1) There are mentions of ghosts in the first game. Most of the lore of the game is hidden, and you have to search for it, its the same with every game. 2) I watched the move and liked a lot, but I am a fan of the series. Its a movie made for the fans of the series, so much of it connect to the lore of the games and stuff. For example, I would suggest for you to start looking at videos from Mattpat to undestand who exacly is Willian Afton and why he is doing what he is doing. 3) Its a horror for kids, its not a horror for fans of regular horror like Alien.
@@TomyDayoslol I said the same thing about the first. I liked it but they should have cut the dream shit out and his missing brother and made a rated r version. Would have been better. But me my wife and daughter went to the movies for the hell of it and to get out as a fam and I can say it wasn't bad. But going into a movie with low expectations always helps. No one ever hyped the movie and that helped it out a lot I think.
@@D_an_ not entirely true, there were already hints of lore disseminated all around the game. The reason he wrote more is because the game was a massive success and he saw an opportunity to create a franchise.
As a FNaF fan, your review of this film is better than many other i've seen with very valid points, and it's expected from someone who didn't play the games. Which i agree is a mistake with this movie for not explaining those things. But i gotta guarantee you, the animatronics would've looked less goofy if they did the black eyes with white pupils from the games instead of those red eyes. I know they looked much worse in the trailer, but the difference between the blacked eyes and the red eyes is so big that even most fan's agreed they weren't as good and looked too goofy.
I don’t think the games would have clarified some of the key moments that have no explanation ex. Steve motivation for murder. Because most of the game hide lore between every pixel you see on your screen. But it’s never abundantly clear what the story is in every game. Five nights at Freddy was quickly built on the foundation that you would have to be heavily in the community to understand anything. Same goes for the books. For some reason Scott chose to de-canonize the books from the game’s and the movie so really, you could be a fan of the games, the books, and the movies; but you can’t be a fan of Fnaf because of all three from of media are slight variations of each other.
@@xboxfcontent_yt it is explained with both the games and the books the reason why William Kills, it has something to do with reminant and achieve immortality as far as i remember.
See, that's the thing, when you think about it, the five nights games are kinda shit at story telling. The creator took the lazy approach of, oh, I'll just put something in the background, I know my fans with dissect the hell out of this and explain the significance of it. Think about it, if FNAF didn't have the kind of analytical fanbase it does, and it was up to players to piece everything together by themselves, it would be a mess. From my understanding, a solid 80% of the storyline in the game was speculation and educated guesses until things like the books cleared things up.
@@themidnighttavern6784 Absolutely, but that all happened after the first game. No one saw the first FNAF coming, the creator couldn't even get it funded on Kickstarter. So that background detail really was just a background detail. So much of the lore afterwards developed out of him being a people pleaser putting in hidden lore to find, but it is what it is.
@@SaiScribbles Exactly, I firmly believe he didn't even have most of the story details when he made the first game, only flushing them out after the first game was a smash hit and he realized he had the makings of a horror franchise on his hands. It's sloppy and all of the place story telling in later games that pisses me off. Instead of actually being clear about what's going on, he's like, let me put a cupcake on a dresser, my audience will make videos explaining it to people who've only seen brief bits of gameplay.
but that was more like the building itself is possesed, signified by hallucinations, scribbles on the walls, changing posters while the animatronics could be considered a physical symptom of the possesion and corruption, rather than being the sole part of it. It wasn't until Sister Location where it was established that the kids are bound to a single object.
not an expert in FNAF lore, but some things I know the movie changed: 1. William Afton can't control the animatronics. In fact, he was a security guard when he killed the kids, and that's why the animatronics go after security guards in particular 2. William Afton doesn't show up in person until the 3rd game, at which point he's been dead for like 20 years and is a ghost possessing the yellow bunny suit he died in 3. Vanessa doesn't show up until FNAF: Security Breach, which is the most recent game. She is not William Afton's daughter, but she is being possessed by him by this point, after the yellow bunny version was destroyed. Afton's daughter is a completely different character. 4. "Mike Schmidt" is the name of the FNAF 1 player character, but they completely changed his identity for this movie. TLDR in the games he seems to be Afton's son using a fake name, and he's also the player character for most of the games using more various fake names. and there's plenty more I'm either forgetting or don't want to bother explaining, but tldr this is more like "based on" fnaf's lore than actually the plot of the games.
Didn't the Security Breach Ruin DLC retcon the whole part of it being William Afton as Burntrap, but instead some sort of crazed robot called the Mimic who is trying to imitate him?
William Afton wasn't a security guard, he was the co-founder of the very first Freddy's (called Fredbear's) and used the titular golden rabbit suit to lure children into the backrooms where he built the animatronics and stuffed em in the suits. Mike Schmidt is supposed to be a fake alias for William Afton's oldest son and is being attacked because the Security Guard is there overnight when the animatronics are set to wander around and think the Security Guards are exoskeletons not inside of their suits
@@andrewmeyer3599 remember how the original purple guy sprite had the phone and the security guard badge? Pretty sure he became or maybe disguised as one to do the murders.
@@ablosch2452 "Scraptrap" (which is just Springtrap after the events of fnaf 3) is the one that's destroyed in Pizzeria Simulator, and after that he comes back as Glitchtrap... I think. I dunno tbh
@@draconis17 I never thought that thing on the Purple Guy sprite was a phone, given how cordless phones weren’t around back then. I thought it was him holding out his hand like “Come here”.
I watched the movie with my mom and my little brother and I thought it was the cheesiest thriller I have ever seen, which is funny because I USED to be a fan of FNAF until I eventually grew out of it, but despite that this movie isn’t my thing, I am glad that it exists.
That's how i feel. Like i am still a fan, despite growing from being horrified to loving it to walking away when the lore got too big for me, but I'm still glad it's a thing. It's an... ok movie, but I like that they tried more than other mivies these days
The first game has supernatural elements. On some of the cameras the posters change to crying children or golden freddy. You also see hallucinations periodically. Also, bonnie and chica make human groaning noises when they're near your office.
Yeah sounds like he didn't just, not finish the game. Sounds like he didn't even pay attention. Even ignoring the dead kids info in the background. It's VERY obvious that the bots are haunted
Yeah I agree to be honest. The Fnaf Movie really could've used some extra proofreading for its storytelling, like it's got the beats for a compelling story, just falls apart in execution. Also I completely missed that Afton was the career counselor in my first viewing of the movie, but even in-spite of the flaws, I still enjoyed it as a former Five Nights fan well enough.
1:27 the first game did, but it was much more subtle. The phone guy rationalized their behavior as robots mistaking you, when they were actually haunted
Even if you're not a FNAF fan or know the lore, the whole scene where they all hang out and make a fort and dance around just killed any scariness the movie may have had.
That part wasn’t supposed to be scary though, the whole point of it was to remind us that these are just scared, confused children wearing spooky animatronic masks.
Yea I mean that was kinda the point. The movie wasn’t trying to be a horrifying experience that kept you up at night. I personally think the scene was necessary to make the animatronics actually feel like children instead of us just being told that they are and accepting it.
The stuff about ghosts and missing children was established in the first game through posters you can read on the cameras that detail the 5 missing childrens incident
@@christophermoshier what are you on bruv?.. just admit you're sad because you don't know the lore, or idk, if you actually care about it, do your research on the lore. I hate seeing ppl say the fnaf movie has a lot of plotholes when there is SO MUCH LORE they can just google for... plus it's probably going to get a sequel anyway so yeah..
The mascots are very well made, and did incredible job making it animatronic. The story itself could’ve been well made, cause they were a lot of plots in this movie. I’d like it if they focus the first game’s story.
you mean the story of how a bunch of kids seemingly died and went missing in the pizzeria you decided to work a night shift at.. end of story? that story? or the more extensive one that is only viable from knowing more than just the first games story of how the fazbear pizzeria chain started, who owns it and why the owner seemingly went crazy?
Bu the way, a little something else I know about the movie. Originally the movie was announced to be in development back in 2016, when the 3rd game was the most recently released at the time. But it kept being modified and was in development hell for so long. Though I noticed that the movie itself added elements not present until the games after the 3rd one, such as Chica's Magic Rainbow from FNAF World actually appears on the one Ice Cream Machine, the 2nd Spring Lock suit that they try to put Abby inside of resembled Circus Baby from FNAF Sister Location, and Vanessa would not be in the games until FNAF Security Breach (which only came out recently). So I'm taking that if it started in 2016 but new games kept being added since then, they must've kept modifying the script just to shoehorn in material from the later games just to get people to like it more. Which I think made the movie worse as a result.
I love how vanessa, a female cop, is shown never doing her job and threatening lethal force on unarmed civilians in nonthreatening scenarios as well as destroying criminal evidence and covering up crimes. It really felt like watching female body cam footage. I was waiting for a "taser taser taser!!" Scene the whole movie
I brought up my theory that Vanessa isn't a cop with my kids but they hated the idea. 1. Vanessa never has to take a call while on screen. No radio chatter, No references to other cops. Nothing on the squad car computer. 2. She spends a lot of time hanging out at Freddy's 3. Knows her father is probably a serial killer but enables his obsession of killing security guards with haunted machines. 4. Completely ignores dead bodies... Even a corrupt cop would get rid of the evidence. 5. The "police outpost" was just a random shed!
love how whiny man babies need to squeal in the comment sections any time a woman is shown as doing anything but showing her tits and needing to be rescued.
I do have to agree, the plot was a mess and tried to tackle too many lore elements the games has at once but for an average fan like me, if was very enjoyable. Also little thing, PewDiePie was too busy being Japanese since he moved there last year with his wife and now has a kid.
@@thepillowhead2453 It takes a lot of time to catch up to all the anime ever made. If you want to move there, you must WATCH ALL THE ANIME EVER!!! That's one of the rules for being allowed to live in Japan, or so Twitter has told me! And the Internet wouldn't lie! ;D
I've never been a fnaf fan, but despite this I found the movie mildly interesting. I'm glad I watched it but I definitely have no interest in watching it again. Given that fnaf fans and people who aren't feeling basically the same way, it's clear the movie was made super "safe"
I think that if the animatronics were portrayed more like wild animals, calm and docile one moment, but willing to tear you to shreds the moment thay consider you a threat, then their behaviour would much more tense and consistent
One of the plot holes that annoy me is the one about his aunt hiring the goons to trash the place. If the goal was to get him fired, how would they have done that when the place was trashed during the day when he wasn't even there? I know there was some line about him not locking a door or something, but the daughter even said that people were always breaking in, so what was stopping him from saying someone jimmied the door open and trashed the place? The whole thing was dumb and it was dumber that it is literally never mentioned again.
That is a fair argument on that. Tho it could be presumed that considering Mike often had a tendency to sleep from what Vanessa noticed, it’s possible that to Vanessa, he might’ve not paid attention when people broke in at night, even when it actually happened in day time. That’s how I personally see it however, and while I do genuinely love the film, I can honestly completely get how it’d be weird af to not elaborate
@@skelebonez1349 must've some pretty deep sleep when he doesn't hear them messing stuff up. or more like "they did it during the day and didn't notice that stuff looks different at his next shift"? Which would mean the worst he did was not note it down and report it to whoever owns the place.
@@HappyBeezerStudios in fair case when they first met, to Vanessa’s POV it showed some evidence that he WAS asleep.(caught onto that better when I rewatched it again and again) So it wouldn’t be surprising to her that he’d do that, especially since she herself had lucid dreams like he did. Also he does have this medication he uses before knocking out cold so, it might’ve been that medication that makes him go into a veryyy deep sleep
@@HappyBeezerStudios not to mention from the other comment I responded to ya with, I mean, Mike has a tendency of being not the greatest at his job, he legit assaulted a guy in the previous one after all, wouldn’t be surprising if Steve raglan gave Vanessa the heads up too
I'm pretty munch in the same exact boat here in the fact that I'm hardly familiar with the whole FNAF lore stuff at all. If anything, I should technically be *less* familiar with it because I never even played a single game yet, not even the first one or any of the countless free fan games out there. Honestly the only real reason why I even went out to see this movie in the first place was because of my younger and teenage brother, who is obviously a pretty big fan of it. (Even though he hardly ever likes to talk anymore, but everyone can tell he loved it) Despite the flaws I'm still glad that this movie exists for a few reasons though: 1. It's a decent video game film adaptation. It's not anything special, but the fact that I can even consider it slightly above average is a huge achievement in of itself. 2. It's a "horror" movie that little kids can get into. I know it's rated PG-13 and that the game series can sometimes have some pretty dark implications for the lore, but let's be real here, most of the diehard fans are either 7-15 year olds or have already grown up. From what I noticed so far it's very rare that any new fans come out of it that are older than that unless they already like horror related stuff in general. 3. I know he's rich by now, but you have to consider that they basically turned an indie game into a movie just shy of a decade later, and I think this is the first time we've ever got that on such a Hollywood-ish scale with actual marketing behind it. Plus I still have a lot of respect for Scott himself since he always tries to respect his own source material when he can and allows stuff like the whole fan project initiative. There are few game developers let alone people I can think of who has a generally positive impression and impact. Literally the only other person like him I can think of at the top of my head in a similar situation is Toby Fox of Undertale fame. (Which I also think is overrated but that's besides the point) 4. Even if it's for a little bit, Universal is beating the absolute shit out of Disney. They released not one, but *two* video game film adaptations in the same year and are both now the highest paid films of said year. You can say what you want about Disney's *content,* as a matter of fact I actually like the Star Wars sequel trilogy for the most part unlike many others, but you cannot deny that seeing the company itself with their bad business decisions being beaten to a pulp is insanely satisfying. This is coming from someone who grew up with a lot of Disney stuff by the way and even lives not too far from Walt Disney World. Overall it's an okay film. Normally I'm pessimistic when it comes to stuff like this, but I can safely say that they definitely at least *tried* to make it good, which is more than what I can say for most movies nowadays. Yeah there's a lot objectively wrong with it, but I found it entertaining enough to not care. Plus I thought some of the more unexpected silly moments made up for the lack of horror. You know, stuff like that whole Balloon Boy gag or the time that woman was literally vored in half. I'll admit, they got a few chuckles out of me, especially the latter for how ridiculous and sudden it was. The whole theater I was in seemed to agree with my stance on those too as they were laughing quite a lot. (And yes it was full of a lot of said target audience I was eluding to earlier) The props were cool looking too, they could've just used CGI but for the most part they didn't, so that's nice I guess. I give it around a 6 or 7 out of 10. I initially walked out thinking 7 to 8, but the more I think about it the more unfair and ridiculous that score would be, so I'll say the highest for me is a 7. It's still a big production film at the end of the day, so I never expected it to be a masterpiece. (If anything, worse than how it turned out) but it did what it was trying to do. I'm sure lots of kids (Especially fans) are happy with it. If my own brother is, then I don't doubt that 99% of all the others are. It's a film made for them first and foremost and it shows, for better or worse. I have no idea what the critics are smoking though, it isn't 20% or less levels of bad. So yeah, I think 7/10 is appropriate, and 5/10 from a purely objective stance. One more thing I should mention is that I am not even a fan of the horror genre in general, not because it's scary but because the lack thereof, even for some of the more popular things. Very rarely do I genuinely adore stuff that is horror adjacent like Jaws or Alien, and it usually comes down to other factors like world building and characters. You know, the more important stuff. It certainly doesn't help that I'm mostly desensitized by *actual* gore, torture, etc. footage either, which usually doesn't make me feel scared anymore and instead more sad/pity, mad, and unnerving. But anyway, my point is that even despite all of that I still mostly enjoyed this film, so that says something I suppose. *Sorry for the gigantic mountain of text that I don't think anyone will read through. Lol* (If somehow you do though, thank you)
This movie targets those who were preteens back when the game first came out, then through the years, the lore being built, the new games, etc. The experiences with fnaf over the years are what makes this movie so awesome. Sure, it was mostly filler to get Mike in the restaurant. Some of the lore of this movie is purposely inconsistent in order to appeal to those who aren't experienced with fnaf. I still think it did fairly well, like a 7/10.
The disappearance of the children were on news articles that can sometimes appear on the walls in the camera feeds in the first game. The children's bodies were discovered when there were complaints of foul odors emitting from the animatronics days after the murders. The more complicated aspects started entering the lore from the second game onward. Vanessa was actually from the lore of Help Wanted and Security Breach where she was an employee of Steel Wool Games that was overtaken spiritually by Afton's dark presence and became Vanny, an accomplice of Afton's, in the latest game. As with the corny plot, I would like to think that they were trying to emulate the horror-comedies of the 80s with its PG-13 rating. Hope that helps.
but that was more like the building itself is possesed, signified by hallucinations, scribbles on the walls, changing posters while the animatronics could be considered a physical symptom of the possesion and corruption, rather than being the sole part of it. It wasn't until Sister Location where it was established that the kids are bound to a single object.
The "comedy" parts RUINED the movie. He should of been questioning his sanity throughout the movie. And they go night by night. The "building fort" part was moronic!
To be fair that doesn’t work with a movie, there’s movies that make you think and give you clues but never show you, and then there’s the fnaf movie where nothing makes sense because “it’s a smart film” give me a break
@@nahumhernandezg2188dude it doesn't follow the lore of the games outside dead kids possesing animatronics , so there is no point in playing the games outside empty references.
@@spinosaurusstriker it's a good starting point for many who are new to the series, goes over the basics and basically serves as a quick recap of the series
I would say the fact the robots can be friendly and want to play yet can go crazy and murder people in a way actually makes them more scary. It adds an unpredictable element to what they might do where you can see them possibly at any second switching to murder mode. Not that the movie played up that element as much as it could of but I do think it can be actually rather a potent scary element to the story with the audience worried 'what if they suddenly snap'? with the audience aware but the characters unaware of what might happen.
honestly that also just sounds like any other ai gone wrong story, so I think that would just be worse but its your taste so you do you@@michaeljenner2325
@@michaeljenner2325 my brother in christ you are complaining that a movie adaptation of a game shouldnt stay true to the games identity, are you being serious rn?
I'm sure there's already comments saying this but in the movie they explicitly said that the reason the children possessed the animatronics is because Afton hid their corpses inside of them as nobody would think of looking there
Of all the questions asked in this video, there's still one being asked to this day. One of the unsolved mysteries we're still looking for the answer for. "Why did the goblin turn on the stove?"😂.
The 'rip-off' movie with Nicholas Cage, based on basically the same concept, was GREAT! And Cage doesn't say a word through the entire movie. But he utterly obliterates the evil possessed robots, which is great to watch!
Yeah I thought that movie was actually pretty good. But I’ve seen people on line saying this is better. But I guess it’s just bc their fans. I saw a nexpo video on 5 nights at Freddy’s and it was really spooky. I’ve never played any of the games and wasn’t planning on seeing this and now I’m definitely not bc it sounds lame.
I believe it was a script based by Scott that he threw out. He wanted a movie that kids could watch, not just adults. That was where Animatronics are over Manhatten was also thrown out. He just wanted something in the middle for audiences with fans as the main target.
Could of made it a pseudo prequel of phone guy (maybe secretly henry) purposely hiring Mike to bait the animitronics to one location, each night having them get more aggressive confusing Mike for William. The twist being that Mike knew the whole time and still doing it because he felt guilty for what his father did and never told ( or for what he did to his brother yrs ago) . William could lurk and get his comeuppance by the remnants trapping him in springtrap for sequal bait. Could also have sequal bait with Elizabeth (Baby) saying after credits " you're broken ,I will put you back together "
Well to be fair, I knew a tiny bit of lore and after researching the lore I realized I didn’t like the movie after my second watch. I enjoyed the movie more when I knew very basic lore.
@@michaeljenner2325 Nothing wrong with that we just makes it less likely to reach a broader audience when most people don't know what the hell a fnaf is.
How so? I knew FNAF lore enough for things like “William Afton” to be meaningful to me, but the entire plot is perfectly understandable watching the movie. The lore from the games actually makes a few things confusing for a bit. Vanessa being in the movie made me think we were going to end up with a situation similar to Security Breach for her character, but obviously that didn’t happen. Therefore, I have to ask what holes do you need the outside lore just to understand the movie?
@@John-fk2ky Well when you have to sit through the entire movie with with a person who's never seen or played fnaf I have to stop the film every 10 minutes to explain for 30 minutes what the hell is going on for them. That's why.
Im a long time fnaf fan. It seems like the director had to choose between a conventionally good movie and a movie that fnaf fans would like and chose the latter.
The biggest problem with the movie is it mixes both aspects from the books and the games merely using names just for fan service but at no point does it really feel like a cohesive experience. I liked the nods being a casual fan but at no point did i go oh wow that's crazy or what'll happen next but every time the animatronics appeared i just laughed at how goody they looked.
That mascot that left was in the game as "Golden Freddy" a rare death scene that crashes the game with an empty animatronic suit. Why they decided to give it an endoskeleton and weight is beyond me I would have preferred it being the phantom it was in the game. Though it does simply ghost away when they pan back into the pizzaria.
Afton controlling the kids was seemingly an unintended consequence of him trying to dispose of the bodies in the animatronics. He likely discovered later about how he could manipulate them to do his bidding with drawings afterwards. As far as we know Garret never went into one of the animatronics, as such unless it gets confirmed Afton tried to dispose of him the same way, as far as FNaF lore seems to go (without going off the deep end), Garret likely isn't still tied to the world the way the others are.
At the very end of credits strange voice starts saying "Find me" letter by letter (I think, it was hard to understand and subtitles were translated into my mother language). It didn't sound like kids, so it could be Garret in different contraption (maybe one from Sister Location?).
I don't think he canonically could control them. Adding that anyone can control them through drawings just confuses the magic system (in writing terms) even more.
@@spaghetto9836 he could in the movie but not in the games, in the games they were just seemingly confused and being led by cassidy, the main source behind all the fuckery in the fnaf lore, also known as the main child of the dead kids that matters because hes the one who controls the others and hes also the force that keeps william afton alive despite all the horrendous ends he faces, this film is essentially a "flashpoint" that is to say a different timeline of the fnaf universe where a lot of things arent as they should, vanessa being in the first game, the security guard searching for his little brother being not michael afton but rather mike searching for garret along with cassidy seemingly not being controlling of the other children, but being just another one of them
@@ailospjellok7475 Well that's some messing up of the lore. I don't even think you could call it a flashpoint, bc there's no inciting incident up to which the story was the same that derailed the timeline. But I see what you mean, thanks.
@@CrowInAHatbut the only similarities is her being an authority (police/security), blonde, and a woman. And the name. Though Vanessa in the games never had a character
It was a sort of merging of Elizabeth and Vanessa - almost like a "what if Elizabeth lived to grow up?" Not the worst condensing since Vanessa is so shallow and underutilized in her own feature game.
@@CrowInAHat I tapped out if fnaf after security breach. The game did a disservice to the franchise ( not even with it being a free roam fnaf) its buggy state and largely open floor plan along with in most parts being to bright, made me not care enough to go 100 pages deep into fnafs added lore
You should tell Hollywood, the reason some old IPs are famous with the kids back then was because they were gory. Look at Robocop, Alien, Predator, even Ghostbusters, those movies were made for adults but kids did enjoy them, maybe more than the adults at that time. Think of Jason, Freddy, Chucky, they too were pretty gory and their IPs last until now.
He's annoying, yes, but unless he's actively hostile against randoms, there is absolutely no reason to hate a person for their popularity, it just comes off as envious and autist worthy.
@@asscheeks3212 he shouldn't be popular tho he don't know shit All his channels are full of shit, fashion theory is either complete lies or yknow well known stuff, film theory? He ignores entire pieces of story or lore to fit his narrative like the Harry Potter horucrux video, Food Theory just shows he doesn't know shit, didn't he say kale have more calcium then milk so its better? Yea that shows he lacks complete understanding of nutrition Mat doesn't know what he's talking about and had been called out multiple times
5:38 it's just the one animatronic, fredbear/ golden Freddy/ Cassidy (the ghost) that can leave. Whether it's because there's two ghosts in there or Cassidy is just more powerful than the others thanks to his immeasurable passive aggressive anger towards his killer, who can tell. The lore is very all over the place.
Only Golden Freddy can leave the restaurant because he can teleport but that's never explained, at least not in this movie. They'll probably explain everything in the next movie. FNAF has always had a problem of sprinkling stuff between games.
"Is he just a pervert on a power trip?" I am somewhat aware of the FNAF canon and I can confirm, yes, this is the closest canon explanation the series gives you.
This movie was pretty accurate to the original lore, even left a bit of space for sequels which I hope they come. I am pretty sure the ghost children had always been a thing, as there were already easter eggs suggesting it, like, for example, the fact that I believe Bonnie and Chica can make the sound of a child laughing EDIT: Only Golden Freddy can leave as far as I know, golden freddy is the 5th child that goes to mike's house, since he is supposed to be the most traumatised, I assume the kid possessing regular freddy just went there because the golden can't speak or something like that EDIT 2: It's probable that William knew Mike's father.. it's complicated, but basically, in the original lore, william's youngest child dies from a bite by an animatronic and because of it and his friend, who co-created freddy fazbear's pizza seeming not that interested in him, which makes him want to make his friend Henry suffer as much as him, so he kills Henry's daughter and henry commits because of it, I believe henry could be Mike and Garret's father because mike says that, after garret dies, their father commits too
It isnt accurate at all lol idk why this keeps getting said, it changed literally everything about the story of the games besides children being killed.
@@LightEnjoyer But why? its a movie based off a game, why use an alternate story that i hear isnt the best. And how accurate is it really to the books anyways.
@direglitches6744 I'm not sure, all I know is the movie is mostly based on the books. And I believe it's loosely based on the books as well, not sure why they decided not to base it off the game though
So to clear the stuff around mike's brother, in the second game, they introduce a animatronic called the puppet which becomes a key part of the lore and they seem to be saving him for a sequel which I feel Garret might be possessing him. Though it would be nice if the puppet was in the first film.
first game *did* set up the concept of it being ghosts (through rare cam screens that change the rules poster to newspaper clippings) but yeah it wasn't much else
I'm glad I didn't waste my money seeing this film. As usual in a case like this, making a movie based on a computer game results in having to create a plot where gameplay would predominate, and as is usually the case, it doesn't work very well.
I enjoyed your review and criticism as a die hard fan that enjoyed the movie, but noticed a number of flaws. Wanted to mention that there is a supernatural part of the first game, not counting the rare character of golden freddy or hallucinations, posters on the wall can change and sometimes change to newspaper clippings, detailing how 5 chidlren went missing. Also in the movie it is established by Vanessa the bodies of the children are in the animatronics and that's part of why they're haunted. Garett was never shown to be stuffed into a suit and thus explains why he isn't haunting the place. Gotta agree though William afton/steve raglan was somewhat inconsistent. Even as a fan i couldn't understand all of his motives entirely. Good review! :)
The goblin turned the stove on because he intended to blow the house up but towards the end the producer decided to pocket the rest of the money intended to make the movie instead of spending it showing the explosion, the editor just forgot to delete that scene. Or maybe, the goblin being evil and all, he knew Possum would be reviewing this movie in the future so he did it just to give Possum another catch phrase, I didn't think to ask the goblin about that when he told me why he turned the stove on because I was still really sleepy because the goblin woke me up at the point in my dream where the beautiful princess was about to show her appreciation to me for saving her life, I told you he was evil. Damn goblins, she was seriously hot too. 😢
The movie was a super boring act 1 to just set up Springtrap being in the next film. The studio knew it would make a ton of money despite being terrible because of the fan base it somehow has.
I've been a fan of the FNAF series since i played the first game as a kid and for nearly a decade I've been anticipating this film hoping it'd be good yet it turned out to be a stupid mess Mike was an idiot who couldn't do anything on his own and had to be spoonfed the plod by literally everyone around him he also didn't need a family the whole custody battle thing was stupid the little sister was one of the worst parts of the movie so was Vanny idk why she just didn't give a straight forward answer about anything the dream sequences were painfully abundant and the jumpscares were really lackluster how do you mess up jumpscares in a FNAF movie that like the whole reason it's a thing but oh at least William Afton said the line "I always come back!" I cringed so hard at that and the "It's just a theory." Line from Mat Pat it was just so in your face about all of it at least the animatronics looked good the ending was extremely terrible and I hope Vanny is pulled off life support in the beginning of the next film
the movie has three problems: 1. it focusses too much on private lifes and fates. 2. too many uninteresting characters doing uninteresting things. 3. it's not scary. a mere loveletter to the fans.
Thought it was not very good but had fun with it. What really makes me a bit miffed is that people are saying that critics are only giving the movie poor reviews because they “don’t get it” or it “isn’t for them,” like, of course people who don’t know the property are still going to see the movie, especially when it’s their job to. The movie was just bad. Plain and simple. The sheer amount of cope is insane.
My favourite part of the Fnaf movie was Matthew Lillard as William Afton under the alias of Steve Raglin. The rest is really hit or miss. Matthew Lillards biggest hits for horror were Scream and Scooby Doo, and I wish they leaned more into his past in the horror genre, or use him as an actor in general
"Or if they're smarter than the typical adult Disney Star Wars or MCU fan" (showing a clip of sheep grazing) Possum, you've hung on like a trooper but I think you need a vacay, these things are clearly doing you some harm.
There are lore reasons for William putting children in the animatronics, but at this point the story is convoluted, inconsistent, and has retconned itself so much so that to include it in the movie would be absurd. The only way they could put out something somewhat watchable was by leaving out a ton of important details. Not only that, but the story in the games is so abstract and up for interpretation that almost no 2 people have the same understand of what the story is supposed to be. At one point, Scott even implied that the whole thing is a child's nightmare after seeing someone be put into a mascot suit, because the kid thought it was a corpse being stuffed into an animatronic. He didn't just imply it, he STRONGLY implied it. He basically said it without saying it. But then when his fans got pissed that he was trying to pass the whole thing off as "just a dream", so he retconned it again. Yes, again. Because the whole dream thing was itself a retcon. At this point, who knows. There are so many convoluted plot elements that the canon story makes no sense. William afton was supposedly killing kids to experiment on how to bring his own dead kid back to life, but then it turns out the kid isn't even dead, because he's the one who ends up trapping william in a building and burning it down so who the fuck knows. In the movie, they should have had William actually have a dead kid so they could say he was killing kids and trapping their souls because he wanted to bring his own kid back to life or the kid has cancer and william wants to prevent him from dying. That would be the closest thing to a lore explanation they could have used.
The supernatural aspect was actually hinted on during the first game, and to be completely fair of the movie, the game franchise is filled with plot contrivances, and they had to find a way include them in the movie as fanservice, and it worked.
What i don't really like is that William was supposed to dismantle animatronics first before he gets springlocked but we got none of that in the film, truly dissapointing that the producer chose to make film more silly with that cupcake being a menace and being more useful than Chika, Bonnie, Freddy or Foxy
the first game definitely has supernatural elements. they change some lore around chronologically in the movie but in fnaf 1 you only had easter eggs referencing missing children and phone guy saying he always wondered what was in the suits in the storage room. the endoskeletons arent malfunctioning; they *always* were possessed but information was very limited until around fnaf 3. its reasonable that you would go with your assumptions as the lore easter eggs in fnaf 1 were only shown in short time windows in the backgrounds of some camera povs. also the surprise appearance of golden freddy, the animatrons interfering with the camera feeds, and the sfx/animations of the robots as they get close to your door are what make the player question if theyre hallucinating or witnessing the supernatural. i always saw fnaf as more anxiety horror than jumpscare horror. its not the death jumpscares that make anything scary but the tension of getting close to the end of the night as more animatronics approach your room.
As a hardcore FNAF fan, I will admit the movie isn’t perfect. It does fail at being scary, because I was lore entertained than scared, and it seemed the movie was made more for the fans rather than appealing to everyone else. Still, I thought it was a good movie, and I’m glad it made almost 300 Million, with a budget of 25 Million. It’s an 8/10
Ig if you aren’t a FNaF fan, you wouldn’t really get any of the implied references or plot details, but they do explain why the 5 kids in specific haunt the animatronics. Their bodies were stuffed into the suits and their souls attached themselves to the endo skeletons. Vanessa explains this when lore dumping Mike.
1:22 ...I really, REALLY hate to be the FNAF achtually guy here, but it did establish it all as supernatural in the first game. The Phone Guy does suggest that the robots simply thought you were an endoskeleton missing a suit, but while looking through the cameras you can actually see endoskeletons in plain view that the animatronics leave alone, despite passing through the same room. It makes it clear that the animatronics specifically have a bone to pick with YOU.
it's amazing how literally everyone who reviews this movie has absolutely no fucking clue what the games are and they all say it's shit, but the fans of the games all love the shit out of this movie
I think movie critics have an absolute right to critise this movie and not know the lore, cuz the movie should be standing on its own and viewers shouldn't be supposed to "do their homework" before watching. I also think fans are so excited about the animatronics (and the fact we have a fnaf movie!) that they might not pay attention to things movie critics would notice such as script, acting, lightning, sound mixing and this movie is considered by some weak in those things. Thats all I had to say, have a good day :p
Why do I have to play a game to review a movie? Is the movie good or bad? Does it have a plot? Is the plot consistent? Does anything that occurs make sense? Is the movie a horror? Is it even scary at all? Care to answer the questions?
It’s basically set up, there’s likely another reason to why she’d plan to do that considering how she acts very manipulative like William Perhaps a cousin of his or so
my biggest issue with this movie's william afton is that he just easily hurts his own daughter. in the games lore, william afton is a family man. he literally became a child murderer to bring back his dead son who got bit by an animatronic.
i mean he does everything for his family even if its horrific, he murders and keeps murdering to find a way to bring his dead children back to life and used extreme intimidation to keep his only alive child safe and locked in his room to prevent him to being able to hurt himself. im kind of mad about that too but i just see it as a consequence of an alternate timeline of fnaf since there are so many changes that seemingly dont make sense
Here’s some things I have to say as someone who’s a fan of the games (although I haven’t seen the movie yet). 1. For William,!In the games he’s basically someone who became a mad scientist experimenting on “remanent” (some manifestation of the human soul, and the games and book’s explanation for how the animatronics got possessed) after the loss of two of his kids. The film most likely didn’t bother to explain this because ether the writers assumed that fans would already know this without consideration for people who aren’t fans or the film is in a different continuity from the games like the books. 2. As for the story being a mess, that’s not surprising. The film has been in production hell from what I understand. It also doesn’t help that the games story is a mess because the first game was originally supposed to be a one and done deal, but as the series went on there were more secrets added throughout the games and even a before mentioned series of books that give hints to the story, but are in a separate continuity. What doesn’t help is the change from paranormal horror to a mix of paranormal and sci-fi (and on a side note yes, the possessed kids were in the first game, you could only find out about it from secret newspapers). 3. As for the creep factor of the animatronics, a lot of people think they hit the uncanny valley feeling like the original Chuck E Cheese animatronics, and things like them staring into the camera, or from the sound design that builds tension (although the jumpscares in the games are still cheap). I do agree with you though (I mostly enjoy the series because I find the games oddly addictive). 4. As for kids going to the film in costumes, I’ve been seeing a lot of even adult fans say they were going to do so online, although I feel that’s definitely over the top.
I recall the movie first being announced back in 2016, though with all the content from the later games they added in, I can only assume that they kept revising the script to account for the later games?
I was expecting you to say "today's garbage" but it didn't happen, that means you kinda liked the movie but not for the reasons they wanted us to, good review man
He’s likely the puppet, either that or a animatronic that hadn’t been shown yet. Feels more like a question that the sequel would easily solve tho Tho the end credits does hint to Garrett possessing something as it says “come find me”
Welcome to five nights lmao nothing makes sense and you gotta watch 20 RU-vid videos just to understand or just wait for the next one that will answer a few things and give you more questions
Lets be honest. Like the mario movie before it, this isnt a movie for regular people. Its not for horror fans or the average movie goer. Its for fnaf fans.
Hold up. What Mario lore did people need to know to enjoy the movie? Literally just the basics that everyone knows or would receive from the movie itself. They might not get all the easter eggs and whatever, but it got well received by the average person regardless.
