@@l0uisinana Oh, I know! When he first responded I thought he was being facetious, but it quickly dawned on me that he actually knew and I laughed even more!
I think Mat overlooked the most important detail of those Immortal & the Restless scenes: the vampire says the baby isn't his, when we see that the child is obviously his and looks like him. The same way Michael looks like William. He just hated his son for what he did, and wants to believe he isn't his own.
Every single time someone uses the Immortal and the Restless as a reason that Mike isn't Willy A's son makes me so mad for that reason, the entire show goes out of its way to say that the baby is clearly a vampire too ( thus probably Vlads kid)
Yes, definitely agree with this!! And thank you for explaining the reason why William doesn’t want to acknowledge Mike as his son, I was stumped on that but your reasoning makes so much sense! :D
39:37 To clear up the "Is Michael really an Afton" thing, right here on Elizabeth Afton's page, it says "There are hints that *Michael* was following his *father's* instructions when he went to Circus Baby's Entertainment and Rental.." I think this further confirms Michael is an Afton, since Mat seems to be forgetting that in The Restless and Immortal, while Vlad claims the baby isn't his, it *clearly* is. That's the point of the show, Vlad is lying. This also makes it all the more *weird* that Michael doesn't have a page when he's literally MENTIONED here on Elizabeth's. So clearly they didn't want to reveal something about Michael, probably either to avoid a massive lore drop or confirmation, which I personally think is lame since some clarity never hurts.
The only reason I could think of would be that Michael *is* William's son but doesn't have the same last name, maybe because William divorced his wife and Michael went with her as a part of it? split custody would also be possible and I feel like it's something worth looking into, although I don't know how much credit it'll hold on further inspection.
I originally didn't clock Mike not being in the encyclopedia. The one that jumped out to me was the fact that Fredbear himself isn't in the book. Sea Monkey Bonnie is there but not the animatronic that BITES THE CRYING CHILD?!
@@kluevo you're not dumb just misunderstanding. Fredbear and Freddy Fazbear are different aninatronics. Fredbear is a yellow springlock suit/animatronic that bites the crying child where as Freddy Fazbear is a brown animatronic frontrunner for the gang. Fredbear is a very important animatronic and I'm surprised/curious why they aren't included.
The time for the MatPat's Game Theory: The Grand FNAF Timeline is almost upon us. Haven't been this excited for a FNAF video ever since the good ol' days
Under Orville's description it describes how fondly Mr Hippo talks of Orville, while Orville says nothing of Mr Hippo, saying they might not be such great friends after all. This could be a parallel to William Afton's and Henry's relationship, with William just being jealous of all Henry did with robotics, and Henry seeing William as an old friend. They also have the same purple and orangey yellow colors that William and Henry are associated with. Edit: Timestamp: 49:56 Edit: Another observation: Although their colors seem to be reversed, Orville Elephant is wearing a purple top hat and flower, while Mr Hippo wears an orange flower. Regardless of their colors, the parallels are too noticeable to ignore.
but that wouldnt make much sense seeing as thou Orville would be henry and Mr hippo would be william. it would make more sense if the roles were reversed wouldnt it?
@@krowthecorvid1315 Henry’s and William’s colors seem to be used interchangeably as William is also implied to be the mustard man/orange guy. Although William is more often interchangeable than Henry, as Henry is usually just consistently orange and grey. Edit: Another possibility is that those colors are just symbolic of their relationship as a whole, and aren’t meant for specifically one person. This would explain William being depicted as both purple and orange at different points, and Henry being depicted as both grey and orange.
Would you say that another theory could be like how William tries to cancel out henry from his life like purple cancels out orange It may just be the colors but that’s what I’ll suggest
What interests me after seeing this is that Michael isn’t the only one without a page. None of the security guards are mentioned, including Mike and Jeremy (who’s special enough to get the “Remember Jeremy” lines in FNAF VR). Tape girl isn’t listed either, or Cassidy. So key characters and even some playable characters are left out. I wonder why they weren’t included. Love these videos, Team Theorist!❤
maybe because they dont have a 3d model in game? cassidy maybe is just a overfiltered picture of someone that they include and arent exactly permitted of dont want to name them for some reason
The fact that Michael isn’t there absolutely jumps out at me. That coupled with the fact that they go out of their way in the Guide to raise some doubt as to Henry’s last name, plus the fact that Matpat talks about how much Henry and Willam look alike in the graphic novels, and finally the picture of the “Emily’s” in the Guide with the two kids… Perhaps he’s right about “The Immortal and the Restless”… Maybe Michael has been Henry’s son and Charlotte’s brother this whole time. That would explain the weird family dynamic and why Michael calls William “father”, but through Vlad, William says that Michael isn’t his son. Plus if Henry disappeared after Charlotte was killed and that is indeed one of the earliest events in the timeline, Michael would’ve had to go somewhere and (if there is no mom in the picture) going to live with an Uncle would be a next logical step. It would also explain why William went to such great lengths to protect Elizabeth and the Crying Child (though both attempts failed), but ultimately had no qualms sending Michael down to CBPR to find Elizabeth, knowing how dangerous that would have been. But it wouldn’t explain how Michael would seem to be older than Charlotte, unless her death just happened so early that he was that young as well and just grew up before everything else in the games happened. And I was always under the impression, or maybe just made the assumption, that Crying Child was older than Charlotte and would have known her or at least knew of her. But then we’ve never seen anything in this series that implies they would have known or encountered each other in life… I know I don’t have the answers, but just something to think about. It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
The main issue I have with the whole Michael isn't Williams son is that the animatronics recognise Michael as William because of how similar they look and how Michael himself calls that out. It just feels like a detail that's really hard to work out of the picture
I would also say that by the time William sent Michael to find Elizabeth he was at least 6 dead children deep into his crazy. He might have thought that anything that happened to Micheal could be fixed or had an idea about what Baby would do. Would it matter if Mike died if he was with Elizabeth? To us, yes,but to William might not be thinking that way.
"But it wouldn’t explain how Michael would seem to be older than Charlotte, unless her death just happened so early that he was that young as well" OKAY WHAT IF LIKE.... this makes no sense but what if Mike _is_ an Emily and was Charlie's twin? I'm kinda confused with how the whole Sammy thing ended but what if in that photo Charlie is with Michael? I'm just losing my mind at the idea that Michael could not be an Afton after all, plus DUDE THIS IS SO WELL WRITTEN your whole idea was explained so well and I agree so much, love the way you thought of it
@Filled_With_Envy Henry is animatronic? Gregory and Vanessa, both listed as human, are animatronics? Elizabeth, separate from her listing of Circus Baby, is animatronic? The Crying Child is an animatronic?
@@tumblingstarmoonchild how has nobody said stepson before? That's a really good explanation. Micheal's last name could be different but he still sees William as his father. While William doesn't completely see him as his son ("the baby isn't mine"). And then Micheal is biologically related to crying child and Elizabeth
One thing about the "Michael is not an Afton" theory is that isn't Michael supposed to have an uncanny resemblance to William? The animatronics keep confusing him for William, and that's why they attack. Kind of hard for kid to look so much like their adopted parents, no? Unless William specifically picked him up because the child looks like him... now that'd be weird
And yet, William and Henry *do* apparently look uncannily similar in their youth. There's always the radical out-of-left-field possibility that they're brothers/cousins. Similar genetics. So Michael might resemble William anyways.
@DisgruntledArtist i personally think henry and william looking similar was just bad design from the graphic novel team and it doesn't hold up in the games, specially now that henry was given another design in the new encyclopedia. however if they're really twins with the same genes, what if michael is actually henry's son? that would explain michael's resemblance to william, and why william says that's not his son when the mother says that it is for sure his. maybe she cant tell them apart. though, why would ms. afton have a child with henry, claim it's william's, and then have two more kids? why would william keep a business with the man who had a son with his (presumable) wife? unless he "gets over" the He Is Not My Son thing and raises michael anyway while still resenting him for being henry's child. i dont know. this is just a theory.a GAME theory. thanks for reading
what if Mike = Wiliam what if, Mike is a robot? what if, Mike is a robot version of a teen/young-adult of Wiliam and somehow "find" his own name. That explain why he is calling William father, and explain why he got scooped and lived, and being hollow and lived. P.S. idk the full theory of FNAF and my theory might crash with other "facts"
Ok wait. Can he be adopted, and look like William (JUST to the animatronics) because of the last name and because they were both potentially night security guards in similar uniforms? They thought "I was you" because he's in the same uniform and job, and they'd be able to see his last name in their database or on his uniform
Very interesting that Charlie is listed as human in the book as well even though we all know she’s a robot. I feel like this book is simultaneously helpful and confusing things. It’s like Scott wants to keep things secret but is fine explaining other things. I also really like the idea of Micheal going to a church to talk to a priest after sister location 😂thank you for that ash
But at the same time they seem to be only referring to the Charlie that was killed and is the puppet. The only mention of robot Charlie is the quote about an alternate Charlie who survived (the robot). So technically, this Charlie in the character book is the human that died, not the robot who was her replacement.
The entry is misleading because it uses art from the graphic novels, which leads you to believe that they're talking about that version. But the entry is specifically about the game Charlie, who's only human before she merges with the Puppet. The only actual mention of Book Charlie is when they just lie about her in the very end.
Very interesting that Charlie is listed as human in the book as well even though we all knew she was a robot. I feel things. It's like Scott wants to keep things secret but is explanation of other things. I already like the idea of Michael's going to a church to talk to a preceptor sister location thanks you for that ash
@@laurensmith8697 yet they use the book art of her where she is a robot. Elizabeth afton got new unique art so why not draw some new unique art for Charlie as a child before she was killed
I love that Ash and Mat point out how weird the crying child's fears are since he is afraid of animatronics but not the plushies of the same characters. BUT as someone who is leery of animatronics and suits of that nature in general (probably thanks to FNaF), yeah, it tracks. Human-sized things are scary, tiny plush versions are not. Brains are weird.
It didn't seem that weird to me cause when I was a kid I loved barney the purple dinosaur but one time someone gifted me a giant (for 3 year old me at least) barney plush and my parents had to hide it cause I was scared of it. Kids fears are weird man
@@danielasosa4964 Me too. I loved Barney and other mascot characters. But the moment I saw a mascot costume in real life I was just struck with fear and would run away crying. It's just child brains being child brains
It's not weird though, I'm just surprised Mathew Pathew didn't think of it though. What I mean is that (and for clarity I'm actually making a hypothetical here) Little kid sees another kid get vored and gored by a big machine and suit combo with the appearance of a lovable Mascot. Along with the size difference (the kid in the mini games doesn't cower from the corner crew) if you get forced into a building with a different companies mascot character with the same machine suit combo model used for the one that gave the kid trauma the kid still would be affraid because it isn't the mascot that's terrifying it's the insides.
It's like a kid loving a teddy bear but being terrified of a literal grizzly bear... because grizzly bears are capable of killing you and the teddy bear isn't.
can vouch for this too; love garfield a lot, but when my family took me to an event where there was people in garfield and oodie costumes, i noped the fuck out. children brains are especially weird when it comes to drawing arbitrary lines
One thing to notice is in Vanessa/Vanny's page, the subtitle says "Giving you a false sense of security", and in the Security Puppet's page, it says "Definitely gives you a false sense of security", which might have some very interesting connection...
I think the "he's not my son" has more to do with William hating and disowning Michael after he killed Evan. Because in that same game Sister Location the animatronics confuse you for William. And that's been a possibility in Fnaf 1 and 2 as well.
I think the he'd not my son has more to do with William hating and disowning Michael after he killed Evan. Because in that same game sister Location the animatronics confuse you for William. And thats been a possibility in FNAF and 2 as well.
I feel like the reason Michael isn't mentioned in the book is maybe that he wrote it? The way it's written almost seems like someone making an encyclopedia for themselves to put everything they know down into words to remember and figure out
Kinda like the survival log book. I like that idea. If Michael’s the main character writing down what he’s learned he wouldn’t write about himself. Nice theory.
I must correct you, as I have made it my duty to correct any misspelling of “Michael” that I see. Michael is spelled “Michael,” Nobody has ever said “Micheal”. THIS IS MICHAEL AFTON, ONE OF THE MOST MAJOR CHARACTERS No, Michael’s Craft Store is not spelled Micheal. (This goes for any other brand with the name Michael in it). No, your phone doesn’t autocorrect Michael to Micheal on its own, you have to spell it incorrectly many times for it to begin doing that. And finally, no, MICHEAL IS NOT A REAL NAME
I don't think so. Because how would he know about the characters of the books and the different skins os animatronics in Fnaf Ar (that Im pretty sure is not cannon)
not only does michael call william his father,mike also has the english accent AND he mentions that the animatronics were mistaking him for william,which means that michael and william look pretty much alike. which would be kinda hard to do if mike wasnt his actual son.
@your_daily_reminder_to_smile In 8-bit? Correct me if im wrong but we only ever mike in 8-bit and In 8-bit william is already purple so when Mike turned purple of course they're going to look the same. Yes william is in the graphic novel but micheal is not and those may not be properly cannon to the games anyway so I don't think we have any way of proving they look the same.
I always interpreted the slight color change in "I will put you back together" as William breaking character slightly, not being able to hold himself together fully as he says his final words to his dying child. Trying to comfort him as he dies but also make a promise. It's probably not that deep.
ive always thought about it like that! in the first two lines, he’s putting up a front, trying not to seem weak and comfort his child but eventually he himself, breaks, and there’s a crack of emotion in his last sentence as he puts his child to rest, promising to bring him back
I find it very interesting that Balloon Boy is labeled as "anamatronic humanoid" while there are other characters listed as "anamtronic human" it is very strange why that difference is made
Edit: I apologise for the miniature war I managed to start below me with my idiocy. With the amount of people tactfully correcting me (bar one, who is most definitely a Twitter Keyboard Warrior due to the lack of courtesy), it’s safe to say I’m just a dumbass. I’ll keep this comment up so anyone can see the context of the replies below me. Please don’t argue though, I’m wrong, most of you are right. Original comment: I’m sorry to be that sort of person, but Ash prefers They/Them pronouns. I’m just gonna let you know before someone tells you this in a less polite fashion. Once again, sorry.
@@memelord3986 I heard in one of the comments sections that Ash uses she/they? Not completely sure but would be glad if someone checked. I'd check but idk where to start.
@@Saphia_ Possible, I've only ever seen them referred to they/them in the videos and that's what people were saying when Ash first joined the channel was they/them.
timestamps for when he talks about the pages: frontcover/photoshop- 3:15 firstpages- 8:00 content- 11:44 blacklight freddy- 17:02 party freddy- 19:32 arctic ballora- 20:56 MUSIC MANNNN- 21:28 the blob/burntrap- 22:25 gregory- 30:47 posters/backcover- 33:48 vannesa/vanny- 34:02 henry (emily?)- 36:22 human heads?- 41:03 egg baby- 42:47 little joe- 44:13 magician- 44:55 mediocre melodies- 45:46 nedd bear- 48:17 roxanne wolf- 50:02 phantom puppet- 52:52 shadow puppet?- 53:27 nightmarionne- 55:59 security puppet- 56:18 balloon boy- 56:25 eleanor- 58:39 charlotte emily- 59:47 crying child- 1:02:31 the stichwraith- 1:06:24 bidybab/electrobab- 1:08:36 ballora- 1:11:08 micheals not here?- 1:13:17 i hope someone atleast finds this useful 🤍 hope anyone reading this is having a great day and make sure to look after yourself xx
So hyped for the timeline theories! No clue why Michael isn't in the book, but I think Michael is an Afton because they're both British lol. And I don't think he's adopted since there's apparently a strong family resemblance between them ("They didn't recognize me at first, but then... they thought I was you."). Also, I don't think The Immortal and the Restless is saying Michael isn't William's son, just that William was neglectful. It's clear in the show that the baby _is_ Vlad's son. He has all these vampire characteristics that could only have come from Vlad, but Vlad continues to deny it even though it's obvious. I think The Immortal and the Restless is about a father refusing to acknowledge his son, not that the baby _isn't_ his son.
Maybe William BELIEVED Michael wasn't his son for whatever reason? Believing his wife had an affair or something of the like. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Maybe he was, but maybe most of the Fandom got it wrong. There is a possibility that Micheal is the Bite Victim rebuilt. Pay attention to the line "I will put you back together..."
We've been assuming that them mistaking Mike for William means they have a family resemblance, but I think that's wrong. They only mistake him for William after time passes. In other words, after he turns purple...
The thing Matt keeps ignoring in the Immortal and the Restless, is that the vampire is clearly just lying to avoid the responsibility of raising his son and Clara goes to more and more drastic measures to try and make him. If anything, this indicates that Michael IS his son, but William neglects him due to his depression after the bite of 83 and maybe even stopped considering Michael his son, but Michael is still Michael AFTON. He's probably not in the encyclopedia because confirming which games he is in would be a huge reveal for this book and that should be saved for a game
I've always been so curious about Ballora. Whether it be the allusion to her being Mrs. Afton, her eyes-closed design, or the song she sings. Everything about her feels so deliberate and yet nothing about her directly points to a connection to another character or moment. However, I do have some thoughts on her design and how that could connect to her being an allusion/ recreation of Mrs. Afton. It's always struck me as odd that none of the books or games talk about what Mrs. Afton is feeling or thinking during any point of the timeline. You never hear her say anything, she's never mentioned, heck she doesn't even have a name in a game that gives proper names to just about every little creation. But putting myself into her shoes, having lost a daughter, her youngest son is traumatized and hospitalized, I'd be pretty closed off and despondent too. I wouldn't be in a place to notice my husband (William) going off to places at strange times, spending hours in the garage working on god knows what. I may even be deliberately looking away from his strange activities because I have so many other tragedies on my mind, I don't need another one to add to that. You could say I'd close my eyes and allow myself to be blind to all the other things around me. Which leads me to the song she sings: "Why do you hide inside your walls, When there is music in my halls? All I see is an empty room, No more joy, an empty tomb. It's so good to sing all day, To dance, to spin, to fly away." The first line refers to him spending all his time in the garage and or otherwise out of the house. Even if she's deliberatly ignoring WHY he's spending all of his time away, she would obviously notice it on the surface level and want her husband's support during this extremely hard time. The second line makes me feel like Mrs. Afton is both wondering why he's out when she needs his support, but this line could also be her trying to tell William that she is there to support him too since they're also his kids. The third and fourth line are of course referencing Elizabeth's empty room and the general depressive episode the entire family is going through because of that and their son's hospitalization. The last two lines may seem like a strange departure from the otherwise cohesive narrative, but this ties back into the closed eyes in her design. I think this is pointing to the fact that Mrs. Afton mentally couldn't handle the tragedy of her two children's fates, especially without the support of her husband so they could help each other through it. So instead, she disassociates herself from them, figurtively flying away from her problems. And since this is William making these recreations, all of these things make sense, since he has the motivation to recreate his family as animatronics and obviously knows his wife and how she dealt with the tragedies of their children. So when you combine the two, you get an animatronic that laments over events and has knowledge of things in a perspective that really could only be that of Mrs. Afton. I know for a while Matt was into this idea, he had a similar analysis of the song in one of his Sister Location theories, but it feels like he's moved away from this idea. (Loose ends: I also think the fact that she has the Minireenas, which couls easily be seen as Ballora's children, supports this. But then again, Baby has the Biddybabs and Electrobabs too. But then AGAIN again, it's interesting that it's the two recreation characters of Ballora and Baby that are the ones with smaller more child-like counter parts, and that Funtime Foxy has none. But why would Baby, the recreation of his young daughter Elizabeth, have children? The Minireenas and Babs are curious cases in their own rights. And then on a separate issue, if Vlad is an allusion to William in The Immortal and the Restless, then would Vlad's wife be an allusion to Mrs. Afton? But this goes against the whole idea of Mrs. Afton having closed herself off from the world because the wife in the show is very confrontational and willing to bring up the issues to Vlad. The Immortal and the Restless is confusing/ contradicting point for a lot of theories it seems...)
Sounds all great to me c: I will say that (I have no idea obvi but) the Vlad thing could be a matter of timeline-if she only closed off after the tragedies, then she could still have been a fireball shortly after the kids’ birth
Vlad's wife might be a reference to William's delusional psyche. From his viewpoint, Ballora is silent on the matter and doesn't try to remedy the following issues, but in actuality, she already tried to stop him from doing it, and he in his head, he sees it as her not wanting to support in fixing his family. To William, his family would be fixed if he fixed them, but his wife instead tells him to forget and move on, to shut his eyes from how broken his family becomes because of him.
You can’t tell me the crying child artwork in this book doesn’t look almost identical to Gregory… even the detail of the bandage on the crying child’s knee while Gregory has one on his face
I love the idea of William Afton being a priest, Michael Afton in his robot suit, sitting in a booth, saying "Father, It's me, Michael. I've come to find you." Something about that is so hilarious.
Did you notice the Crying Child design in his page? we can see his eye color, which is similar to Gregory's, also he has a bandaid on his leg like Gregory, quite a specific detail. I think it enstablishes a connection between them, either literally or simbolic
It looked brown to me! Edit: not disagreeing btw, I’m just saying what I saw on my 40 smth inch TV If anything it makes me agree more lol Edit 2: fixed “gray” bc typos and autocorrect are “helpful”
Afton may have disowned Michael after the bite incident. He can't forgive his son for what happened and shut him out. This would explain the "he's not my son" line. Michael going to Sister Location can be his attempt to earn his father's love back.
As someone who had worked as a mascotte it is not that weird for little kids to love the plush version but be scared of the suits. When the characters are small they are cute, but at almost 7ft tall they can be a little intimidating. I've had children who were litterally obsessed with the character scream bloody murder when they had to get close for a picture.
A weird detail that I noticed It’s that the crying child picture depicts him with a band-aid, just like the one Gregory has. It’s in a different part of the body, but It’s an odd detail to include. Can’t wait to see the new theories!
In reference to 40:38 when Mat was asking if William and Henry are twins, it could make sense and have an even deeper plot. We know Henry has twins and twins are hereditary. This means that either Henry or his wife have a twin or at least have a history of twins in their family.
given fraternal twins are literally two eggs being ovulated simultaniously, it HAS to be on the woman's side. A man can't magic up extra eggs in his wife after all. That said, media often does play with the twins have twins regardless, it's a trope. But it's not actually scientifically possible for a man to make a woman ovulate more than one egg at a time just by sleeping with her. He'd need fertility drugs for that lol.
Im personally a fraternal twin with a boy (I am a female) and I can say that twins run on my DADS side not my moms. My grandmother is a twin, she had twin girls, and my father (that grandmother's son) had me. Idk about the theory but fraternal twins are hereditary. It doesn't matter if it comes from father or mother as twins don't run on my moms. The other sets are identical we are the special set that are fraternal. Twins can jump generations but we've had 1 set in each generation for us personally.
Something to keep in mind about Micheal is he says: "They didn't recognize me at first, but then they thought I was you." On top of that he also has the same Voice Actor as William, so we at least know that biologically he'd have to resemble and sound similar to him. As to if he might not have the last name Afton I'd say it's likely that Maybe Micheals mother had the last name Schmidt and he was given that name at birth?
@Mm Mm Well then, what if he's the result of William cheating instead? It would make sense. His marriage most likely failed at some point, and William is a narcissistic abuser, so he obviously wouldn't blame himself, so maybe that's why he didn't like Mike? Plus it would fit with The Immortal and The Restless, with the kid clearly being Vlad's son, and him denying it.
On the point of The Crying Child: Long ago, a friend of mine's little brother really loved Spongebob. He was deeply obsessed with him and would spend all his time watching the show or playing with the toys. For one of his birthdays, it was going to be a surprise to have his older sister dress up as Spongebob and surprise him as a gift. The birthday was going without a hitch and we were all getting ready for the reveal of Spongebob "visiting." Once the moment arrived and she walked in, he went into a panic and started crying. What they thought would've been a wonderful surprise was actually a really terrifying moment for him. It is a bit confusing situation, but there is a strange correlation between younger kids loving a character and being terrified of their real-life counterparts, at least in my experience.
I'm very passionate about fnaf and its story, so it's pretty upsetting seeing misinformation in a official book, and some major characters just not getting in the book at all.
@@stevenpina1983 a reason ? Like a second one will come ? But it is unreasonable to put like characters like party Freddy instead of putting important or majors characters first . With reason or not ....
@@bengonomaywan6137 i dont think what they meant was that another one might come but more so that some characters were left out deliberately for lore purposes. for instance michael not being in the book could be a hint that maybe he isnt actually an afton like others have been speculating. sometimes the lack of information being presented is information in and of itself.
If you're talking about the Charlotte line Mat pointed out I think he just misinterpreted it. Imo the line is just weirdly worded but it refers to the robot Charlie as the one who survived childhood so it is correct
Y'know, it's odd that they include all sorts of AR skins and choices like Human Heads, but DJ Music Man is limited to a single name drop on the normal MM page.
So, a couple of thoughts occur to me after watching this video: 1) On the topic of Mike missing from the book, once MatPat brought that up, I realized that it is also missing entries for Jeremy Fitzgerald; Phone Guy; Phone Dude; Tape Girl; Cassidy/The One You Should Not Have Killed; Fredbear; Ella, Theodore, Stanley, and the Twisted Animatronics aside from Wolf; the S.T.A.F.F. Bots; Vlad and Clara; Highschool Anime Chica; Samurai Anime Freddy and Foxy; Chica's Magic Rainbow; Animdude; or the Dreamgeist. I don't know what that means, if anything, but I thought I'd call attention to it. That's a lot of missing characters for something touting itself as a franchise's "official character encyclopedia." Honestly, Phone Guy missing seems like just as a big an omission as Mike. 2) If Mike isn't in fact an Afton like we've all thought he was... Maybe he's actually been an Emily this whole time? He'd still be doing what we all thought he was doing - going around from pizzeria to pizzeria, trying to stop William and clean up his messes - but because he's helping his dad stop his old partner, not to end his own family's murderous past. 3) On a similar note of "What if this person wasn't who we thought they were all along?": If Afton really was trying to recreate Elizabeth as a robot and the Bidybabs are her as a baby... and Circus Baby is roughly her as a child... What if this is what Ballora is? Not Afton's wife, but in fact an attempt at "Adult Elizabeth," as a sort of dark parallel to Adult Robot Charlotte? 4) Also how dare they not give Candy Cadet his own page instead of just shoving him in with the other Vendor Bots? He was the star of Pizzeria Simulator, darn it! 🍬🍬🍬
on №2, i was thinking about Mike being an Emily, but i don't think it works with the eng of fnaf 6. Henry goes out of his way to talk about his daughter Charlotte, but when it comes to the security guard, which we know for a fact is Mike, he just says that although hi had an escape prepared for the security guard, he has a feeling Michael wouldn't want to leave anyway. Which is strange, because if that's his son wouldn't he go out of his way to say how proud he is of him? Idk i'm as confused about this timeline as everyone else.
Michael is William's illegitimate child. In the Fnaf ultimate guide book is the proof, specifically the Fnaf Sl section. There is a sticky note about the imortal and the restless. To summarize, it basically states that the boy is Vlad's son. It's pretty obvious, but something else stood out. It also calls out the woman to be Vlad's mistress.
I caught that too, although in the books Charlie already has a brother and his name is Sammy, Micheal is the book verse too, although he is killed off eliar in the time line
Small thing it could be less complicated he could just be a step son? That fit in with the vampire stuff where the women saying he is ther child (since he takes after his new dad) but the father refusing hes his son. He could be Bayloras son before afton. Would explain why hes so close to his younger children since ther "his"
As a kid I had Chuck E. Cheese plushes and other items from there. But I absolutely was scared to my bones of the animatronics. Like whenever I walked past the stage and the motion sensors or whatever kicked in I cried and ran to my parents. So I relate and think it’s pretty common for a child to like something and be scared of it especially with animatronics. Because on one hand ones a miniature plush and on the other ones bigger, taller, metallic, and taller with a lot of realistic features that do scare kids.
This book gives me MAJOR FNAF World vibes with its cheesy phrasing. This book did make me realize something... Roxanne and Mangle share parallels: obsession with beauty, yellow eyes, and not being built right.
Also Roxanne has split personality type of thing going on in the game. She has "her own" voice (for lack of better phrasing) and the second voice in her head that bullies her. Mangle in UCN has two voices - a cutesy girly one and a darker static one
In regards to Michael not being in there to be listed as an Afton, Henry isn't listed as Henry Emily in the title, but they reference that he's been established as Henry Emily in the books. They could have done something similar to that.
I think a theory could be that Michael could be Michael Emily and he is referencing Henry as his father. Also, could be adopted as a brother in Afton family. That would explain why William and Henry look similar and Michael still looks a lot like William.
One of my biggest concerns with the idea that Evan sees his sister get scooped is that Baby cannot scoop when there are any other children present, there were 4, then 3, then 2, then 1
@777SilverPhoenix777 you can generalize your fear as a child. Bitten by dog -> afraid of all animals can happen. Same with bugs, one bad experience with one you end up fearing them all due to overgeneralization. A giant robot/animatronic killing your sister? Fear of anything that moves and acts like one.
Curiously, the "game appearances" don't list FNAF World for any character (as far as I can tell). Especially notable for Old Man Consequences which specifically calls our FNAF World in the description yet still omits it from the list.
This man has an amazing memory, being able to explain events right away and clear enough for a viewer to be able to understand what’s being referenced is bonkers. An impressive mind indeed 🫡
To be fair, he's had to research and reorganize his timeline so many times, practically after each release, that I'd be surprised of he didn't have a good memory about all of it.
Confirmation that burntrap is still using the springtrap suit is pretty significant. Nullifies the theory that Glamrock Bonnie was lured to be his new body.
I've seen a few irregularities in the "encyclopedia", namely in the "Type" field: There is a pretty wide "Animatronic Humanoid" section (with Baby, BB, etc. shaped animatronics), but those looking like Little Joe are under "Animatronic Human". Also, most character known to be in animatronics are classified under "Human" (Even Charlie who if I'm not mistaken is fully robot in the novels, with no human soul), yet Afton is "Human, AT FIRST" Like, bruh, the Crying Child is considered Human, I think it's okay to get Afton under "Human".
Idk, it may be a reference on how many times Afton came back and that part of his conciousness is part of Glitchtrap? Or maybe just saying how he lost his humanity because he's a murderer? None of this makes sense, but for some reason Afton not being classified as fully human didn't stick out as weird to me
@@nerdyworld938 well and truly, but we'll still come crawling back when he inevitably changes the entire timeline and completely ignores his temporary bout of insanity. Scott help us....
Regarding the Crying Child's differing attitudes between the animatronics and the plush versions of them - I don't think it's necessarily a discrepancy. There are plenty of kids who may love, say, a movie or cartoon character, but take them to a theme park where costume characters are walking around, and they'll be terrified of them. This doesn't explain everything (e.g. why the other plushes are shoved to the corner, what sets them apart), but it's at least a partial possible explanation. Anyways, thanks for giving us this peek into your thought process as you look at this new content - I'm looking forward to the timeline videos! And I know the FNAF theories can get a lot of flak, so I just want to say, I think it's really cool that the theories you put out aren't just one static thing you stand by forever, but things that you update and adjust as new information comes out or different perspectives are revealed; it shows that for you, it's not about being the one who finds the right answer (though obviously I'm sure you wouldn't /mind/ that), but about the answer itself - the satisfaction of solving the puzzle, even if there are missteps along the way, even if you're not the one who locks in the final piece. Keep up the good work!
When I was younger I had a crazy frog plush, but I could never watch the axel F video because it would cause nightmares. The plush was fine though, because it didn’t move. Theoretically I could take it apart and it wouldn’t hurt me. I couldn’t do that with the video, and my mind would take that as scary. Maybe it’s the same type of theory there.
I love Ash's concerned "Who's little Joe" when looking at the table of contents. EDIT: Also, the take of William being a religious figure with the "Father" notion 😆
Something I've always wondered, did Scott base Henry off of Henry Clerval from Frankenstein? They're both the level headed voice of reason trying to talk down their mad scientist friend who is seeking a cure to death
For you whole Crying Child plushie discussion at 1:05:00, there is a difference from a child seeing a teddy bear, and a child encountering a full grown bear in the wild. Also at 1:15:26, you forget, that the episodes make is apparent that the son *is* his child, via vampire thraits shenanigans, and the father's refusal is made to be almost comedic (depends on your type of humor)
A thing to point out, kind of in relation to Michael not being mentioned here, is that the 'William Afton' page/pages are also a sort of stand-in for 'ScrapTrap' as that was never his official name given in Pizzeria Simulator, in the credits it says 'William Afton' which was the first confirmation of his full name in the games, so this page is as much ScrapTrap as it is William Afton which could possibly explain why Michael wasn't given a 'Description' as he, same with ScrapTrap, wasn't given a name in credits, in the credits of Sister Location there is no 'Michael' or 'Michael Afton', there is just 'Misc' (Short for Miscellaneous). Also in William Afton's 'Game Appearances' it states that he was in FNaF 1 which I don't personally remember him being there (feel free to correct me if he was and I'm forgetting but I thought Purple Guy/William was introduced in FNaF 2) Edit: since this post, I have been informed by my friends multiple time that within the timeline, as the events happen in FNaF 1, William Afton is inside the fake wall in the FNaF 1 location, but that would be assuming that the “Game Appearances” takes timeline events into account which would open up a whole new can of worms that I don’t have the mental capacity to dissect
just to throw a theory at the wall and see if it sticks, i always wondered what if michael/mike was disowned after he killed his brother? it could explain why he calls william ‘father’ but william (or rather his stand-in, vlad) says ‘not my son’ repeatedly. could also explain maybe he changed his name to schmidt to distance himself from the aftons.
The one thing I took from this video is that Matpat and Steph like doing puzzles and are doing a 40,000 piece one. I love me some puzzles and watching puzzle content on RU-vid so I am very excited about it.
Saying Michael isn't an Afton is crazy. I can already see it being another "Gregory is a robot" theory where the internet *COOKS* him for that if hes comes to that conclusion.
You think Matpat is stupid or something why would he go against something he knows is true and has used in countless theories. Sure the video will have something we will mock him for, but this Theory likely isn't going to be that.
Well I mean he could be right and he could be wrong, being a game theorist means to take info from a game from or other things, and try and make all of the LORREE make sense. It's a whole lot of guessing and sometimes those guesses can be correct. So don't blow up mats comment section saying that he is wrong, because you don't know if he is wrong either
Matpat is wrong, his name is Michael Afton that is out right confirmed by Scott, and don't forget "Father it's me Michael" followed by Springtrap appearing.
one thing he's leaving out in the immortal and the restless is that even tho Vlad denies it being his kid it is because it's also a vampire he's just being neglectful of his kid
My only knowledge of this franchise is through these theories, but from my perspective, the Crying Child having the plush but being afraid of the animatronic makes a lot of sense. For me, I've had a general dislike/fear of most full body costumes like you'd see at theme parks (Disney/etc.). This was stronger when I was a kid, but still lingers for some costumes as an adult, so it may be a form of maskophobia. I loved all those characters on TV and owned toys of them, but seeing an adult sized version in person always scared me. For example, I have pictures of me holding a Barney plush contrasted with video of a birthday party where my dad got a Barney costume. I was clinging to an older relative off to the side, and cowered away when he reached over to pat my head.
Important thing to note about Elizabeth’s death! When baby recalls it she notes the amount of children in the room and how Elizabeth was the only one. Which would make it more so impossible for the crying child to see. Baby also recalls how the children come back into the room as if they never noticed Elizabeth disappeared (I’m pretty sure?). All of this is based on my memory but I’m not sure that’s what the crying child saw that scared him! 29:28
I find it odd how the book pretty much refuses to call her Roxy, despite that being what shes called 99% of the time in the game. They instead opt for the nickname “Rox”, which…isnt heed evem once in Security Breach.
@@viewer6152 Exactly this. Even if you (general you) don't watch the GT(not)lives, it's clear that he doesn't take some of his theories seriously. I mean, there are ones where he's clearly taking something seriously (like that fixing DC universe video on Film Theory, for example). But there are also ones where he's just enjoying something but also finding something plausible and then there are ones where I feel like he just went 'oh but can we?' and the answer turned out to be 'yes, we can'. And they are all entertaining in their own way.
Making FNAF theories back in the day: *wholesome, with everyone chipping in and being supportive* Making FNAF theories now: *You get crucified by toxic FNAF fans if even the slightest bit of information is wrong*
Put the "wrong" in quotations to be even more acurate. Becouse the info in this franchise is so questionable that no one can agree what is even wrong and what is right -.-
In Michaels speech to William at the end of ST, he tells him that the animatronics though he was William, implying that they share some physical resemblance, but if William and Henry are brothers or related in some sorts, an uncle and a nephew could like similar
23:30 "features" can also be used to mean like "stars" as in "stars in" or "appears in". he "features in the ending" means that he is featured or plays a role in the ending.
My biggest complaint isn't the misformation, which isn't great, but it's who got new art for the book and who didn't. Yeah I get we didn't have art outside of the 8bit stuff for Elizabeth and crying child and it's easier to just reuse art from the graphic novels for charlie and the art in fazbear frights for Eleanor but if you are going to release the official character guide, I feel like all character art should be similar at least
Well I mean it's written by Scott Cawton so I'm pretty sure it's meant to be taken seriously just like usual there's a lot of cryptic and hidden information and information that's meant to throw people off but you can't discredit the book entirely
i mean if its official then why not take it seriously you can cry about it all you want but if its coming form the people making the franchise then you should use that
Yeah the reason Mike doesn't have a page is definitely because there's no way to tell anything "comprehensive" about him without revealing far too much. Even if they said "Oh he's in Sister Location, FNaF 3, Pizzeria Sim" which are the only things we can really consider "confirmed" everyone will immediately say "that means he's NOT in FNaF 1!!" which might not be the case they just don't want to say it yet.
Matt, I really would like for you to have a sit down and read through all of these for us as you can see that even in the random of places you find lore-bits that we might miss, unless you point it out. Can we have a part 2, please?
Very interesting video! Thought I'd put down another thing I thought was worth looking into. Henry not being Henry Emily is odd, especially since they also call out he is called Henry Emily in the books. The pages for him and Charlotte Emily heavily imply that they are father / daughter, but they technically don't confirm it? The language is weirdly vague. "his daughter is the soul inside the Puppet. The only name he mentions is Elizabeth, which is how he addresses Scrap Baby." And from Charlotte's page: "Her father was William's colleague, and she was, of course, Charlotte Emily." The fact that they never say Henry is Charlotte's father or vice versa, and that it specifically calls out Charlotte Emily's name, and it specifies Henry is only called Henry Emily in the books, is kinda odd. I can't think of a reason for it, unless Henry is divorced, but why the vagueness about their relation? Could just be to keep the vibes vague and all, but Elizabeth is stated to be an Afton without any inference, so idk.
(36:19 for quick access to what I'm talking about) Interesting detail on Vanny/Vanessa's page is that they say the princess quest arcade machines are crucial to VANESSA'S fate. This wouldn't make sense if Vanessa was separate from Vanny as it is Vanny who gets freed in that ending and Vanessa is just standing by the door. Just something I noticed while watching.
A while ago I put this on the sun-Reddit, but I think it’s worth brining up here for Micheal. I think Micheal is a young animatronic version of William. There are posters in the games that represent William, ballora, baby, and Micheal. Each character is made to have their own portrait except for Micheal and William who share one. Both are clowns, with one being smaller and a puppet. He isn’t his son. It’s him. His name isn’t on there, because he is just the young version of William.
A theory by RyeToast that I think fits very well with explaining if Elizabeth happened after the crying child. Afton wanted revenge on Henry, blaming him for his son's death. The spring lock suit that bit down had Henry's signature double servo style on either side. (Stepping off of that) Maybe Afton knew about how dangerous the animatronics were after seeing all the workplace accidents they caused. He terrorized his youngest son, as he knew his kids had easy access to the animatronics behind the scenes, even if he tried to stop them. The bite of 83 happens. Afton realizes that nothing he did was enough to save his son. He only made his life miserable. He sets out to create this tool of his revenge, baby, in the same way his partner would eventually make Lefty. Baby was supposed to be part of the new great lineup, made to be as appealing to a young little girl as possible, in order to get her alone. But before he even had the chance to invite his old friend's family to see his newest venture and bury the hatchet, it happened. His creation to get revenge for his son's death at the hands of Henry's creation, murders his daughter, the only piece of innocent he had left. It might not work depending on how you look at the timeline, but it gives a lot more context to motivation. It also helps if you can view FNAF 4 as not through crying child's purgatory or hypno illusions, but Afton's torture of Michael to research remnant and agony, while torturing the other person responsible for his youngest son's death. The nightmare animatronics aren't nightmares of an overactive imagination. Afton made them scary af to make Michael feel each night a lifetime of fear, like the crying child did.
I'd love to hear Matpat's thoughts on Micheal being the dreamer in fnaf 4. I've seen that one debated a lot based on the fact that you hear phone guy's distorted audio, along with the obvious parallel to the fnaf 1 restaurant.
The moment where Mat says “Micheal might not be an Afton” genuinely destroyed my brain. 7 key years possibly broken. Such a weird thing to leave out by Scott. Who would’ve guessed that undead and the restless would hold so much significance… no matter how weird the “he’s not my son” part is
Part of me wanted to believe that Elizabeth didn’t die first and that line Scott said during the interview about kids misunderstanding things in the shadows was just paranoia that the kid was experiencing. But that crying child page bugs me. Him getting locked in the room with what looks to be a stuff child in the suit? Kids saying “rumors” about the animatronics come to life? Him seeing something traumatic? It’s like that page is trying to suggest that something bad was already happening at this time. I’m confused
I've never even played a FNAF game, but I devour these videos with rapt attention and am absolutely fascinated by how all the lore connects 😂 it's absurd, but I'm sure I'm not the only one
The fact that they went out of their way to mention that all the characters from fnaf AR are not actually animatronics but solid objects magically moving suggests that Henry made them considering he is one of the only ones able to do this. But how would he be alive during fnaf Ar? it comes out right before security breach
I think they are gonna tell Michaels point of view in the movie because he has seen everything and he knows everything and he is literally the key to understanding certain aspects etc.
I feel like when FNaF is finally done, Mat will have one of those moments like when you're done watching an amazing Netflix series and then go "That was amazing!... Now what?"
Actually the opposite is true, as someone who was deathly afraid of a number of things as a kid, large imposing characters like mascots walking around a Yogi Bear campsite were terrifying as a kid but going to the outdoor theater and watching old Yogi Bear cartoons was perfectly fine for me.
Even though it’s mostly meant as a parody, I’d love to see Matpat react to ooftroop’s undeniably canon fnaf timeline series to see what his take is on it. I honestly think that despite the jokes, it makes the most sense from a timeline perspective of almost any video I’ve seen.
Matt should do a video going through all the apparent inconsistencies in this book, like it claiming a version of Charlie survived past childhood & that the crying child is haunted by terrible memories of a visit to Freddy Fazbear's Pizza.
1:04:45 maybe, if the other five children have already died, this represents their spirits presenting themselves as the plushies from which animatronic they possess, and this line "You're broken, we still are your friends... i will put you back together" is just the vengeful spirit welcoming him to the dead kids who possess animatronics posse.
Michael is mentioned in the Elizabeth Afton segment and practically confirmed as her brother also liked how he completely skipped over her and was just like, "Elizabeth? Nah she isn't important, lets check out these random severed heads that do, say, and mean nothing to the lore."
I feel he did a lot of that deliberately. Probably for a upcoming video he didn’t want to delve too deep. Or maybe to make a part two video for the book
I think I have a solution for the Elizabeth's death problem... I might be forgetting some detail cause it's been a while, but let's try. So Charlie, I propose she's the first to go, the restaurant was just Henry's, for whatever mean reason Will unalives her, since he doesn't even work there and isn't associated with the restaurant, he does it outside. But Henry had done the puppet to protect his kid, the scene from fnaf 6 plays out and Puppet gets Charlified. Will sees that and goes wow, free eternal life, stonks! Creates his own creepy animatronics specifically for child scooping, but oops, the child scooped was his, bad vibes, he goes crazy around his younger kid, but also since his restaurant closed he goes to Henry like hey we do be doing robots and lost our girlies, we should be bffs, so they work together and stuff, crying child gets the chomp, he goes impatient with the offspring death rate rise and decides to unalive a bunch of kids in 85, their ghosts go boo, you meanie and he gets skewered etc. I mean, I can't think of anything from the top of my head that could throw this off, but I could be wrong, like I said, it's been a while since I last tried to piece this together, lol
I don't think so. The Puppet and the restaurant (Fredbears) has to be William's property. Their technologies are simply too advanced (roaming springlock suits) and alive (the security puppet) to be created by Henry. Plus, Fazbears/Henry is implied to be a leeching on William's work/franchise in SL, taking advantage of William's failed restaurant to own the rights to his properties.
On the conversation about being afraid of the animatronics but not the plushes, I think it makes since to not fully associate the two. Especially as a kid. Think of kids who go to Disney and love Goofy but meet this giant version in person and end up in tears. I think scale plays a huge factor and the animatronics are already more uncanny because of their rigid movements. Not to mention if he saw their endoskeletons at any point, they could be seen as imposters or something. Also I’m pretty sure he still refers to the plush pile in his room as friends.
42:46 I personally think the heads are just a way too fill in space in the book, but going with your train of though I think it’s more of a nod to Baby’s transformation into Elizabeth. Blue eyes, then closed (a death), then green.
