce with his wife after Elizabeth's death and then she committed suicide. William killed Charlotte to destroy the image of Henry's perfect family and to make him feel what he feels. Then evan was killed by Michael. Eventually leading him to discovering remnant and than his killings began.
A huge problem I have with “William Midnight Motorist Murder” is that why would William leave the restaurant to kidnap kids to kill them? Wouldn’t it be more simple and draw less suspicion if he killed them in the restaurant?
I just remembered, didn't someone from steel wool say something in their interview with dawko about a villain who isn't just a monster but has some tragic reason for what they do? That could go nicely with crying child dying first
Personally, I think it's Charlotte. Despite the fact that I'd prefer for her to die after Crying Child, I think there is just too much evidence for her to have died before him. Basically what those are is that the fact that FNAF Worlds clock ending & Happiest Day are connected implies that Charlotte was the one who promised to put him back together. Doing so by getting someone else (I presume Cassidy) to, I guess, unlock the missing memories in the Crying Child's mind. After she unlocks them, she leaves them there for Crying Child to find. After he found and restored his memories, he put the peices back together. He's no longer broken. Leading to him passing on in Happiest Day. This also makes sense of the opened FNAF 4 box being in FNAF World. Basically, the box was keeping the memories of Crying Child locked away, preventing him from moving on. After he restored his memories, the box gets opened. Finally letting him pass on. And so the reason why Charlotte died before him is because she was the one to give the Crying Child the last peice for him to move on in Happiest Day. It's commonly thought she was the one who orchestrated Happiest Day. Which means she's behind the Fredbear character who wanted to restore Crying Childs memories in FNAF World. Which means she was the Fredbear plush in FNAF 4. Which means she dies before Crying Child. (Also in the novels she died in 1982, a year before the Crying Child died.)
Ok so 2 points 1. The puppet being behind the clock ending is largely irrelevant fnaf world doesn’t have to immediately take place after fnaf4 it just has to be after fnaf 4 and before fnaf 3 that’s 40 years of time to work with 2. I wouldn’t be shocked if originally psychic friend freadbear was the puppet when fnaf 4 first released but from Sister location onward It’s very obviously Willam behind the freadbear plush If the Freadbear plush with the walkie-talkie on it wasn’t enough of a dead giveaway we can see a map in the Funtime Freddy room which just so happens to have the exact layout of the fnaf 4 mini games and gameplay house
@@kerm7657 My main reason for why I think Puppet is the Fredbear plush is that Fredbear in FNAF World uses the exact same lines as FNAF 4. But then again, you reminded me that Scott had made a "seamless" retcon no one noticed so idk if that really could have changed. Especially after the fact that he hates FNAF World. So he could very well have retconned it out of existence.
@@moonknightanimations1251 I mean fair enough For the record “I will put you back together” is also something we know Willam has said at some point At the end of custom night we all know the where Michael says “Father it me Michael. I did it I put her back together”
Honestly, I go with Charlie dying first. It's actually BECAUSE of Crying Child that I believe this, amazingly enough. I always thought him and Charlie being friends made sense since their dads are co-workers. And judging by the plushies, Crying Child was at one point not terrified by the idea of going to Fredbear's. Hell, I don't think most kids his age (in my mind 7-8, but could be younger) jump as easily as he does, and why would he be crying all the time if something else didn't happen? So having someone who's essentially his best friend go missing could definitely cause that, and since it was William, his own father, who killed her, Crying Child is probably not getting the emotional support he'd need during that time. The crying makes him a bit of a target for bullies, so ironically Charlie's death can directly lead to Crying Child's death. But there could be more. Before I explain, I should note that this includes speculation based around MCI83 (yes I believe it, but that's why I'm bringing it up before I get into something involving it). If we also use MCI83, then Crying Child probably has even more of a reason to be on edge constantly. Other kids his age or younger are ALSO disappearing, and even if he's not close to them the fact that Charlie vanished and then other kids started vanishing too could get him panicking that he could be next (which, again, ironically kind of is the case). So really, it could make narrative sense either way.
>and why would he be crying all the time if something else didn't happen? Terrorized by his brother relentlessly, teased by everyone for his fear of the Suits, and how they'll hunt him down at night, seeing an employee getting eaten alive by one of the suits. Forced to be near them and having it only reinforced by his "Best friend" reminding him how scary they are, etc. >If we also use MCI83, then Crying Child probably has even more of a reason to be on edge constantly. Except the Springlocks were ALREADY retired before MCI occurred (with a comment after about how the Spring Bonnie suit was used), and it was NOT at a Fredbear's location, it was at a Freddy's location. The one where the Core 4 came from in 2. We NEVER see them outside of the cartoon airing in 1983 and the toys... Not to mention the entire place closed down, it would not be open. Or tl;dr: Doesnt work, Springlocks havent been retired yet, Core 4 nowhere to be seen, the timing would be impossible.
Could the Fredbear Plush be a possessed creation made by William just as Funtime Foxy, Baby, etc. are possessed creations made by William? The thing that always stumps me about the Fredbear Plush having no supernatural abilities whatsoever is the fact that we literally see its disembodied head on a flower. I guess you could say the Fredbear Plush is the result of an illusion disc, but to me, it would be weird that Scott introduced such supernatural visuals (akin to the disembodied head you see of Golden Freddy in FNaF 2) only for us to have a hard sci-fi explanation when the Silver Eyes wasn't even out and he intended FNaF 4 to be the last game. All of that is to say, could it be that the Fredbear Plush is both a device William made to warn his son AND is possessed by Cassidy at the same exact time? Okay, and side note, I just want to say how much it dumbfounds me that if the Crying Child's dad is William Afton himself, why... why... why???? does he appear purple when he sees him? Wouldn't he see his dad as a similar human to literally every other human he sees because he knows him even more than someone like "pigtails girl?" I remember being 13 and hyped for FNaF4 so much because I thought it would have the son of the purple guy as the protagonist, largely because of that purple robot and toy phone in the trailer. And at the time, what I was so excited for was seeing this glimpse into such a mysterious character's literal home life. I remember distinctly thinking that the reason Purple Guy was purple was likely due in part to the animatronics' comprehension of him. So to see the Crying Child see his own father as purple, to me that says that either 1) the purple guy we are seeing in FNaF4 is not purple to the Crying Child and is instead a normal looking human who is being shown differently to us as an audience, 2) he somehow (despite the insurmountable amount of evidence) not related to William Afton, or... he sees his dad as purple, as this "shadowy figure" because he saw his dad do something and no longer trusts him, whether that be a misinterpretation of benevolent/neutral behavior or actually seeing his dad kill someone. In writing this comment, I honestly feel this could be some evidence as to why William communicates to him as Fredbear: because his own son is afraid of him and doesn't trust him so he turns to making himself this cute plush toy that his son would then trust. But I can't even begin to think... I would William say, "What has he done this time," as a character on the same power level as the Crying Child? Wouldn't he outright punish his son as the person with the power as their father? Or at least, wouldn't he do something about Michael's bullying beyond just pretending to be a sentient stuffed animal for his son? Wouldn't he do even a single bit of punishment, you know, as someone who is capable of serial killing? All of this just makes me gravitate towards that first thing I said, that the Fredbear plush is both a vessel for William to communicate to his son and also an animatronic that has been hijacked by something William never intended.
Unless I missing something does anyone know why the puppet is referred to as Charlie if it’s never mentioned in the games only the books? could that clear up the story a bit since ppl assume golden Freddy is possessed by two spirits when Cassidy could be the name reference on the grave for the puppet as well
Because logically speaking, Henry mention his daughter in a voice line (given the thing that implies it is Henry is “HRY23” voice log), logic suggest that the daughter shares the name
I saw a video about a theory that might says that guy sitting on the chair watching TV is Henry, not Mrs. Afton or Michael. Henry, based on his dialogues in FFPS, seemed to be a kind yet regretful person, and knowing William lost his son to Fredbear, probably offered to look after Michael (and maybe Elizabeth) while William was still grieving and getting drunk at JRs. This of course, made Henry neglect Charlie. William, taking advantage of Henry's kindness and having this opportunity (and most likely drunk), would've had the chance to kill Charlie, and his line of "the wound first inflicting me and now i let out to others" makes more sense.
I don't think the Crying child should have a justification for being scared of the animatronics, the entire concept of FNAF is capitalizing on how many children were scared of Chucky cheese animatronics, just like how some were scared of clowns or dolls, the fear is not really a result of a true traumatic experience (most of the time)
Also Henry has no reason to believe the death of the Crying Child was somehow what made William a murderer, since it was an accident and I'm sure William wouldn't be stupid enough to try to justify himself in front of Henry.
Crying child doesn’t need a reason to be afraid. If people really want a reason it is given in fnaf 4. He sees someone helping an employee into a suit. Then he proceeds to misunderstand what’s happening and becomes afraid of the animatronics.
@@Mediocre_Comments Thinking about it actually, disregarding Dream Theory and thinking about the springlocks, it would actually be slightly scary to see an adult be put and a suit with metal still inside (even if compressed and not hurting them).
He doesn't need one, but he has one.
'Don't you remember what you saw?'
@@Mediocre_CommentsYeah, honestly, if I was a little kid and saw a suit being put on head last, I'd probably think it was eating someone... 😅
Not just Chuck E Cheese's animatronics but also their predessor, ShowBiz Pizza and also Scott's failed game characters that looked too much like those before mentioned animatronics.
I am wondering where Elizabeth is during the whole FNAF 4 game.
another much more obvious problem with the theory that elizabeth died before CC: its literally beat over our heads in Babys dialogue how many children were in the room. Elizabeth was the ONLY child in the room. She says it like 100 times.
Another thing is that Elizabeth was probably no even born yet by FNaF 4, as shown in Mangle's teaser for Special Delivery. It reveals that the pink "bed" in the room with the mangle toy was actually a crib, so she never shows up in 4 because the room was built in anticipation for her birth.
As for why the Mangle toy is... well... mangled... Mike probably just liked breaking toys, since the foxy plushie is also destroyed.
@@THtdh oo i never thought of that good looking out.
@@rainbowzzzplayzzz Afton also had to know about Remnant when making the Funtimes. He could've only learned from his killings, the earliest of which took place months after the Bite of '83.
@@THtdh Not only would this possibly explain the Mangle toy in her bedroom but also that one picture frame on the wall that is far smaller than the rest. The frame is in the FNAF 4 house by the Grandfather Clock.
Also, I'm just noticing (probably because of the comment regarding Elizabeth not being born yet) that Elizabeth, to my knowledge, has *never* mentioned Crying Child at all throughout her appearances. When we see her in SL, she looks roughly around C.C.'s age. You'd think the two could be close because of that. Also, with how outspoken and curious she's characterized to be, you'd think she'd absolutely bring up her missing brother at least once (even if it is to emotionally affect Michael (whom she thinks is William) like using Elizabeth's voice during the Private Room).
You want CC to die first because it builds a better narrative, I want CC to be the first because I want William doing a drunk driving hit and run on an unsuspecting child canon, we are not the same.
Fr
I'm in the camp of "security puppet isn't in response to any specific event." The books have had multiple stories with the theme of parents being too busy and putting their children in the care of animatronics where they then die. It is SUCH a clear parallel to Henry and Charlie, and has been done at least twice I can think of off the top of my head.
From there, I think narratively you could take it as Charlie is either first or second. Crying child first gives William an extra layer of resentment towards Henry, but Charlie first and then crying child could give an extra push to William experimenting with remnant- he knows that it's possible because of the puppet, and then when it's his son he tries to do it intentionally.
I like mattpatt's idea that the security puppet is in response to mike leaving the crying child at the pizzeria all the time
What if Charlie's death happens while the CC is in the hospital? I don't think we know how long CC is in there before they die. The CC gets bit, William gets angry, while CC is in the hospital William kills Charlie and sometime after Charlie possesses the puppet and William sees that there might be something beyond, his son dies.
@@kingofflames738 that seems like one of the most narratively satisfying ways to put it to me.
I think William seeing the puppet would be important enough to get a hint of in the games. We don't get that ever, though. We only get a purple guy going back to the fnaf 1 location and dismantling the animatronics for some reason, right before he gets springlocked. Fnaf 5's bunker and CBPW do not fit into the timeline in any logical way unless major strides are taken to ignore what fnaf 1-4 were about.
@@kingofflames738 The first half makes total sense to me. I don't think that William is ever confirmed to be present to see the puppet. In fact, there's actually almost 0 evidence to suggest the CEO(s) of Fazbear Entertainment ever set foot in any of the locations outside of Fredbears. Why would William suspect the puppet is haunted unless he found the body and the puppet together?
Ultimately I think if that is what really happened, we would've gotten some kind of implication or hint to guide us in that direction, but we never get anything of the sort in the first 3 games.
I always assumed Bite Victim was the 1st and Charlie was murdered by William because Fredbear was made by Henry, that's just what made the most sense to me, in William's psychotic mind he just assumed it was Henry's fault and did a bit of stabbing, realized the stabbing made something cool happen to the sock puppet, and then did more stabbing
I think alcohol might've had a hand in William killing Charlie
I could see William not just assuming it’s somehow Henry’s fault, but actively blaming him _because_ it was Fredbear. Bonnie was also on the stage then, presumably in animatronic mode, and I’d bet a lot that had it been Bonnie that had been able to/done the bite/ending of CC that Afton would have reacted differently. If you look at it as two different kinds of skilled engineers (and not walling off William-pun not intended-to being the “business guy”) who both went into business and used their _personal_ mascots/characters/and, let’s be blunt, fursonas, had Golden Bonnie been the one to take out CC, William would have behave differently. Especially if we contextualize him as someone who _wasn’t_ fully just a psycho. If William was able to love his family-even if he probably felt like he failed with FoxyBro-which it’s heavily implied he _actually did_ love his family, then he’s not out doing random acts.
CC got deleted at the “hands” of his “old friend’s” suit/personal Character and if they were already on rocky ground for a differing vision of the robots and the franchise, William snapping into psychopathy when CC passed, and him wanting to inflict the same kind of agony (hmmmmm) on Henry, goes from making sense, to also explaining why once he saw both the Puppet and Fredbear behaving as possessed/not just robots, he hyperfixated on the experimentation to rescue/bring the soul of his youngest son back in some form. And was consumed by desperation and obsession.
Which is making me want to go re-read _The Heart of Darkness_ because, as I’m typing, I can’t help but think of Spec Ops: The Line.
If it had been Bonnie who had crunched CC, and William snapped in a different way, I could see him, since he valued/values CC and Elizabeth more than FoxyBro (imo), when they’re both gone, had he lost both to his creations (Golden Bonnie and Baby) he’d probably taken a long walk off a short pier. It’s William’s obsession turned madness with, if nothing else, after Elizabeth, the loss of _both_ kids he loved more, that drove him to not remotely caring who else he hurt as long as he got his way to try and free CC from Fredbear, and give him back a life.
Though it would be more… poetic justification had William gotten springlocked basically immediately after Elizabeth possessing Baby (iirc he did not). Before CC and Elizabeth, _everything_ was finally going as right as it could. Sure there were tensions at home, and he and Henry disagreed on some things business wise, but his life was stable-ish. (Especially if his wife was still around, which doesn’t answer the “girl’s bedroom” problem in FNAF4.) And having it all snapped away from him, literally, and his rage outpouring into the first MCI leading to that same rage still being there to keep him alive after he got springlocked, because all of it was basically over a matter of months and not years, would make perfect sense. William caring at all about CC and Elizabeth shows he’s not just a psycho who kept doing some stabbing. He basically went off the track and stayed there due to everything else falling apart after CC was gone.
And in my personal head canon, William felt it needed to be one-to-one in terms of why his targets were _children_ even if you ignore that kids are easier to trick, lure, and overpower than a full grown adult. Like he got it in his head he could only “rebuild” or rescue CC from Fredbear if it was done with the soul-energy/remnant that was from other children. Which in and of itself, is not a decision based on any proof and would speak to how far over the edge his grief, madness, and obsession drove him.
Pretty much agree with all of these points, especially the interpretation of Mike as the Midnight Motorist runaway. Honestly I feel like the setup Matpat used in his newest timeline for these events makes the most sense to me.
I will say in regards to text color, I strongly feel the fruity maze segment was Scott trying to debunk this stuff. You see, clearly all William speaking, in both yellow and blue. Fazbear Frights actually canonized this in a weird way as "how Susie sees dialog" but I honestly believe the original intention here was just Scott saying "Guys, ignore the text color, it's not important."
Will say, good catch on the Sister Location thing. I don't think I've ever seen that text before but it sort of supports my thinking - which is that Sister Location is meant to happen after Fnaf 1, as supported by both the Forth Closet placement and now the upcoming movie having Abby (who is at a minimum an Elizabeth parallel) still alive.
>as supported by both the Forth Closet placement and now the upcoming movie having Abby (who is at a minimum an Elizabeth parallel) still alive.
I DO have a problem with this, admittedly.
The problem being that she definitely has to be young, and it has to be a gap between Freddy locations opening/closing. The generally agreed upon date being 1986 or so.
We also know she cant be THAT young either, because she's already graduated from a crib to a bed (typically between 1 and a half and 3 years old) by 1983. The problem being, of course, 1983-1993 is a whopping *10* year gap, and she certainly doesnt look like either an 11 or 13 year old (at the very minimum, potentially older) :V
@@higueraft571 Yes but she also needs to be old enough to be sassy and disobey daddy to see Baby. Also, most really little kids wouldn't be articulate enough to be her in the Sister Location cutscenes. Her being 11 makes the most sense honestly. 11 - 13 year olds will disobey and will argue with parents but still young enough that she is a kid to the animatronics.
Ok, the Susie synthesasia thing is actually a really good detail! Wow!
Crying Child dying first does just seem to make more sense both from the available evidence and narrative wise. Otherwise the FNaF 4 minigames are pretty inconsequential.
I think FNaF 4 existing to demonstrate the first tragedy experienced at Fazbear's is more compelling.
elizabeth died first
@@tilerandomdies first...from Baby...after a Freddy's location closed...a company that didn't even exist until after Fredbear's shut down...after the bite of 83...yeah no.
@@BlackScreenProductions125 this also removes the jealousy justification for William if you think about it. William would've managed to create these super advanced animatronics before 1983. How would he be jealous of Henry when he is just that good at robotics?
Not really, I mean the mini games would still be crucial to Michael's story
there’s a lot of reasons why crying child dying first makes a ton of sense, but the one question i have in response is the quote “don’t you remember what you saw? you know what will happen if he catches you” from psychic friend fredbear. if crying child dies first, this quote doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. does someone have a reason for this to make sensev
Oh god, that man_sitting thing... that's amazing. And it makes me wonder how many "it's in the files, so shut up" thought-terminators have just been accepted because people were (quite reasonably) not bothered about checking.
I think one of the most useful insights that you provide is to look at this issue from a viewpoint of what would make sense as a story that someone would be trying to tell. That aspect can get a bit lost, I think.
Like, if the order is "CC, then Charlie, then the others", there's a logical throughline there. The accidental death of the CC serves as an inciting incident, William takes out his rage and grief on Charlie opportunistically, and later events show him becoming a much more deliberately and methodical killer.
If the order is "Charlie, then CC, then the others", Afton is a murderer whose kids happened to also die. That's less of a problem with Elizabeth, because she does die as a result of Afton being a murderer. But the CC's death has so little effect on events that it could've been a footnote... but instead it's the subject of a whole game.
I guess someone could argue that CC's death is there to explain the origin of Mike. But Mike is barely even a character at that point in the games. Nothing really points to him being the protagonist of the previous games (or to them all being the same person) at that point in the games, so it's sort of pointless.
Still, the fact that we see CC's death in detail, in a game where upwards of a dozen children die in total, should be effective proof that it's a really important one. But what makes it important, if it's just the next murder committed by a murderer?
I don't think it'd be wrong to say that, if CC's death isn't an inciting incident for William... it actually makes it pointless for CC to be William's kid at all. Like, CC could just as easily be someone else's kid, and the impact on the story would be the same. William's already a murderer before then, so... who cares? Sounds monstrous to say that about a child's death, but it's true.
If Charlie's death is the first, it honestly makes it more logical that CC would be Henry's child rather than William's; and that Mike is Henry's child too. I mean, why not?
Just to further add to this, a lot of the secrets in FNaF SL were made to confirm William's familial relations, particularly with CC and newly established Michael Afton. So it isn't just tied down to FNaF 4, so the significance is enough for CC's death to have an entire game surrounding it, and further lore about them being made during the series.
@@LimboTheWatcher Also, something that confirms Michael is the runaway kid and that the bite victim died first is the fact that the route that Afton takes to get home from Jr's matches the route that the bite victim takes to get to Fredbear's in the FNaF 4 minigames
Way to say nothing in so many words. He already addressed these arguments in the video, that the narrative significance of events comes down to personal preference. But when looking at canonicity over convenience in one's headcanon, it's undeniable that CC has seen something to make him afraid of the springlock suits. Therefore it's most pragmatic if we open our minds to the possibility of other events taking place before CC's death, when personal opinion is the only thing locking CC death first in place.
@@waffleyumboyr5342 "What is seen in the shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child"
@@umargul6048 "Why was toy Chica missing her beak?" Not important details. Crying child's crying is literally what causes his death and gets that Freddy's location shut down. That's a detail much harder to gloss over.
I think Adam died first, then eve. Not sure who’s next after that
nah
nah bro Abel was killed before Adam and Eve died, gotta read up on your fnaf lore 🙏🙏
Technically it was Abel
Abel and maybe even lillith if you are part of the groups with the belief that Adam had a wife, lillith, before eve and if being cast to hell for disobedience is considered dying
@@samgoogleplex4444Nah, this is Nier: Automata lore xD
In my opinion, the reason of cc having fear of animatronics: or he has just a normal fear with the uncanny valley from the empty eyes in the animatronics, or its because mike and his friends using masks from the characters that he like make this fear happen, or its because of the stories from pigtail girl, but who knows
Great video! I also personally think that the Bite Victim/CC died first because from a narrative stand point that flows better than Charlie dying first. At least to me, it makes sense.
And I agree, I feel like William was a bit of an already unhinged individual and it was the death of CC that made him go over the edge and then kill Charlie, and from there it all unraveled.
I also say William was already a bit murderous because he IS a businessman and CEO afterall. In the FNAF universe (and IRL lol) we do end up having plenty of examples of corporate individuals just being downright dastardly and not really caring about human life.
>we do end up having plenty of examples of corporate individuals just being downright dastardly and not really caring about human life.
Not to mention, factoring in the idea that first murder made him aware of Remnant...
We have yet MORE evidence of people killing and dying for the sake of Eternal Life. Chinese Emperors, Alchemists seeking the Philosopher's Stone, and Spanish Explorers/Invaders being VERY well known examples of that.
Hell, these were simply vague ideas and claims without much solid proof.
William Afton has *solid, concrete evidence* of this being real... And, after the MCI, not only real but reproduceable (even if he has to murder some people for it)
So you've got an unstable man pushed over the edge, who strikes in the moment, discovers the Holy Grail, and from then on acts with much more purpose. Both to shit on Henry's Legacy, to tarnish it, and to pursue this goal. MAYBE to restore his family, or maybe for his own gains?
William was always a bad dude. Plus Crying Child first doesn't make any sense since William was watching C.C. in the bunker where he was experimenting with remnant.
@@__Soya__ >Plus Crying Child first doesn't make any sense since William was watching C.C. in the bunker where he was experimenting with remnant.
The theory i subscribe to, the SL bunker was originally attached to Fredbear as a Storage/Workshop basement level, with an office where William (and Henry?) would monitor his kids, design, and build Animatronics (or at the very least repair the ones in use, such as Fredbear and Spring Bonnie).
After it closed, he expanded the location and repurposed it for Circus Baby's Pizza World, and later Entertainment and Rental.
That explains why there's a Springlock we have NEVER seen before (possibly) in the location, and why it'd be connected to his (two?) homes, and Fredbear's. And of course why William has a personal office there (Although, it could be because the location was owned by Afton Robotics as well too, for a while).
You have cameras for monitoring the child he's pitting against his older brother, cameras in where Michael was tormented after CC's death, and maps for places such as Fredbear's, *which would not have both Springlock stage locations marked, and be in the same layout as seen in FNAF 4 if it was made AFTER the Springlock Failures/MCI.* (Not to mention the location closing)
>William was always a bad dude.
Initially wasnt *so* bad he managed to get laid, three times :V
@@higueraft571 Maybe Ms Afton was into bad boys🤣
I never thought of the stomach mouth referring to how the enployees put the suits on. Also, the placement of the mouth is right at the waist, exactly the level your pants would go. So perhaps he saw someone slipping on the torso of the outfit while that person already had the lower half on.
I agree with you and think Chica was the first re-animated by a third party (not by their own will). Meaning Charlie's ghost inhabited the puppet on it's own, but the others did not "organically" latch onto anything. I've wondered if the puppet's motive to "give gifts" was it sensing the spirits floating around aimlessly and by "grounding" or "anchoring" them to objects it somehow calmed down the vibe. In FNAF 2 we need to keep the puppet soothed via the music box. Were the floating spirits irritating the puppet and it put them in the characters to relieve it's own anxiousness? Details that can be tied back to the actual game mechanics I think are important, because Scott's storytelling-style is heavily embedded in the gameplay itself instead of the video games being broken up into un-related "gameplay" and "narrative" sections (which is why MM drives people nuts because we ARE the orange man, we're not sitting back as passive observers to be told ABOUT the orange man). He has repeatedly made us "play through" aspects that we could be directly told, but instead we're made to go through the motions; so does the game mechanics of the puppet tell us anything about how the puppet works as a haunted object?
Considering the mechanics of most of the animatronics are 'flash lights and shut doors before they get in', I don't think the mechanics are a good teller for the character's motivations. Hell, Fnaf 2 is so early on in the series that I assume that the puppet was originally added in for creepy factor. A possessed puppet with the soul of a child in it? Fits right in with the rest of the cast of Fnaf 2's spooky creeps. Music box that eeriely winds down until the puppet hunts you down to jumpscare you? probably just added in to create pressure on the player while they deal with the rest of fnaf 2's cast.
It's really, really easy to overanalyze fnaf. I think the easiest answer is that fnaf 1-4 have lore that is inconsistent with the games 5+ on. Steelwool tried to hint at this with the start of Help Wanted, by eschewing the old games as attempts by Scott to obfuscate what actually happened.
We'll never really know the real truth of the original games, because the real truth was dream theory (which was widely disliked, to such a degree that Scott himself retconned it with the 5th and 6th games)
I think with the security puppet Minigame it was invented to protect Charlie from William to make sure she would be in Henry’s sight in some fashion to keep her safe, I say this because the security puppet is programmed to protect a child with a Green Wristband and the only child that wears one in the Minigame is Charlie, it creates an interesting thought about Henry that he probably wouldn’t care as much if another child dies as long as it’s not Charlie, and considering his behavior in Pizza Sim I think it’s totally in character.
think what’s interesting about what you said about being skeptical on the Crying child being the one who escaped due to how the character is presented beforehand, is that the exact same reasoning is why the samurai Freddy series doesn’t work as an analogy for Mike and CC’s relationship, Samurai Freddy swears that today is the day he finally stops the fox only for him to fail or get distracted along the way, CC isn’t that proactive, he’s usally just trying to have a normal day only for his brother to spook him a bit, and he doesn’t do anything about it.
Idk why idea of Afton being deranged even before the bite victim feels correct in the sense that it brings the series back to it's roots as a "sadistic POS that kills children." Instead of this 'sorta' sympathetic villan that became a mad scientist
I mean, even "sympathetic" mad scientist he was still unstable and a shitty person before he snapped, it just so happens his killing just nail the fucking JACKPOT of all Jackpots, concrete evidence of something an ungodly amount of people have died for from just pure faith :V
I'm really thinking it was Crying Child who died first because FNAF 4, FNAF 2 and, Adventure Fredbear's tagline being "Where it all started" in FNAF World seem to heavily imply that the events of series started in FNAF 4.
Plus, as you mentioned, the Puppet has zero presence or mention in FNAF 4 (not counting the non-canonical Nightmarionne) despite being one of the most significant characters in the series (not only, at least partly, responsible for the MCI Kids possessing the OG Animatronics but personally creates Happiest Day (or, at least, is an instrumental part in its completion)). Plus, the Puppet's various appearances throughout the series.
It's.....really weird that *everyone else* in the series up to FNAF 4 (the OGs, the Toys, the Shadows, Spring Bonnie/Springtrap) makes a cameo appearance but The Puppet just.....doesn't.
I feel like CC dying first has to be correct because FNAF books keep hammering in the theme of "Scientist loses child which causes them to go insane" then do something morally wrong.
I like how matpat contextualised these two deaths. That he went crazy after losing his son and took it out on Charlie
Also the "I will put you back together" line from William, seeing that the game that immediately follows it introduces remnant seems like... well it kind of seems like Scott trying to yell at you "William is trying to bring his son back". Isn't it kind of sus that remnant is introduced in the same game which tries to establish the "William Afton- Psychic Fredbear -I will put you back together" connection?
It always seemed to me as a simple development of mystery.
We had Whodunnit answered
Howdunnit also kind of answered
But we didn't answer the Whydunnit, which Sister Location attempts to do when Scott realized he cannot just cope out with a dream and has to actually treat it like a murder mystery.
"Shit, now I have this character named William that is the killer but why? Why does William kill Charlie? Uh fuck... um, maybe revenge for his son dying? And maybe he's trying to bring him back through like paranormal ghost-science-magic? Sure that fits."
>seeing that the game that immediately follows it introduces remnant seems like... well it kind of seems like Scott trying to yell at you "William is trying to bring his son back". Isn't it kind of sus that remnant is introduced in the same game which tries to establish the "William Afton- Psychic Fredbear -I will put you back together" connection?
Or, more simply, it tried to explain his motives as more than "he kills children xd", and provided something as his Goal, something we know Baby is (accidentally) a product of...
We really dont even know IF William said "i will put you back together" at all. Hell, FNAF 4 implies the Puppet was the one speaking at that time.
Not to mention of course, William never DID "put him back together" :V
@@higueraft571sorry for incredibly late response (life got in the way) but Michael says in Sister Location that William told him to put Elizabeth back together and also we see that the psychic friend Fred bear was just him talking through a walkie talkie.
It was originally supposed to be the puppet but pretty sure that's retconed.
Freddy's zero is a really good way to say the pre fnaf 2 location that we only hear in passing and assume that it exists.
Another problem with BV seeing Elizabeth die is that Baby's child killing claw doesn't activate until there's only one person in the room meaning BV physically can't have been in the room at the time Baby killed Elizabeth.
He can kill Charlie first while cc is still on life support. Still gives him motivation
5:14 Assuming we don't see her. A case can be made for Pigtails-Girl to be Elizabeth - similar hair color, same eye color, has toys of the animatronics like the broken Foxy toy in the girl's room. Circus Baby's hair is even reminiscent of her pigtails, if you follow the theory that CB was _literally_ designed with Elizabeth's likeness in mind.
12:00 An argument can be made for the Afton family having two houses. Both house layouts in FNaF 4 (minigame and main game) are shown as separate in Sister Location, and while the FNaF 4 minigame house is seen in a clearly residential area with a playground, the Midnight Motorist house is in the middle of a forest, like what we see in the FNaF 4 title screen.
12:55 Wow! What amazing insight! /j
Imo, a big factor that decides whether BV or Charlie dies first is the identity of the Fredbear Plush.
Modern evidence strongly suggests it's William, mostly Fazbear Frights in "The Real Jake." Sister Location's safe room reinforcing the connection, and William being the one telling Michael to put Elizabeth "back together" like the plush says to BV. This also gives a reason as to how Afton began his spree; he was always a little demented, but his son dying was enough for him to kill Charlie in a drunken stupor, only to become obsessed with the feeling of ending a life. This would mean that there's no supernatural happenings that we can observe in the game, indicating that nobody's died yet.
The alternative is that the doll is possessed by Charlie, meaning she's already been killed. The doll seemingly teleporting, being capable of being heard in the pizzeria when it isn't present, Glitchbear's whole thing, and the FNAF 4 Halloween teaser and FNAF 6 teaser where the Puppet is either visible/connected to a Freddy plush if you brighten the image to the point that the brown plush turns bright yellow. And while I personally believe this was the original intent by Scott (ESPECIALLY because of FNAF World), the evidence just doesn't hold up as much when compared to what we know now.
While I personally prefer the Charlieplush narrative, I do believe BV dies first in the story because... idk, it makes more sense? The idea that the first death was an accident provides more impact and relevance to why BV's death was so important that it had to be the entire reason for FNAF 4's minigames to lead up to it, even if I also like the timeline where Afton was always killing kids for the hell of it and Charlie's puppet possession was ground zero for everything else happening.
I can't believe I was an MCI83-er up until a few years ago, it's amusing to me to see how much that theory's eroded with time 💀
Honestly, the Fredbear Plush is just a HUGE question mark. Especially when you consider FNAF World.
@@higueraft571I really think the Fredbear plush is a holdover from fnaf 4's Dream Theory. There's no reasonable explanation for what the fredbear plush means or represents.
@@ahealthkit2745 Yeah, it's definitely one of the more... odd aspects. Although Dream Theory doesnt even cover it.
Supposedly the world we see him in IS the Real World, and everything else is the Dream, yet Fredbear does Weird Shit in the "real" world too...
I think Evan (crying child) had to have died first. It would have to be that way in order to justify the puppets existence in the first place.
I don't think William started off as a psychopath interested in child murder and eternal life and killed charlie just because he could. He didn't know about remnant or any of that back then. So he has no point to slaughter kids yet. He also would have no reason to target Charlie unless he had a specific reason to get back at Henry. Fredbear is Henry's creation and crying child was bit by fredbear.
The puppet was made to monitor the children, it wasnt there just to protect charlie. It was there to prevent another evan incident and to monitor them. Because they clearlt didnt have enough if kids were able to get that close to fredbear.
The only reason it didn't protect Charlie was because it wasn't able to. The puppets existence must've taken place after the bite of 83. You don't even see any mention of a puppet or any sight of a puppet in the flashbacks with Evan do we? Because it doesn't exist yet! No plushies, toys or anything.
The 2nd William makes the most sense and I think was Scott's original intention. I think the books and comics leaned into the first. Making him an evil psycho in the beginning. But I just see a father that was pushed to his breaking point and made a promise to his children to bring them back by any means necessary. And in the end becoming a monster.
I kind of like the idea of William as not a full-on psychopath but someone with those kinds of tendencies. Like, I kind of like the idea that he cared about his family even if he had some real fucked up ways of doing it, that losing his son broke him on some level, and that while he may have been more or less neutral towards violence against the innocent earlier in his life, that made him wanted to do it to make Henry pay for what happened. Something about him being relatively harmless (not out of virtue but lack of motivation) before becoming bitter due to a tragedy sort of expands the legend of the cursed past of the pizzeria chain, things sort of convene for it all to go sour.
i like the timeline of CC dies -> will kills charlie to "get back" at henry -> puppet comes back -> will kills more kids to try to bring back CC
makes the most sense to me
Very based video, I really enjoy how it addressed each candidate/theory and I agree with the final conclusion, very well done.
The crying child dying would be a motivator for Mike, so the crying child’s death would not be meaningless.
I acknowledge that in the video
Right, which is the reason I believe Charlie died first. I think that point specifically is inarguable when it comes to the death, Mike apologizing is damning evidence for that too.
@@hyrule_yt Huh? How does Mike apologizing for killing his brother make Charlie die first?
yesssssss thank you so much for mentioning the "wound inflicted on me" ughhh its sooo stupid thank you
Yeah I agree. I think Bite victim dies first. But I LOVE playing with the idea Charlie dies first. It’s so just juicy in horror and evil I love it.
The bit about CBPW being the location where the springlock failure happens actually doesn't make any sense, because we know that CBPW was shut down before it's grand opening due to gas leaks. So the spring lock failure MUST have happened at a different location. My best guess is Fredbears/Freddy's 0.
In all honesty, the way the canon is treated before fnaf 5 and on is so different from fnaf 3 and before. Fnaf 1-3 seem to imply that there are other things going on behind the scenes. People tampering with animatronics, ghostly apparitions of animatronics that are too old to be present (golden freddy, shadow freddy & bonnie). We never hear anything about William Afton or Henry Emily until fnaf 4, 5 and 6. Before fnaf 4, I really think there could have been multiple killers, who aren't Afton.
Anther thing against Elizabeth being the first is this line “you have to let me inside the room I know it was an ACCIDENT”
I think its preety obvious that the crying child was first just based off a single statement that Scott made during fnaf for. In the halloween update he said that Nightmare Marionne is not cannon while Nightmare BB is which was a weird comment but implies that Puppet doesn't exist yet. It was probably made by Henry after seeing the crying child get killed to protect his own child
Also people say that the dirt lump in midnight motorist hints at Evan (bite victim) dying first which I believe makes more sense. Also I just feel like having William become deranged because of grief and trying everything to figure out possessions is more interesting then him being a psycho off the bat
Part of me wants to think perhaps (if we do use Book Dave as a reference) CC saw his father in a nonfatal springlock failure? Would also instill a fear - these 'monsters' can hurt people.
I guess that'd come down to who tested the original springlock suits.
Possible but Scott saying that "what happens in shadows is easily misunderstood in the mind of a child" doesn't fit with that does it? It was like just an employee putting the suit on after the animatronic walked by itself to the back room. Gives the impression the animatronic ate the guy.
2:13 You really snapped at Lizzy there. 😆💀
The fact that the suits CAN eat the wearer, and apparently often enough there are warnings everywhere but apparently no OSHA oversight, tells me they are designed with disaster in mind. And not much good comes from workman's compensation.
The thumbnail made it look like an epic rap battles of history video lol
My personal take on the "crying child is a inciting incident for William" is that throughout all of FNAF William really hasnt actually shown any care for his spawn but he has always shown himself to be arrogant and egotistical.
In 4 he's at minimum neglectful of CC and either locked CC in the backroom himself or Mike somehow got the keys(implying they were either given to him my William or William was similarly neglectful of them) and using the plushie only really exacerbates the CC's fears rather than calming him down at all
In SL in the very dialouge where his name is introduced to us, he's just as arrogant to the investors as he is as Scraptrap
He just never has striked me as the sort of villain that a tragic backstory works with.
I think the tragic parent readings ignore basically all of Willaim's dialouge throughout the whole series in favor of the one "i will put you back together" line that seems wildly out of character for him.
I don't think he's a good person in any regards, but I think him losing a kid could almost be a sort of Ego blow. Like tragedy is tragedy, and that doesn't reflect well on him since it was his neglect that caused it, so he wants to bring Henry down to his level because of a superiority complex, his business partner who outshines him has to also be a neglectful parent who loses a kid. IDK I'm just spit balling but there are several ways for William to still be awful and have the crying child be the impetus for his character.
@@siresquawks This was exactly what I was about to say. He doesnt care about his kid dying, he cares about how his kid dying makes him look.
To say he hasn't shown any care for his children is just wrong, he warns Elizabeth repeatedly not to go near baby and has a surveillance system to watch over his house while he's away. He's not father of the year but he has shown that he at least cares to some extent. He hasn't really ever shown himself to be arrogant or egotistical in the games, in SL he isn't being either of those things he's just talking about the features of baby.
Most of Williams lines come from him as an undead animatronic which the whole tragic parent angle covers as by that point he's been fully warped into a crazed psycho killer. That line from FNAF 4 isn't out of character though as it's his kid and there's nothing in the games that goes against him acting like this that can't be reasonably explained.
@@johnman8398William only cared about Liz's safety as to how it would reflect on him. If his daughter went missing at his own restaurant, what would people think? When the Funtimes were moved to the Rental Service, William ordered them to be administered painful electric shocks. And he was fully aware that Elizabeth possessed Baby at the time. To show how William really felt about his kids, here's an interaction between him and Elizabeth in The Fourth Closet.
Elizabeth: Am I not good enough for you?
William: No. You're not.
Does that sound like a father who "loves" his children? William is also somewhat egotistical. It's more subtle compared to other villains, but he had an inferiority complex towards Henry, and in the novels, he always boasted about how he was "better" than Henry.
Oh and here's basically how he treats the other 2:
"Michael, I'm sending you down into a bunker full of my murder-bots to "save your sister" because I'm too much of a selfish coward to go myself and to make sure you go I will guilt trip you about you killing your brother even though it's also my fault for forcing him to have the party there."
Crying Child: "I know you're scared of my robots and Michael's being a dick, but instead of helping you, I'll make you fight off monstrous versions of my robots and then gaslight you with a walkie-talkie inside your stuffed bear as I can't be bothered to be there for you. Also I'm going to be spying on you with cameras I set up all over town from my underground lab, where I'm building murder-bots from the future. Yes, you're going to have your birthday party at Fredbear's, I ain't changing my mind. What, you're scared? I don't give a fuck."
@@siresquawks always liked to think he thought of him as more of trophies and prized objects than actual people as since William clearly has Narcissistic Personality Disorder and probably straight up ASPD along with Bunnycall as a possible parrael to the Afton's he might have pleasured the time he spent with his kids but he doesn't love them as people just extensions of himself as that's how Narcissists view their children. (Pleasure and love are not the same)
I still like BVfirst in this regards as him losing his Golden Child sent him down a spiral into further down his insanity and rage eventually deciding to torture Michael in his dreams (Probably because if he killed him he would have been caught but given "He will be sorry when he gets back he most definitely physically abused Michael after or even before the bite) and his jealousy and resentment towards Henry ending up in the murder of Charlie but I absolutely agree with the idea he was a terrible father and horrible person even before the BV dies.
Hell, although I disagree with the idea William was purposely telling Michael to bully his brother if we are to believe Willplush and it's implications then it absolutely matches how Narcissistic parents fuel infighting in their children like Fredbear's line "He hates you" and how William allows the bullying to happen showing he's taking advantage of Mike's bullying in order to push the bite victim further into his influence.
As for Elizabeth he probably saw her as BV 2.0 a replacement until the BV is "Put back together" then she'll most likely go back to being the lost child again. A main argument Willcarers will use to justify William caring is that he told Liz to not go towards Baby but a bigger piece of proof is that he shut down and ultimately fucked up his whole operation after she died. If he truly didn't care then why not continue with Circus baby's? He must have been atleast so shocked to his core that he shut it down.
TL;DR: You can still have William start killing after the BV dies and have him be a complete sadistic asshole
To me at least, it'd make sense if couch potato was Henry. If the minigame is supposed to happen right after charlie's death. If Henry was at the restaurant, even if he wasn't supervising his daughter 24/7, he could have, at least, made sure that she is able to enter the building. This can work as either Wiliam luring Henry out of the way to kill Charlie or, the idea I prefer, that William remembered that he'd return home to be greeted by Henry and that, in his drunk anger, motivated Charlie's murder. And since they worked together for a while, it's not hurt by couch potato's dialogue
Could be but that person in the couch was meant as a throw away character, I think. All inconsequential characters are bald and grey, just like the kids that locked Charlie outside. I think Scott didn't realize just how important that fans would make said character. ePrhaps the new Help Wanted 2 will clarify what's going on.
I personally believe that the couch person is Henry and the runaway kid was Micheal. From a storytelling and thematic standpoint like you’ve theorized in the past, it fits the characterizations of all parties involved.
My only problem with this theory, is if this is truly taking place as it is set up in the code to be happening immediately after Charlie is murdered, why would Henry be leaving his young child presumably alone at the restaurant. Easiest assumption is oh Charlie’s other parent was present at the pizzeria; but how did they not notice their child was not inside/locked out. Other idea is Henry is comfortable leaving her at the facility because of security puppet but that is just such a huge leap in logic imo. Just take a broad view of this.
Henry was presumably a close friend of the Afton family, given their relationship as business partners, referring to William as a old friend, and when directly speaking to baby; both used her original name and some semblance of familiarity when questioning he. It all sets up for the two families being very close, not hard to imagine the kids calling the others cousins and uncles etc. With this headcanon in mind, it would make sense for Henry to just bring Charlie over while he watched Micheal.
Only caveat I could imagine is if William’s drunken anger was common place than I could see the idea of Henry leaving Charlie at home. But still, even for the 80s, to leave a >6 year old home alone without any older children is a very big stretch even for that decade.
That’s my only issue with the idea of Henry being the person on the couch. In terms of storytelling, he is/should be the couch person.
For my point of view is cc in the coach watching fredbear and friends, and cc have a bad day with mike torturing him with the foxy mask
I always headcanon'd that Henry was the Freddy sprite we see in the TCTTC minigame inside a springlock suit and the player slowing down is Henry getting worried about charlie because he doesn't know where she is.
I think you can still make the argument “why would Henry be leaving his youngest child presumably alone at the restaurant” because regardless of him being the couch potato, Henry just isn’t there in Security Puppet anyways lol
Or because henry is dumb lol
Honestly, how i interpret it:
William is known for his Rages, as even Couch Guy/Henry already anticipated what's coming next, telling him to go easy tonight. Both because he's watching Michael while William's out and about, and because the Security Puppet (alongside the other Children and the Staff) SHOULD be able to ensure his daughter is safe at Fredbear's.
Of course, we know she ISNT inside, nor safe (or alive), but he wouldnt.
11:11
it dose, a child breaking a window makes more sense then Michael not knowing how to use a window.
11:30 it's not really a 180 as him following fredbear before being traumatized by seeing an animatronic and a corpse, plus no one understanding him makes a lot of sense then Michael decides not to use a door for some reason.
THANK YOU FOR CLEARING UP THE "LIZ DIED FIRST" BULLCRAP!!!
I’ve never once thought that Elizabeth died first, because it makes literally no sense. One, it implies that William created murder robots for no reason. Two CBPW had to have opened AFTER 1983. And three, it’s pretty much already established in the game itself that CC misinterpreted the employees putting on suits as them getting eaten by said suits.
It annoys me how I see "Liz first" almost everywhere now. So thanks for speaking about this.
Anyway, I’ve always believed the Crying Child died first, but I never even realized how Midnight Motorist would solidify that! Now it’s even more clear. I don’t know how I didn’t put the pieces together since I already decided that Mike was most likely the runaway anyway. 😅
5:16 nah I think we see her, we see a young girl playing with her off model merchandise in the park in the middle of the minigame map and she looks alot like Elizabeth
Really good video, a very thorough discussion of the topic. Also I really like your interpretation of william lol
I'm under CC first camp because I like to look at things from a narrative POV and Billy simply being insane is to boring and lame for me. CC dying first gives a clear motivation for his actions. I don't even care about evidence
CC dying first makes so much more sense from a writing standpoint. I highly highly doubt we'll ever get conformation, but Charlie dying first makes the story so much more boring.
Man I wish this game actually had a proper narrative structure. It's completely gone past the "fun to figure out, confusing story" to just flat out terrible writing with impossible plot holes everywhere.
i always thought the idea of nightmare fredbear's stomach relating to elizabeth's death was a neat connection. but there's a major issue; circus baby is _programmed_ to _count kids_ and make sure there's no one around to witness her. to me that pretty much kills any chance of the two being related.
Actually who died from insanity was matpat, after going into the rabbit hole named fazbear frights 5 to 11
Also, I'm noticing (probably because of the comment regarding Elizabeth not being born yet) that Elizabeth, to my knowledge, has *never* mentioned Crying Child at all throughout her appearances. When we see her in SL, she looks roughly around C.C.'s age. You'd think the two could be close because of that. Also, with how outspoken and curious she's characterized to be, you'd think she'd absolutely bring up her missing brother at least once (even if it is to emotionally affect Michael like using Elizabeth's voice during the Private Room).
I want to say Evan Afton was the first to die. His death would have been the ignited fuse to send William down a destructive path, causing him to kill Charlie in a drunken fit of rage.
Maybe Elizabeth was not born yet on the FNAF 4 house, that is probably why it is empty. They're preparing it for her
Thanks for bringing up how the FNAF 2 Phone Calls imply Fredbear's closed earlier than FNAF 0, it's a pretty important detail most theorists take for granted.
So currently watching the video, figured I’d leave this comment as I’m going through it just about a couple things - this bit is mainly about your comment regarding the person on the chair watching TV, really just about the tone of dialogue you mentioned, mainly focussing on if Mike is the person on the chair, why he may sound like he does.
I think it’s important to remember the more ‘douchey’, energetic tones and dialogue are when he was with his friends and bullying his brother, and the more toned back and calm one is when he’s talking to his father, who we’re fairly certain he has at least an estranged relationship with. Which, if you also use his sister location speech, he is also very formal with his dialogue, using words like ‘Father’ instead of ‘Dad’ and not exactly using a lot of slang or shortened words, granted he did just die, but figured it’s worth a mention to say Michael may speak differently than he would write.
Also something I was thinking about when you mentioned the back room and BV being locked in it, I think it’s entirely possible William may have locked him in there. We’re fairly certain William is Fredbear plush, but if you notice, the time BV is locked in the animatronic storage is one of the only times he doesn’t speak to BV. I could argue it’s just been taken off him by Mike, but we never see BV holding it in the first place in the sprite, so that’s really speculation, but I’m fairly confident Mike locked BV in his room as that’s what Fredbear plush implies at least.
And small thing I noticed you say - saying BV only has hatred or fear towards the animatronics, however when William speaks to him in one of the minigames and says “He knows you hate it here.” Which was in regards to Fredbear Family diner.
Ultimately, I do think you raise some good points, I think people do clutch onto one thing and use it to say ‘Oh Charlotte absolutely died first’ in regards to Henry’s speech, when that’s obviously pointing towards Williams physical actions and him having killed Charlie first out of all his murders. It doesn’t necessarily mean she died first.
However, I do have to admit, I lean closer towards the Charlotte dying first side of things - and I will say, I don’t think we’ll ever get a concrete answer unless Scott literally just says, which I doubt will ever happen. But I think it’s also entirely possible that the thing BV misunderstood in the dark was the puppet trying to save Charlotte. If he was, and I do personally believe he is the runaway kid, then it’s entirely possible he was the first to stumble upon the puppet and Charlotte, seeing a murdered girl held in an animatronics arms, a ‘misunderstanding in the dark’ so to say, leading to his fear of animatronics. It could also support some of Williams Fredbear plush dialogue ‘Don’t you remember what you saw?’ ‘No! You know what will happen if he catches you!’ - Implying the BV knows something will happen if an animatronic catches him, well ‘knows’, it’s all a misunderstanding in the end lol. This could also answer why William is manipulating BV through the Fredbear plush, as BV saw Williams first murder basically, and he’s keeping tabs on him, trying to control him. If you couldn’t tell, I lean closer to your ‘Dave Miller’ William Afton proposal XD.
But like I said, great video man, it’s good to get the discussion going, and apologies for the length of the comment.
Also also also, a detail here from Midnight motorist... Its implied that the Windows was broken from the Outside if you look at the Sprites... That does that mean? I dont know yet, but its a detail that would explain the Animatronic Foot
I think the main problem with assuming the couch person is Michael is that it would mean the person in the bedroom is the crying child, so why would Michael be protecting him when he also consistently bullies him. The dialogue doesn't match the characterization of young Michael that we see in fnaf 4
Couch potato being a mystery character doesn't match any character in fnaf 4. You're creating more problems with Michael runaway, not solving any.
@@waffleyumboyr5342Couch potato could easily be Mrs Afton
@@Lightning-gg5iuit doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t have evidence.
Gratz 10k
Theres no way Elizabeth dies first maybe second or third but William had a whole collection of child murdering robots atleast Charlotte died before her.
My interpretation was that William is a narcissistic fuck from the very start but NOT a sociopath. He is an awful human being with sociopathic tendencies, but he isn't pure evil and he DOES love his children... in his own way. That being said, the moment when CC dies, it breaks him and he gives in into his sociopathic nature.
It doesn't justify him but makes him tragic and very interesting as a character.
I do agree with basically all your points in this video. Very well thought out, too, so awesome job with that!
I do think, though, that William was always at least somewhat deranged from the start. Normal people don't usually start killing children out of grief lol. William was (most likely) always capable of murder and is most definitely some sort of psycho, I just think that something needed to happen first in order to bring that part of him out.
the BUHHHHHYEEEEE at the end every time reminds me of the cop that shows up at the end of American Dad and stuff like that, I love the variation
Regarding Elizabeth, yeah the argument based solely on her being missing is questionable, the bigger thing for me is the toy in FNaF4 that is presumably of Funtime Foxy (edit: and the Sister Location breaker room map that still shows Fredbear's and its animatronics, as if it was open at the same time this place was built). No way is she _first_ either way though, wouldn't make any sense to do all that before even knowing about Remnant and possession. Currently I lean to Charlotte -> Elizabeth -> Crying Child for those reasons, but... eh. As you conclude in the video, it's really hard to prove anything one way or another here, kinda just have to go with what makes the most sense to you narratively at this point.
The SL map point assumes this room wasn't just already there or the bunker being older than the rental service. Infact, it's relative proximity to the FNaF 4 gameplay room may imply it was more part of that than anything.
@@siresquawks >or the bunker being older than the rental service.
Honestly, my theory about this...
The Bunker likely began as simply a storage/RnD and Workshop area for Fredbear's, being expanded after it's closing to suit William's needs (possibly similar use for Baby's location, before becoming a fulll-on Rental Facility). Which would ALSO explain the presence of Springlocks that we hadnt seen before. As for "not it's intended use"? Not too certain...
That outro... you good? Also really great video as always! I love your thought processes, you analyze everything very fairly and logically.
I just didn’t like any individual byyye this time so I layered like 5
@@siresquawks Completely understandable
Regardless of wether Charlie or the Crying Child died first, William is a child killing monster…
I am surprise you didn't add in the HW DLC and Silver eyes into your theory. But I think more CC died first as shown his settings in the game had flowers which would means spring or summer time while HW DLC has "Fall fest 83" and Silver Eyes charlie version died around halloween so it be later in the same year.
elizabeth not being in fnaf 4 is probably because she was with her mom. as security breach implies that the aftons were divorced.
thus elizabeth would just be away with her mom in said period. st least thats my take for an in-universe explanation
It's canon, Elizabeth is the little jester possessing btch now
While Crying Child dying first is more narratively satisfying, I definitely believe Charlotte "Charlie" Emily died first.
My favorite trope in FNaF is taking a prominent feature of a character and using it for a nickname if said character is nameless, like “Phone Guy”, “Purple Guy”, “Tape Girl”, “Crying Child”, “Orange Guy” and “Couch Guy”
Honestly I've lost track of so much bullshit in this franchise because of all the books and other such lore related nonsense but my personal timeline goes: William blame Henry for his son's death (bite of '83) kills his daughter which haunts the puppet. William notices the puppet is haunted so he does the 5 missing kids incident to test if it can replicated which leads to the original Fazbear's Pizza being closed (1985). This eventually leads him to create a sister location to further gather remnant which then ultimately leads to his daughter's death and his other son's scooping.
This is the timeline that makes the most sense to me without turning into a convoluted mess. I just think if Charlie died first William's youngest son getting chomped on becomes a full on non sequitur event which I personally hope it wouldn't be.
hearing you say Dave Miller gave me flashbacks to Dayshift
i'd honestly really love to see you cover Dayshift in some way considering it's popularity is slowly fading due to it not getting into the Fanverse for various reasons
It’s probably my favorite fan project
Whenever i hear this debate i always think back to that fnaf world loading screen with Fredbear's description: "Where it all started".
20:32 he’s not William Afton anymore he’s the Aubergine devil.
1:24 or it wasn't Susie saying that, but rather Chica.
The “did Elizabeth or CC die first” argument has always frustrated me as well. But questions to ask are like “Why did Mike bully CC in the first place?” “Why was CC SEVERELY afraid of the animatronics?” (That one’s probably easy to answer) or even “why did William even create the funtimes to kidnap and kill?” And like the cameras in SL. Did William not want to lose another child but he died anyways? This would actually explain even more of his motivation to kill Charlie (because it is thought that Henry was helping William build the funtimes, specifically circus baby, shown in fnaf world I’m pretty sure) but at the same time that conflicts with the “why did William create the funtimes to kidnap and kill” because how would he have found out about remnant before killing Charlie? :P
>“why did William even create the funtimes to kidnap and kill?"
Honestly, my theory is this: Charlie dies by William's hand, she possesses the Puppet, and he sees this. He theorizes how it works, and attempts to reproduce it, causing the MCI.
Seeing the RESOUNDING success, and the closure of Freddy's, he develops (or finishes developing, if he started building before the MCI had occurred) the Funtimes, and announces his Location. Elizabeth dies, the location is shut down and repurposed as a Rental, while he shelves that project.
Following which, the "DCI" occurs, and either after this or FNAF 1, he collects the initial test's Remnant, and injects it into the til-then useless Funtimes. Before soon after dying himself.
That “bye” at the end. I felt that.
11:06 I agree with your po nT but a counter point , my birthed talks lifelessly and dead when in private but then talks like the whole expample you gave when he’s among his peers
Another nail in the coffin for CC witnessing Elizabeth die, SHE ONLY KILLS WHEN ONE PERSON IS IN THE ROOM! He literally couldn't have been there because Baby wouldn't have killed Elizabeth if he was!
"you little jester possesing bitch" got me pretty good lol
This is hard because I could see multiple potential reasons for each case.
Charlie
•"Wound that was first inflicted on me"
•William says he'll put CC back together, implying he had an experience before that confirmed his belief, maybe being Charlie/Puppet.
•The Funs being designed with the purpose of hunting down children would imply William has at least a basic understanding of animatronic possession instead of just some random inclination to kill.
•"I will put you back together" and "Put Elizabeth back together"
•The Puppet from a technological standpoint just doesn't seem as advanced as the Funs.
•Charlie is personally killed by William as opposed to just having one of the animatronics do it, once again implying that the Funs/Baby's was created after.
Crying Child
•An genuine accident wouldn't be counted amongst William's evil deeds for Henry.
•Elizabeth's empty room may have been an custody agreement deal if you believe Mike is in the chair.
•If you believe MM was instead Mike running away and not CC, that could imply both younger siblings died before Charlie's death "ealier* that night.
•Mangle was in Elizabeth's room, implying Baby's was at least in development at the time and CC got hurt at an location where neither the Funs or the iconic four existed.
Elizabeth
•CC may have witnessed Baby take Elizabeth
•Elizabeth's empty room, implying her possible death if you believe Mike was the one running away and it was just William/Mrs Afton in the chair.
•Mangle in Elizabeth's room, meaning Baby's Circus World had to have been a thing before CC's accident and may have closed down before
•William may wanted to keep CC away from Baby's and animatronics in general after what possibly happened to Elizabeth.
•The little mound in MM may have Elizabeth's unmarked graved due to her covered uo death.
There's definitely more I could say to make an argument for each one, but yeah. I personally think it's Charlie > Elizabeth > CC OR CC > Charlie > Elizabeth. The one constant I believe, is that Elizabeth dies AFTER Charlie.
*For C/E/CC*
C - Willaim kills Charlie after snapping on his way to Freddy's. Possibly drunk or upset about his potentially fractured family.
E - William learns of the possession of Puppet and/OR becomes a deranged killer, designing the Funs as a means to accomplish either task. Elizabeth meets her end at the hands of Baby though and William covers uo her death before shutting down BCW.
CC - Mike terrorizes the Crying Child, possibly out of either resentment of the their fractured family much like William or because William tells him to, the fear amplified by the Crying Child either witnessing Elizabeth's death or witnessing an employing getting into a suit. This leads to the infamous bite and William vows to put him back together, confident he'll find a way as he studies Puppet/Baby.
*For CC/C/E*
CC - CC developed a slight fear of the animatronics after seeing an employee get placed into a suit, thinking the employee was being eaten (this fear likely growing as the animatronics likely became more uncanny, which tracks as IRL, some kids were aftaid of the OG Chuck E Cheese animatronics). With an dejected Mother, the potentially higher level of care for Elizabeth from his parents and William's own abusiveness (and potential alcoholism), Mike exploits this fear and decides to bully the child despite having some care for him deep down. This culminates in the infamous bite and CC is placed in a hospital, stuck either in a coma or brain death.
C - Like before, he murders Charlie out of a moment rage and the jealousy of Henry's seemingly perfect life, possibly drunk. He tries to go back to a Bar but is refused as he was kicked out earlier that night due to his anger issues and drives home after with the intent on releasing the rest of him anger out on Mike. Mike ran off to Freddy's that night like he had been already out of grief, his own Mother not noticing he was gone due to her dejected state.
E - He learns of possession in one way or another, deciding he'd try to replicate for CC, visiting the child in the hospital with a promise to put him back together. With this, he'd need a new place, new animatronics, and the death's of more children to begin experimenting. Unfortunately, this is when Elizabeth meets her end at the hands of Baby and the closing of BCW before he could attempt his plans. With that, he decided he'd do what he needed to do in the original method; killing by his own bare hands.
All in all, I don't think William would just randomly design the Funs to kill children without SOME kind of twisted starting point (even if he's long been an psychopath), so I cant really see Elizabeth as the first. The catalyst to his serial killer nature and purposely trying to create possessions had to either be after the death of his child CC (which lead to him killing Charlie out of rage fueled by grief and slowly learning about the supernatural aspects) or after he killed Charlie out of a jealousy fueled rage (once again, eventually learning about the supernatural). I don't see a valid reason he'd create the Funs, which ultimately caused Elizabeth's death, without either *Charlie* or the *Crying Child* dying *FIRST*
I prefer a story where crying child died first but because of midnight motorists i dont think thats the case
About that "Elizabeth isn't here in FNAF 4 so she died first" debate: we must keep in mind that when FNAF 4 was made, it was supposed to be the last game. Sister Location wasn't in the original plan, it was originally a quadrilogy, so we can't use the girl's room being empty as an argument for "Elizabeth died first": she didn't exist when FNAF 4 was made and might not even have been thought of at the time. I think it would be absurd to call her the first death when so many elements point to her not being so.
But actually lore wise there is..
why would william kill if no one died yet?
why would cc be scared of baby in vr if theres no reason..
@@Valentinothepissbabyboi But the Crying Child's death was an accident, whereas Elizabeth's was the result of her being alone with a robot her dad specifically programed to kill children (so still an accident, but wouldn't have had happened if William wasn't a murderer). So what you're saying is that someone had to die before Elizabeth? Because if so I completely agree
Also when we think about it, there doesn't need any tragic event for a child to be scared of the animatronics: look at the amount of children who get scared when they see people in costumes for example (I remember avoiding the characters in Disneyland when I was younger because my sibling was terrified of them). So even if nothing happened yet, CC being scared is completely valid, especially with an older brother jumpscaring him with a foxy mask every chance he gets.
My theory is CC died first, and that was probably the last straw for William who went insane and committed his first murder, probably Charlie as an act of revenge. The next murder might be the missing child incident, and then after William parts ways with Fazbear Entertainment and creates Afton Robotics, Elizabeth dies.
But again that's just a theory, when it comes to FNAF we can never be sure 💀
@@Valentinothepissbabyboi bruh, there was a girl's room in the house. A child's, not an adult's room. She was planned to exist, she might have had gained relevance later on but an Afton daughter did exist in fnaf 4. The only question is if she was dead at that point in 1983 or not.
@@pinkicechuu funtime's are meant to lure and kidnap children, not to kill. Nonetheless her death was an accident. It's quite hard to say why William would engage in build such animatronics if he does not know about remnant and didn't commit his killing spree.
@@Valentinothepissbabyboiwhy would William make a death child murdering robot
Great video! I think we really needed an overhaul of the knowledge we have so far, especially what we can use and what we cant. Im personally of the opposite camp tho, charlie first lol. I agree that that CC dying first is narratively better, but then I think about stuff like the animatronic footprints and the Mangle toy being in elizabeths room (implying the funtimes are being made or have already been made, therefore elizabeth dies before CC). I literally just made a Midnight Motorist vid too if u wanna watch not to plug but I think youll find it interesting even thought you may not agree :)
Glad you liked the video! However, I heavily disagree on the Elizabeth matter however. Funtime Foxy exists in Freddy's 2.0 making them an unreliable tool for dates, as they aren't a character specifically tied to Baby's pizzaworld-if it were a Baby toy or something like that, that could be helpful. We also just don't know what the animatronic footprints are, or if they're even "animatronic" footprints (it doesn't help that at least during my search there aren't any characters with 3 separated toes, all character's wither separated toes are either blocky and not rounded or connected). Not to mention the mangle toy connects more to Mangle's quest than anything, whether it be foreshadowing or memory bullshit.
The person in the coach for me its have to be cc watching fredbear and friends, and cc have a bad day because of mike and his friends bullying him with the characters that cc likes
People have gone wild since 2015 and i see it within certain assumptions. For example The MCI isn't in 85, FNaF 4 shows this over and over. Plushbear isn't William, Scott said FNaF 4 was solvable on its own in the context of the previous 3 games. Noone can make the arguement with just fnaf 4 it's william especially when the Plush talks when William in on screen. It's most likely a spirit. Charlie or Cassidy.
The Game over and over hammers BV saw something related to the Yellow Suits and told to run when a person in one appears. The Plush talks and acts possessed. BV calls the 4 plushies his friends. They show up again in his deathbed. And you can notice the chance in plurality. At one point they say "we are still your friends" and when it's just Plushbear. He says "i" this ain't william.
This is just a small bit to all to show fnaf hasn't complicated this the fans have. Charlie is the first victim as per Henry's word and the rest soon followed in 83 and BV knew the kids.
Youre funny and golden lmao nice work
IMO C.C. died first, which is directly the reason why Charlie was murdered: William lost his way and/or blamed Henry for spring locks that led to his son's death, so he took his revenge.
Heres why I think that Elizabeth died first. William's darkness started with the divorce with his wife after Elizabeth's death and then she committed suicide. William killed Charlotte to destroy the image of Henry's perfect family and to make him feel what he feels. Then evan was killed by Michael. Eventually leading him to discovering remnant and than his killings began.
A huge problem I have with “William Midnight Motorist Murder” is that why would William leave the restaurant to kidnap kids to kill them? Wouldn’t it be more simple and draw less suspicion if he killed them in the restaurant?
I just remembered, didn't someone from steel wool say something in their interview with dawko about a villain who isn't just a monster but has some tragic reason for what they do? That could go nicely with crying child dying first
in their words, most horror villains are part of a Revenge story, they suffer something and lash out due to that one event.
18:56 William just seeing his plush start yabbing and goes "Damn that's good I should use that" is so funny
Personally, I think it's Charlotte. Despite the fact that I'd prefer for her to die after Crying Child, I think there is just too much evidence for her to have died before him. Basically what those are is that the fact that FNAF Worlds clock ending & Happiest Day are connected implies that Charlotte was the one who promised to put him back together. Doing so by getting someone else (I presume Cassidy) to, I guess, unlock the missing memories in the Crying Child's mind. After she unlocks them, she leaves them there for Crying Child to find. After he found and restored his memories, he put the peices back together. He's no longer broken. Leading to him passing on in Happiest Day. This also makes sense of the opened FNAF 4 box being in FNAF World. Basically, the box was keeping the memories of Crying Child locked away, preventing him from moving on. After he restored his memories, the box gets opened. Finally letting him pass on. And so the reason why Charlotte died before him is because she was the one to give the Crying Child the last peice for him to move on in Happiest Day. It's commonly thought she was the one who orchestrated Happiest Day. Which means she's behind the Fredbear character who wanted to restore Crying Childs memories in FNAF World. Which means she was the Fredbear plush in FNAF 4. Which means she dies before Crying Child. (Also in the novels she died in 1982, a year before the Crying Child died.)
Ok so 2 points
1. The puppet being behind the clock ending is largely irrelevant fnaf world doesn’t have to immediately take place after fnaf4 it just has to be after fnaf 4 and before fnaf 3 that’s 40 years of time to work with
2. I wouldn’t be shocked if originally psychic friend freadbear was the puppet when fnaf 4 first released but from Sister location onward
It’s very obviously Willam behind the freadbear plush
If the Freadbear plush with the walkie-talkie on it wasn’t enough of a dead giveaway we can see a map in the Funtime Freddy room which just so happens to have the exact layout of the fnaf 4 mini games and gameplay house
@@kerm7657 My main reason for why I think Puppet is the Fredbear plush is that Fredbear in FNAF World uses the exact same lines as FNAF 4. But then again, you reminded me that Scott had made a "seamless" retcon no one noticed so idk if that really could have changed. Especially after the fact that he hates FNAF World. So he could very well have retconned it out of existence.
@@moonknightanimations1251 I mean fair enough
For the record “I will put you back together” is also something we know Willam has said at some point
At the end of custom night we all know the where Michael says “Father it me Michael. I did it I put her back together”
She died in ‘83
@@SCP-469 where is the evidence for it?
Honestly, I go with Charlie dying first. It's actually BECAUSE of Crying Child that I believe this, amazingly enough. I always thought him and Charlie being friends made sense since their dads are co-workers. And judging by the plushies, Crying Child was at one point not terrified by the idea of going to Fredbear's. Hell, I don't think most kids his age (in my mind 7-8, but could be younger) jump as easily as he does, and why would he be crying all the time if something else didn't happen? So having someone who's essentially his best friend go missing could definitely cause that, and since it was William, his own father, who killed her, Crying Child is probably not getting the emotional support he'd need during that time. The crying makes him a bit of a target for bullies, so ironically Charlie's death can directly lead to Crying Child's death.
But there could be more. Before I explain, I should note that this includes speculation based around MCI83 (yes I believe it, but that's why I'm bringing it up before I get into something involving it). If we also use MCI83, then Crying Child probably has even more of a reason to be on edge constantly. Other kids his age or younger are ALSO disappearing, and even if he's not close to them the fact that Charlie vanished and then other kids started vanishing too could get him panicking that he could be next (which, again, ironically kind of is the case).
So really, it could make narrative sense either way.
Also, this is in the context of CassidyPlush (again, you don't have to believe it and it's just letting you know).
>and why would he be crying all the time if something else didn't happen?
Terrorized by his brother relentlessly, teased by everyone for his fear of the Suits, and how they'll hunt him down at night, seeing an employee getting eaten alive by one of the suits. Forced to be near them and having it only reinforced by his "Best friend" reminding him how scary they are, etc.
>If we also use MCI83, then Crying Child probably has even more of a reason to be on edge constantly.
Except the Springlocks were ALREADY retired before MCI occurred (with a comment after about how the Spring Bonnie suit was used), and it was NOT at a Fredbear's location, it was at a Freddy's location. The one where the Core 4 came from in 2. We NEVER see them outside of the cartoon airing in 1983 and the toys...
Not to mention the entire place closed down, it would not be open.
Or tl;dr:
Doesnt work, Springlocks havent been retired yet, Core 4 nowhere to be seen, the timing would be impossible.
Look man it's what makes sense to me from a narrative standpoint
I think it’s a matter of your choice becuase if both don’t really change the story maybe it’s one of those things where u choose
Could the Fredbear Plush be a possessed creation made by William just as Funtime Foxy, Baby, etc. are possessed creations made by William? The thing that always stumps me about the Fredbear Plush having no supernatural abilities whatsoever is the fact that we literally see its disembodied head on a flower. I guess you could say the Fredbear Plush is the result of an illusion disc, but to me, it would be weird that Scott introduced such supernatural visuals (akin to the disembodied head you see of Golden Freddy in FNaF 2) only for us to have a hard sci-fi explanation when the Silver Eyes wasn't even out and he intended FNaF 4 to be the last game. All of that is to say, could it be that the Fredbear Plush is both a device William made to warn his son AND is possessed by Cassidy at the same exact time?
Okay, and side note, I just want to say how much it dumbfounds me that if the Crying Child's dad is William Afton himself, why... why... why???? does he appear purple when he sees him? Wouldn't he see his dad as a similar human to literally every other human he sees because he knows him even more than someone like "pigtails girl?" I remember being 13 and hyped for FNaF4 so much because I thought it would have the son of the purple guy as the protagonist, largely because of that purple robot and toy phone in the trailer. And at the time, what I was so excited for was seeing this glimpse into such a mysterious character's literal home life. I remember distinctly thinking that the reason Purple Guy was purple was likely due in part to the animatronics' comprehension of him. So to see the Crying Child see his own father as purple, to me that says that either 1) the purple guy we are seeing in FNaF4 is not purple to the Crying Child and is instead a normal looking human who is being shown differently to us as an audience, 2) he somehow (despite the insurmountable amount of evidence) not related to William Afton, or... he sees his dad as purple, as this "shadowy figure" because he saw his dad do something and no longer trusts him, whether that be a misinterpretation of benevolent/neutral behavior or actually seeing his dad kill someone. In writing this comment, I honestly feel this could be some evidence as to why William communicates to him as Fredbear: because his own son is afraid of him and doesn't trust him so he turns to making himself this cute plush toy that his son would then trust.
But I can't even begin to think... I would William say, "What has he done this time," as a character on the same power level as the Crying Child? Wouldn't he outright punish his son as the person with the power as their father? Or at least, wouldn't he do something about Michael's bullying beyond just pretending to be a sentient stuffed animal for his son? Wouldn't he do even a single bit of punishment, you know, as someone who is capable of serial killing? All of this just makes me gravitate towards that first thing I said, that the Fredbear plush is both a vessel for William to communicate to his son and also an animatronic that has been hijacked by something William never intended.
idk why im watching this video but i can't help but notice the DSaF parts lmao
Unless I missing something does anyone know why the puppet is referred to as Charlie if it’s never mentioned in the games only the books? could that clear up the story a bit since ppl assume golden Freddy is possessed by two spirits when Cassidy could be the name reference on the grave for the puppet as well
Because logically speaking, Henry mention his daughter in a voice line (given the thing that implies it is Henry is “HRY23” voice log), logic suggest that the daughter shares the name
@@smt64productions40and henry doesnt have the sub name "emily" in the games
@@Wizardjones69he has, dude, it’s just not shown.
I saw a video about a theory that might says that guy sitting on the chair watching TV is Henry, not Mrs. Afton or Michael.
Henry, based on his dialogues in FFPS, seemed to be a kind yet regretful person, and knowing William lost his son to Fredbear, probably offered to look after Michael (and maybe Elizabeth) while William was still grieving and getting drunk at JRs. This of course, made Henry neglect Charlie. William, taking advantage of Henry's kindness and having this opportunity (and most likely drunk), would've had the chance to kill Charlie, and his line of "the wound first inflicting me and now i let out to others" makes more sense.
I mean I suggested that in my Mike video,
2:13 caught me so off-guard 🤣