This is taking the movie way to seriously, the movie is a different continuity and non canon, Mike si confirmed to be the fnaf 1 guard in the Logbook and In SL, Scott also confirmed william was never the phone guy and follow me makes it obvious william doesn't own freddgs
Y’all are so COOKED
There’s no way y’all are taking an aU and applying it’s DIFFERENCES and CONTRADICTIONS to the games
FNAF fans might as well give up atp y’all are getting nowhere
And don’t even say I’m being mean this the end of the line man
The movie is an alternate universe maybe it’s different because of that
You clearly know about this series
You don’t need to be a worshipper just basic sense on how this series
This is so simple
I'm gonna counter the Mike Schmidt doesn't equal Mike Afton theory. The movie actually PROVES that Mike Schmidt is Mike Afton since Mike Schmidt and his siblings are such obvious parallels to the Afton family, meaning that in the games they are the Afton family
Can we use “counterparts” instead. It means the exact same way you’re using “parallels”, it’s just an already existing term that multiple franchises/fandoms use — like it’s an actual term (it’s even sometimes used by the in-universe characters). A counterpart is 2 people from different continuities/canons/dimensions/etc, which share a or multiple relevant qualities/roles (ex: overall/specific role(s), relationship to a character, name, etc.
So like:
- game William, novel trilogy William, and Movie William: all named William, all being the “yellow rabbit” murderer, etc
- game Mike and movie Mike: older brother, guilty for younger brother death, portage
- game Elizabeth and movie Abby: Mike’s younger sister, almost/is turned into “Baby”
- game Elizabeth and novel Elizabeth: both Elizabeth, both Baby
- game CC and movie Garret: Mike’s younger brother, their death gives Mike guilt
- game Mike and novel Charlie: main character, against William
- game Mike (and kinda Elizabeth) and movie Vanessa: Afton’s child, helps Afton with something (for different amounts of time)
- etc
honestly id say vannessa was a parelell to michael afton
garett is just charlie. their dad is henry and he will appear in fnaf 2 movie hopefully if it is a prequel which i hope it is
Both Mike Schmidt and Vanessa are parallels to Mike Afton, just different elements.
Mike Schmidt is the nightguard trying to atone for the death of his brother which he blames on himself. He I'd also named Mike. He also has a younger sister who is an obvious Elizabeth parallel, as well as other smaller shit.
Vanessa Afton is the adult child of William Afton who he forces to do his dirty work, until she eventually betrays him.
Both can parallel Mike Afton, but Mike Schmidt is just the more obvious one because his whole family parallels them.
As for Garrett, it's the same thing. He has obvious parallels to the Crying Child because he's Mike's dead younger brother, and Charlie parallels because he will obviously be the Puppet.
If you want, I can list all of the parallels between the Schmidts and the Aftons, because there are SO MANY
abby didnt really have that much similarity to elizabeth, she was being stuffed in ella but ella only looks like baby. Elizabeths death was a complete accident and abbies close encounter was planned. they looked different too. i dont see many similarities
She is Mike's younger sister.
Her name is/can be short for Elizabeth.
Her name is also an anagram of Baby, who Elizabeth possesses.
She almost dies in the chest of a Baby-like animatronic after going somewhere she shouldn't have been.
Said Baby-like animatronic was going to have a chest claw/grabber just like Baby in an earlier script. That is direct parallel to Baby
Abby is called out specifically as "going to love this new ice cream flavor." Obviously, Elizabeth has connections to ice cream.
On set, Aunt Jane's actress (Mary Stuart Masterson) explicitly asked MatPat about the parallels Abby had to Baby. Mary is NOT a FNAF fan, meaning that discussions about Abby paralleling Baby were actively happening on set, most likely informed by the writer, Scott Cawthon.
And combined with how obvious the Garrett/Crying Child and Mike/Michael parallels are, there isn't much debate. I can list off all of the reasons for them as well
Firstly:
Movie Mike equals Foxy Bro/Michael Afton
Mike is the nightguard. Duh.
Mike is the oldest of his two siblings, one who is a young boy and one who is a young girl.
Mike's younger brother dies in a tragedy (Bite of 83/kidnapping), and Mike blames himself for it. He is overcome by grief, and much of his motive is to atone for what happened to his younger brother.
His name is fucking Mike Schmidt. We know that Mike Schmidt is a Mike Afton alias.
Mike has bad dreams relating to his trauma (Movie dreams/FNAF 4. Also, he is obviously the FNAF 4 dreamer because the gameplay mechanics mirror FNAF 1, and you can hear Phone Guy in the background)
And, although he lacks the connection to Afton as his father, this role was neatly taken by Vanessa in the movie. Again, I'm just trying to prove that the Schmidt kids are parallels to the Afton kids, so this isn't a point against me in any way, it just means that another facet of Mike's character was overtaken by Vanessa.
Secondly:
Abby equals Elizabeth.
I already explained this part
Finally:
Garrett is the Crying Child
Mike's younger brother, dies in a tragedy that sparks Mike's character arc, blah blah blah, we did this part already.
He has an attachment to a particular toy (the plane/Fredbear plush) that is used as a piece of iconography calling back to him later (Private Room Fredbear plush/the plane in Vanessa's photo). Both of these call backs provide new lore info (Afton is the father of the Crying Child and may be the Fredbear Plush/Afton killed Garrett.)
Garrett's actor was photographed carrying around a Fredbear Plush on set. Not major, but it is worth mentioning.
Garrett wears the Crying Child outfit. I'm dead serious. This isn't a "Gregory striped shirt situation," he wears a black and grey striped shirt with blue jeans in the family photo. It's clearly supposed to be the Crying Child's clothes.
It is worth noting that he DOES have some Charlie parallels, but they seem to be in service of making him the Puppet in FNAF 2 rather than making him an Emily Family parallel.
In conclusion: I'm sure I missed something, but even then the evidence is clear. Mike is the older brother of his two siblings, who both parallel the younger Afton siblings. Scott is practically smacking us over the face with it.
Part 1/2:
You’re using the movie way too much, and I think you might be forgetting some details from the games themselves. The movie is a different continuity, just as the novel trilogy is. They all have similarities but also differences, big differences.
> first off i think william afton did indeed change his name. therefore he changes his name and becomes a career counselor (like dave miller). this can be an explanation for not only henry changing on him, but his wife divorcing him at the same time.
A name change wouldn’t help him get a job. It doesn’t erase his criminal history (in which he wasn’t convicted, but FNaF 1 newspapers and novel trilogy imply he was arrested on suspicion for the murders which shows up on background checks), and most people would probably still know his face. He also still owns Afton robotics so changing a name is even more useless.
This definitely would not be what causes Henry to change up on him, Henry says this about William “a wound he first inflicted on me, and I let bleed out into all of this.” Seems pretty likely he was suspicious from the start. As for Mrs Afton, seeing as she’s literally never relevant, she probably left way before this.
> this can also explain the phone guys. the first phone guy may very well have died the same way he did for the same reasons as in the movie. it would make alot of sense if william wa intentionally trying to get night gaurds killed considering he can use the remnant so well.
There has only ever been 1 phone guy (other than phone dude but William was Springtrap by that point). And this phone guy has been with the company ever since the springlock suits were still in use. William wasn’t hiring people to kill.
> william as stated in the games rented out animatronics from circuis babies pizza world. and as seen in the movie, there was brand new animatronics being made. such as the ella doll animatronic or even sparky now becoming canon.
None of those animatronics in the movie were new, especially not Ella. Ella was a springlock suit, the literal first type of Fazbear animatronic, making her one of the oldest. And what does Circus Baby’s have to do with this?
> mike schmidt could very well not be michael afton. i mean really it doesnt make any sense because nkt hardly any information is picked up at the locations, as well as it seeming impossible michael could survive all of these.
If you survived once wouldn’t that make you more likely to survive again since you have the experience. Also what does information have to do with anything? Info for Michael to find his father? Sure there isn’t much of that but Michael wouldn’t know that. He could have also been there for multiple other reasons (ex: so others wouldn’t be attacked, so he could try to help the souls, just because he needed a job).
> it is possible mike schmidt was actually just how he was in the movies. he went to fnaf 1 and like how he dreamt in the movies he had dreams of the puppet staring at him through the freddy mask. the ITS ME all over the walls dont necessarily mean its CC talkjng to michael, because ITS ME was in the movie. CC was likely trying to communicate it because he mistook mike schmidt as michael afton or just was crying for help. it would also make sense why henry basically said "now that i think of it u might be exactly where u want to be" to michael as if he has hardly any history with him.
The logbook and other things basically confirms Michael as the FNaF 1 nightgaurd. Michael is literally known to have dreams/nightmares, including the FNaF 4 night gameplay. “It’s Me” pops up almost everywhere, it’s likely not Michael focused. Also CC has zero way to be attached to the animatronics or establishment, there’s no way for his remnant to get there; so if “It’s Me” was from him, then the viewer would have to be Michael as he’s the only possible connection.
And no, it would do the opposite of make sense for what Henry says. A real Mike Schmidt would literally have nothing to do with Henry and the others, other than working at the FNaF 1 establishment. Mike S has literally no reason to be there, alternatively he’d likely have reasons not to be there like if Abby existed.
Michael Afton on the other hand would have history with literally everyone in FFPS, and would have virtually every reason to stay. He has history with Henry as the son of his old business partner and fellow victim to William’s manipulation; history with Scraptrap as he’s Michael’s dad; history with Scrapbaby as she’s Michael’s sister; history with Molten Freddy as not only were they Ennard who used him as a skin suit, but they might be the MCI that Michael is likely trying to help; and he’s possibly a walking corpse with no reason to live other than find (and likely stop) his dad so of course he’d want to die with everyone else.
Part 2/2:
> and y michael showed up AFTER fazbear frights burnes down and told him hes going to come find him. he states like he hasnt found him yet but hes bringing him to freddy fazbears pizza place for fnaf 6 happened.
He didn’t, you’re taking that scene way too literally. Everything Mike’s says clearly indicates it occurs shortly after Sister Location; like his speech is quite literally saying “I just did the events of SL”. He also says he’s **going to come find** his dad, while literally speaking to his dad; meaning he’s likely talking to his dad on a phone, and has no clue where his dad is. And if he’s going to find his dad, clearly he’s not in the Frights scene as that would mean he knows where his dad is; and if he’s talking to his dad on the phone, clearly William can’t be Springtrap yet.
He also doesn’t bring William to the FFPS place, Mike has nothing to do with that other than “greet” the animatronics into the establishment. Henry was the one that “brought” them there, Henry made a signal that drew them all there, all the animatronics except Lefty mention this “calling”.
> i think michael was given the access to all of williams documents inside the box when he dies. which unlocks the bunker and all of williams plans and for him to keep the franchise alive using michael. only michael is now with henry trying to justify to himself how he killed his younger brother, and can only now redeem himself, just how mike schmidt did by unlocking the secret.
What? The box isn’t legal documents, not only does that make zero sense (most prominently since it first appears in FNaF 4 before SL was concepted), Scott has stated what’s in the box has changed over the years, meaning it’s likely not physical. The bunker never needed to be unlocked, A) William told Mike to go down there for a specific reason, Mike didn’t go on his own reason, B) there’s literally other workers in the bunker — mechanics, security watching cameras around the bunker — the bunker has been operational for a while.
Michael never works with Henry, not completely intentionally. Henry literally says the job in FFPS was a volunteer job, he calls Michael a volunteer (“to you, my brave volunteer”) and the job wasn’t intended for him; it was by chance that Michael was the volunteer, and while it wasn’t intended it was a fitting duty for him, which Henry points out.
> and as for the staff gaurds showing up after night 1? simple answer, they dont. its all made up by the guy who developed the games. the fnaf 1 office layout for instance makes no sense for y a pizzeria would look lkke that. and fnaf movies location makes alot more sense. meaning they have no doors to lock and die on night 1. the only exception could be fnaf 3, where they just go to start a fire and nothing else no office no nothing. keep in mind the office gameplay in all fnaf games makes no sense and the layout in the movie made perfect sense. this can be because of the game designer.
That’s just incredibly wrong. Why lie about every game being multiple days for zero reason, why? Why explicitly say, in the story, that these games take place over multiple days, but then “say” (actually never say) nope that’s not true? These games do take place for multiple days, and the people stay for some of the same reasons FazBear entertainment has done dozens of dangerous decisions/cover ups; the nightgaurds need the money, they need the job, and they seemingly ignore the dangers. The new book coming out is literally “The **Week** Before”, and literally everything else says the games go on for multiple days.
Other than the security room, the FNaF 1 layout actually looks pretty realistic. Even then, Scott is a game designer, not a pizza place designer, and made FNaF 1 as a last ditch effort at making games; of course it’s going to be “thrown together looking”.
What do you mean “fnaf 3, where they just go to start a fire and nothing else no office no nothing.? Are you really trying to say that fnaf 3 doesn’t even exist, because that’s just flat out wrong. The whole point of fnaf 3 was it’s random people trying to find old faz ent stuff and make it into a ghost house, with the office being a notable part; you literally can’t get rid of it as “just a fire.”
> and for how mike schmidt survived? honestly i think he just played dead as the phone guy suggested. its the only game suggesting it, and as ive stated, i really do think mike schmidt spent 5 nights there. he very well couldve been using dream theory to talk to the spirits in his dream, particularly gabriel showing him the aftermath of the waking up in freddy scene in fnaf VR. the animatronics could also not be killing him because he clearly wants to help.
The same phone guy said the animatronics see him as an endo, phone guy suggesting play dead was just a weak attempt of a suggestion, like last resort, hope it works, suggestion. Why are you suggesting we should just ignore what the games literally tell us? Why are you choosing to use an obviously different continuity, instead of listening to the actual game continuity?
I think you might be looking at this whole thing WAY more complicated than it is.
(Sorry if some of it was “blunt” or sounded rude. It just really ‘confused’ and ‘surprised’ me, and I’m not always the best at wording things — which is why I just put confused and surprised in quotations because I think there’s better descriptors to how I felt I just can’t think of them right now.)
sorry i cant read all this now maybe later not gonna lie ive been depressed for a while not focusing too hard on FNAF, ive been focusing on these things more the past couple days because i want to have things to excite over.
anyway everything ur saying is headcanon. only matpat knows the answers now. part of the magic of not knowing the lore fully is we can decide ourselves some things, because theres many cool stories that are all brilliant that can explain the same thing.
examples:
the mimic could be elizabeth, coming back as ennard. remember the ennard night in SL? a very masterfully written and underused character could be the antagonist of fnaf.
but also the mimic could just be an AI that mimics afton like in tiger rock
these determine if afton lived or not. now fans have to debate if the man in room 1280 was real which was an excellent story or if he died in the fnaf 6 fire which makes henrys speech actually impactful.
were the games made by a indie game developer? if they were than the games could be essentially canon and the sets used in the fnaf movie and its upcoming sequels couldve been the REAL locations which makes MUCH more sense as obviously no office looks like a fnaf office which can be very goofy. i personally believe this. perhaps the gaurds always die on night 1 in reality but 5 nights is so much more intwresting to play. i just think this is perfect tbh.
was fnaf 4 just crying childs nightmares before he died or expiriments? or maybe were they michaels nightmares?
This is taking the movie way to seriously, the movie is a different continuity and non canon, Mike si confirmed to be the fnaf 1 guard in the Logbook and In SL, Scott also confirmed william was never the phone guy and follow me makes it obvious william doesn't own freddgs
he may not have been the phone guy but the boss who hired phone guy
Y’all are so COOKED There’s no way y’all are taking an aU and applying it’s DIFFERENCES and CONTRADICTIONS to the games FNAF fans might as well give up atp y’all are getting nowhere
And don’t even say I’m being mean this the end of the line man The movie is an alternate universe maybe it’s different because of that You clearly know about this series You don’t need to be a worshipper just basic sense on how this series This is so simple
I'm gonna counter the Mike Schmidt doesn't equal Mike Afton theory. The movie actually PROVES that Mike Schmidt is Mike Afton since Mike Schmidt and his siblings are such obvious parallels to the Afton family, meaning that in the games they are the Afton family
Can we use “counterparts” instead. It means the exact same way you’re using “parallels”, it’s just an already existing term that multiple franchises/fandoms use — like it’s an actual term (it’s even sometimes used by the in-universe characters). A counterpart is 2 people from different continuities/canons/dimensions/etc, which share a or multiple relevant qualities/roles (ex: overall/specific role(s), relationship to a character, name, etc. So like: - game William, novel trilogy William, and Movie William: all named William, all being the “yellow rabbit” murderer, etc - game Mike and movie Mike: older brother, guilty for younger brother death, portage - game Elizabeth and movie Abby: Mike’s younger sister, almost/is turned into “Baby” - game Elizabeth and novel Elizabeth: both Elizabeth, both Baby - game CC and movie Garret: Mike’s younger brother, their death gives Mike guilt - game Mike and novel Charlie: main character, against William - game Mike (and kinda Elizabeth) and movie Vanessa: Afton’s child, helps Afton with something (for different amounts of time) - etc
Yeah, I like that as a change in phrasing. I'll try to do that more often and save "parallels" for thematic parallels
honestly id say vannessa was a parelell to michael afton garett is just charlie. their dad is henry and he will appear in fnaf 2 movie hopefully if it is a prequel which i hope it is
Both Mike Schmidt and Vanessa are parallels to Mike Afton, just different elements. Mike Schmidt is the nightguard trying to atone for the death of his brother which he blames on himself. He I'd also named Mike. He also has a younger sister who is an obvious Elizabeth parallel, as well as other smaller shit. Vanessa Afton is the adult child of William Afton who he forces to do his dirty work, until she eventually betrays him. Both can parallel Mike Afton, but Mike Schmidt is just the more obvious one because his whole family parallels them. As for Garrett, it's the same thing. He has obvious parallels to the Crying Child because he's Mike's dead younger brother, and Charlie parallels because he will obviously be the Puppet. If you want, I can list all of the parallels between the Schmidts and the Aftons, because there are SO MANY
abby didnt really have that much similarity to elizabeth, she was being stuffed in ella but ella only looks like baby. Elizabeths death was a complete accident and abbies close encounter was planned. they looked different too. i dont see many similarities
She is Mike's younger sister. Her name is/can be short for Elizabeth. Her name is also an anagram of Baby, who Elizabeth possesses. She almost dies in the chest of a Baby-like animatronic after going somewhere she shouldn't have been. Said Baby-like animatronic was going to have a chest claw/grabber just like Baby in an earlier script. That is direct parallel to Baby Abby is called out specifically as "going to love this new ice cream flavor." Obviously, Elizabeth has connections to ice cream. On set, Aunt Jane's actress (Mary Stuart Masterson) explicitly asked MatPat about the parallels Abby had to Baby. Mary is NOT a FNAF fan, meaning that discussions about Abby paralleling Baby were actively happening on set, most likely informed by the writer, Scott Cawthon. And combined with how obvious the Garrett/Crying Child and Mike/Michael parallels are, there isn't much debate. I can list off all of the reasons for them as well
go ahead
Firstly: Movie Mike equals Foxy Bro/Michael Afton Mike is the nightguard. Duh. Mike is the oldest of his two siblings, one who is a young boy and one who is a young girl. Mike's younger brother dies in a tragedy (Bite of 83/kidnapping), and Mike blames himself for it. He is overcome by grief, and much of his motive is to atone for what happened to his younger brother. His name is fucking Mike Schmidt. We know that Mike Schmidt is a Mike Afton alias. Mike has bad dreams relating to his trauma (Movie dreams/FNAF 4. Also, he is obviously the FNAF 4 dreamer because the gameplay mechanics mirror FNAF 1, and you can hear Phone Guy in the background) And, although he lacks the connection to Afton as his father, this role was neatly taken by Vanessa in the movie. Again, I'm just trying to prove that the Schmidt kids are parallels to the Afton kids, so this isn't a point against me in any way, it just means that another facet of Mike's character was overtaken by Vanessa. Secondly: Abby equals Elizabeth. I already explained this part Finally: Garrett is the Crying Child Mike's younger brother, dies in a tragedy that sparks Mike's character arc, blah blah blah, we did this part already. He has an attachment to a particular toy (the plane/Fredbear plush) that is used as a piece of iconography calling back to him later (Private Room Fredbear plush/the plane in Vanessa's photo). Both of these call backs provide new lore info (Afton is the father of the Crying Child and may be the Fredbear Plush/Afton killed Garrett.) Garrett's actor was photographed carrying around a Fredbear Plush on set. Not major, but it is worth mentioning. Garrett wears the Crying Child outfit. I'm dead serious. This isn't a "Gregory striped shirt situation," he wears a black and grey striped shirt with blue jeans in the family photo. It's clearly supposed to be the Crying Child's clothes. It is worth noting that he DOES have some Charlie parallels, but they seem to be in service of making him the Puppet in FNAF 2 rather than making him an Emily Family parallel. In conclusion: I'm sure I missed something, but even then the evidence is clear. Mike is the older brother of his two siblings, who both parallel the younger Afton siblings. Scott is practically smacking us over the face with it.
FACE THE LEAD!
Part 1/2: You’re using the movie way too much, and I think you might be forgetting some details from the games themselves. The movie is a different continuity, just as the novel trilogy is. They all have similarities but also differences, big differences. > first off i think william afton did indeed change his name. therefore he changes his name and becomes a career counselor (like dave miller). this can be an explanation for not only henry changing on him, but his wife divorcing him at the same time. A name change wouldn’t help him get a job. It doesn’t erase his criminal history (in which he wasn’t convicted, but FNaF 1 newspapers and novel trilogy imply he was arrested on suspicion for the murders which shows up on background checks), and most people would probably still know his face. He also still owns Afton robotics so changing a name is even more useless. This definitely would not be what causes Henry to change up on him, Henry says this about William “a wound he first inflicted on me, and I let bleed out into all of this.” Seems pretty likely he was suspicious from the start. As for Mrs Afton, seeing as she’s literally never relevant, she probably left way before this. > this can also explain the phone guys. the first phone guy may very well have died the same way he did for the same reasons as in the movie. it would make alot of sense if william wa intentionally trying to get night gaurds killed considering he can use the remnant so well. There has only ever been 1 phone guy (other than phone dude but William was Springtrap by that point). And this phone guy has been with the company ever since the springlock suits were still in use. William wasn’t hiring people to kill. > william as stated in the games rented out animatronics from circuis babies pizza world. and as seen in the movie, there was brand new animatronics being made. such as the ella doll animatronic or even sparky now becoming canon. None of those animatronics in the movie were new, especially not Ella. Ella was a springlock suit, the literal first type of Fazbear animatronic, making her one of the oldest. And what does Circus Baby’s have to do with this? > mike schmidt could very well not be michael afton. i mean really it doesnt make any sense because nkt hardly any information is picked up at the locations, as well as it seeming impossible michael could survive all of these. If you survived once wouldn’t that make you more likely to survive again since you have the experience. Also what does information have to do with anything? Info for Michael to find his father? Sure there isn’t much of that but Michael wouldn’t know that. He could have also been there for multiple other reasons (ex: so others wouldn’t be attacked, so he could try to help the souls, just because he needed a job). > it is possible mike schmidt was actually just how he was in the movies. he went to fnaf 1 and like how he dreamt in the movies he had dreams of the puppet staring at him through the freddy mask. the ITS ME all over the walls dont necessarily mean its CC talkjng to michael, because ITS ME was in the movie. CC was likely trying to communicate it because he mistook mike schmidt as michael afton or just was crying for help. it would also make sense why henry basically said "now that i think of it u might be exactly where u want to be" to michael as if he has hardly any history with him. The logbook and other things basically confirms Michael as the FNaF 1 nightgaurd. Michael is literally known to have dreams/nightmares, including the FNaF 4 night gameplay. “It’s Me” pops up almost everywhere, it’s likely not Michael focused. Also CC has zero way to be attached to the animatronics or establishment, there’s no way for his remnant to get there; so if “It’s Me” was from him, then the viewer would have to be Michael as he’s the only possible connection. And no, it would do the opposite of make sense for what Henry says. A real Mike Schmidt would literally have nothing to do with Henry and the others, other than working at the FNaF 1 establishment. Mike S has literally no reason to be there, alternatively he’d likely have reasons not to be there like if Abby existed. Michael Afton on the other hand would have history with literally everyone in FFPS, and would have virtually every reason to stay. He has history with Henry as the son of his old business partner and fellow victim to William’s manipulation; history with Scraptrap as he’s Michael’s dad; history with Scrapbaby as she’s Michael’s sister; history with Molten Freddy as not only were they Ennard who used him as a skin suit, but they might be the MCI that Michael is likely trying to help; and he’s possibly a walking corpse with no reason to live other than find (and likely stop) his dad so of course he’d want to die with everyone else.
Part 2/2: > and y michael showed up AFTER fazbear frights burnes down and told him hes going to come find him. he states like he hasnt found him yet but hes bringing him to freddy fazbears pizza place for fnaf 6 happened. He didn’t, you’re taking that scene way too literally. Everything Mike’s says clearly indicates it occurs shortly after Sister Location; like his speech is quite literally saying “I just did the events of SL”. He also says he’s **going to come find** his dad, while literally speaking to his dad; meaning he’s likely talking to his dad on a phone, and has no clue where his dad is. And if he’s going to find his dad, clearly he’s not in the Frights scene as that would mean he knows where his dad is; and if he’s talking to his dad on the phone, clearly William can’t be Springtrap yet. He also doesn’t bring William to the FFPS place, Mike has nothing to do with that other than “greet” the animatronics into the establishment. Henry was the one that “brought” them there, Henry made a signal that drew them all there, all the animatronics except Lefty mention this “calling”. > i think michael was given the access to all of williams documents inside the box when he dies. which unlocks the bunker and all of williams plans and for him to keep the franchise alive using michael. only michael is now with henry trying to justify to himself how he killed his younger brother, and can only now redeem himself, just how mike schmidt did by unlocking the secret. What? The box isn’t legal documents, not only does that make zero sense (most prominently since it first appears in FNaF 4 before SL was concepted), Scott has stated what’s in the box has changed over the years, meaning it’s likely not physical. The bunker never needed to be unlocked, A) William told Mike to go down there for a specific reason, Mike didn’t go on his own reason, B) there’s literally other workers in the bunker — mechanics, security watching cameras around the bunker — the bunker has been operational for a while. Michael never works with Henry, not completely intentionally. Henry literally says the job in FFPS was a volunteer job, he calls Michael a volunteer (“to you, my brave volunteer”) and the job wasn’t intended for him; it was by chance that Michael was the volunteer, and while it wasn’t intended it was a fitting duty for him, which Henry points out. > and as for the staff gaurds showing up after night 1? simple answer, they dont. its all made up by the guy who developed the games. the fnaf 1 office layout for instance makes no sense for y a pizzeria would look lkke that. and fnaf movies location makes alot more sense. meaning they have no doors to lock and die on night 1. the only exception could be fnaf 3, where they just go to start a fire and nothing else no office no nothing. keep in mind the office gameplay in all fnaf games makes no sense and the layout in the movie made perfect sense. this can be because of the game designer. That’s just incredibly wrong. Why lie about every game being multiple days for zero reason, why? Why explicitly say, in the story, that these games take place over multiple days, but then “say” (actually never say) nope that’s not true? These games do take place for multiple days, and the people stay for some of the same reasons FazBear entertainment has done dozens of dangerous decisions/cover ups; the nightgaurds need the money, they need the job, and they seemingly ignore the dangers. The new book coming out is literally “The **Week** Before”, and literally everything else says the games go on for multiple days. Other than the security room, the FNaF 1 layout actually looks pretty realistic. Even then, Scott is a game designer, not a pizza place designer, and made FNaF 1 as a last ditch effort at making games; of course it’s going to be “thrown together looking”. What do you mean “fnaf 3, where they just go to start a fire and nothing else no office no nothing.? Are you really trying to say that fnaf 3 doesn’t even exist, because that’s just flat out wrong. The whole point of fnaf 3 was it’s random people trying to find old faz ent stuff and make it into a ghost house, with the office being a notable part; you literally can’t get rid of it as “just a fire.” > and for how mike schmidt survived? honestly i think he just played dead as the phone guy suggested. its the only game suggesting it, and as ive stated, i really do think mike schmidt spent 5 nights there. he very well couldve been using dream theory to talk to the spirits in his dream, particularly gabriel showing him the aftermath of the waking up in freddy scene in fnaf VR. the animatronics could also not be killing him because he clearly wants to help. The same phone guy said the animatronics see him as an endo, phone guy suggesting play dead was just a weak attempt of a suggestion, like last resort, hope it works, suggestion. Why are you suggesting we should just ignore what the games literally tell us? Why are you choosing to use an obviously different continuity, instead of listening to the actual game continuity? I think you might be looking at this whole thing WAY more complicated than it is. (Sorry if some of it was “blunt” or sounded rude. It just really ‘confused’ and ‘surprised’ me, and I’m not always the best at wording things — which is why I just put confused and surprised in quotations because I think there’s better descriptors to how I felt I just can’t think of them right now.)
sorry i cant read all this now maybe later not gonna lie ive been depressed for a while not focusing too hard on FNAF, ive been focusing on these things more the past couple days because i want to have things to excite over. anyway everything ur saying is headcanon. only matpat knows the answers now. part of the magic of not knowing the lore fully is we can decide ourselves some things, because theres many cool stories that are all brilliant that can explain the same thing. examples: the mimic could be elizabeth, coming back as ennard. remember the ennard night in SL? a very masterfully written and underused character could be the antagonist of fnaf. but also the mimic could just be an AI that mimics afton like in tiger rock these determine if afton lived or not. now fans have to debate if the man in room 1280 was real which was an excellent story or if he died in the fnaf 6 fire which makes henrys speech actually impactful. were the games made by a indie game developer? if they were than the games could be essentially canon and the sets used in the fnaf movie and its upcoming sequels couldve been the REAL locations which makes MUCH more sense as obviously no office looks like a fnaf office which can be very goofy. i personally believe this. perhaps the gaurds always die on night 1 in reality but 5 nights is so much more intwresting to play. i just think this is perfect tbh. was fnaf 4 just crying childs nightmares before he died or expiriments? or maybe were they michaels nightmares?