I feel like the graphic novels really were a failure of design because on top of these things you mentioned there's also that whole "William also looks like Henry" thing. Like damn they couldn't make three seperate facial structure designs for white guys with brown hair?
The art style muddies individual features. The only difference between the women is their hair color and hair shape. The features on all the characters look damn near identical.
@@pinkanimositygaming I mean to a degree this is true but at least in the first graphic novel volume the girls didn't all have "NARROW SCOUT FROM TF2 CARTOON FACE" like Henry and William
Maybe William and Henry are supposed to look like the same person in the first place. As in, they were the same man at one point in time before something split them off.
I don't think I'll ever get over how the child-piloted giant murderous clown toddler named "Circus Baby" of all characters was turned into a femme fatale, and that the only other named child character got caught in the crossfire of that somehow. Especially since at that point, Toy Chica was already around.
Pinky, maybe? I know she wasn't the writer, but it seems like she's the designer behind the most femme fatale characters of the bunch. She's the one who designed Vanny to be nothing but a lady in a skinsuit, she designed the Glamrocks, and she made a very interesting interpretation of Eleanor that didn't end up making it.
I'm going to show the picture in my next video- in a joke, lol- but there was a design Pinky did for Eleanor that is just so... like, literally wearing a thong with all of it hanging out from every which way. Though I don't know if this was like an early design or if she was just drawing her version of the character, but it IS a reference sheet. Part of me thinks it has to be a joke, but I'm not sure.
Well, “cringe” is a catch-all term for “Bad” or “don’t like” these days. Which, I can say that character assassination and hokey writing are “cringe”, but they are not “cringey”.
Henry and William also look the same, so I think this is an issue with the artist rather than an indication of Charlie's daddy issues (not that she doesn't have any, just that Tom looking like Henry doesn't mean much since a lot of the characters look the same) Edit: Bruh I got John and Tom mixed up, my bad Edit 2: Wait were you talking about John but got your white boy names mixed up? idek anymore
Yeah! They could easily change his hair color, eye color, made him have curlier hair, glasses or whatever. BUT NO, HE HAD TO BE A CARBON COPY OF HENRY BECAUSE REASONS@@notrealnamenotatall2476
This isn't a Charlie problem only, it's a problem with every fnaf character that isn't William. The character is treated as an object, vague information is spread about them and they die off unsatisfying. Like you said, Charlie in the books AND games, CC doesn't have a canon name and is completely forgotten by the games, Michael Afton stopped his father only for him to come back, making all the years he put in meaningless. Elizabeth is barely given any character, the MCI children are only there for the animatronics to move around, Henry is introduced at the last minute and dies, we know nothing of Gregory's origins and given literally nothing about Vanessa. Charlie deserved better... they all deserved better.
I just wish there rlly was a book solely dedicated not expanding lore or puzzle pieces for it, rather just a dark telling of each (human) characters existence in a more surreal, dream-like, eldritch horror type of stories where its shaped similarly to silent hill, trapped in a world of your own delusions and facing your memories as they are more of a burden than a gift. This way it would still fit into the whole fnaf spooky theme or vibes, but also give a lot more ground for exploring the fnaf universe by fleshing out its important (human) characters and humanizing them to give them actual character. One idea i have with this concept in mind is a nightmarish version of a trip down memory lane, except the main protag of the story turns out to be William himself going through his life as hes body is dead and trapped in the yellow metal rabbit casket. However the reveal is that William is suffering Alzheimer’s disease from his mind still prolonged to be alive, thus his memories slowly get erased and warped as his humanity slowly descents further from any semblance of his real self. Falling into further into the illness made his mental conditions worsen which would lead to total loss of his self identity by the end. This way imo is a unique and more interesting exploration of how William is a person but also highlight how he would dramatically go through a sudden change of character, which makes him create this belief that hes this persona of his own body, a reasoning behind why springtrap as a character stands alone and William afton ceases to be in that form. This is just how i would tackle the characterization in fnaf universe atleast, with a dash of memories and dreamscapes to fit it in with the franchise still
Admittedly, depending if you look at the book in a weird way... CC MAY have a name we just simply havent connected yet. But then again the reach of that conclusion would be interesting (Namely that the two Speaking in the Logbook are NOT TOYSHNK and CC, Cassidy and """""evan""""", but instead Springtrap and Cassidy(CC).) ...which would then mean that TOYSHNK is still unnamed. And dont forget about the whole "DCI" thing that may or may not exist, whatever the Multiple Simultaneous Springlock Failures is, if Phone Guy became Spooky or just Died, and so on :V
*Oh boy, long comment of my opinions on each because I have some strong emotions on a lot of them* Crying Child: Give him a dang name. I like the old fanon name Chris, then Fazbear Frights steamrolled that and made the fandom consensus that his name is Evan, and if they're confirming his name as Garrett in the FNaF Movie I'm just going to pick one of the previous two or continue calling him Little Man since he's called that in FNaF 4 before the Bite. Confirm something or tell the fandom to choose one they want. Michael: Let's be damn honest here, if his dad's corpse that has been rotting longer than Mike has (may not even BE rotting by the time FNaF 6 rolls around because remnant is some crazy stuff) survived that fire, Michael absolutely could too. He doesn't need to possess Glamrock Freddy to make a return because he could logically return as himself. Bottom line is to *let him come back.* Elizabeth: She REALLY deserved better. Elizabeth has many reasons to be pissed off at her dad, whether it be dying to one of his murder robots which she later possesses or being repeatedly shocked by him in the Sister Location bunker. Don't make her his bootlicker. MCI Children: You know what? If we're only doing child protagonists from now on, that's not ruling out child GHOST protagonists. You can let the OG MCI kids return as they realize William never actually died or let us play as one of the missing (more specifically, dead) children from that newspaper in the Security Breach Escape ending. It would give us a good look at how ghosts possessing things works in FNaF and honestly it would just be cool for a child protagonist to be already dead, but with a set goal whether it be revenge or setting everyone else free (or both, both could honestly run at the same time). Henry: I think we needed a bit more on him BEFORE he died, so he definitely needed better. Gregory: ...At least don't make him a robot. They already made him Patient 46, so that is enough. Don't tack on more than there needs to be, plus you could actually do some clever stuff with a possible amnesia scenario with Gregory (that maybe being why he hesitates when asked his name, since he's not sure he's remembering right). Vanessa: Yeah she deserved better. Give her a real backstory, the "altered" one we get from the CDs isn't good enough for her own as it may have been edited to represent the Afton family instead. *If you decided to read this whole comment I'm sorry, I got really invested in this one*
i think its really weird that baby calls charlie "an angsty teen" in tfc despite her being, like, a whole ass adult at this point. like i know 19 has "teen" in it but there is a huge difference between a 19 year old and a 17 year old. its always felt like another kind of icky way the book tried to infantilize her
Tbh the human brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25, so she’s pretty much still a teenager developmentally at 19, and while she’s obviously a robot, Henry may have programmed something similar within her robot brain.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Also, how much more mature Fourth Charlie looks even though Charlie herself looks like an adult, comparing her to like Marla. The only difference between the two, save a peculiar amount of height (growth spurt at 18?) is the fact that they thin her eyes, increase her curves, and put on makeup. XD
If I had a nickel for each time a daughter in this series became obsessed with their father and in turn, pretty much killing off the character in favor of putting focus on the father, I would have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. Also, I will now meme the sh*t out of HAM SANDWICH
I “just want to talk” to whoever came up with the needlessly stupid confusing situation of introducing a male character by their last name, making that last name a girl’s first name, then naming his daughter Charlie.
I have a few questions for whoever decided that ANYONE should have the last name Emily. It's a combination of secondhand embarrassing and hard to take seriously. Also, I find Henry's name hard to take seriously in general because I like BATIM better than FNAF. So I'd also like to know why EVERYONE is named Henry.
“The series has daddy issues” I shouted “yes!” When you said this. And nodded so hard when you talked about how “growing up to forfeit your own identity to become what your parents want” is a bad message for kids. My dad is still trying to make his deceased father proud, and he is flabbergasted that I don’t seek his approval in my own life. He respects when I remind him that his disapproval has no worth, but he doesn’t understand it and can’t relate. But damn. Could you imagine how cool it would’ve been if Robot Charlie’s flaws in her programming actually had allowed her to break out of her family’s cycle of grooming? That’s a cool story.
Yeah, there's definitely a disconnect in the writing style of each book. Not sure why the decision was made to swap unless there was a monetary reason.
@@kaiserreichempireofohio834 Stupid argument. You reLize the original star wars movies are directed by different people? And so are 99 percent of franchises.
@@michaelraymon111 all of the movies in the OT were written by Lucas. They were DIRECTED by different people but the story was unified by Lucas’s vision. As far as I remember, the PT was both fully written and directed by Lucas. The ST on the other hand was an absolute clown ride with no one taking the helm for the story and jerking the beloved franchise in their own visions, all different from each other. They made it up as they went, believing that fans wouldn’t notice which completely ruined the trilogy and set back the franchise years. One of the franchise’s writers, Dave Filoni seems to be the only one in Lucasfilms who knows and has passion in George Lucas’s vision. Hopefully he gets more control and is able to fix the blunders by the others.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 you know i think the biggest problem with the novel trilogy was that at the start should have been a completly different universe opposed to the dream timeline of the games.with his own characters ecc. The Scott un happy with the dream story use the elements from that for write the new games story. Just that was the end of the books because the things that were planned for them were scrapped for mostly and tgey started insert always more game elements
Some of the crazy narrative decisions in the novels makes me wish they didn't merge with the games. Having Circus Baby have a complete 180 in terms of personality was dumb and changing William from a legitimate threat in FNAF 3 to cartoonishly evil monologues in Pizzeria Sim just made me disappointed. Henry's speech in Pizzeria Sim was fine but it felt like every character was butchered to fit with the books.
I mean, maybe stuff would be the same even without the books. Maybe the only difference would be we didn't know about MoltenMCI(if it even is canon). I don't know.
@@LucasTF The lore changes with every game anyway so even without the books it's still a mess. There would be some things that could happen without the books like Molten MCI since the candy cadet stories hint at it, but that's all I can really think of.
@@SubZero-hs9xc You mean Afton? I mean, at release I didn't mind it, I actually kind of liked it, but seeing the Special Delivery voice lines cranked up the James Bond villain to 100, and made me question this portrayal of the character. Whether voices fit the games or not is another discussion, specially for Springtrap, but William Afton's voice is not bad, it's very good, although I wish you could hear him in pain, and maybe have him be less """edgy""".
Charlie getting essentially sidelined in a story that should have her be in the focus, and getting her personality changed!? Girl can't catch a break, in life and death
I swear daddy issues is becoming a regular thing in fnaf. Charlie, circus baby, vanny, glamrock freddy and his fans, what's next? I swear either scott is making the perfect baits for characters to be popular or he himself has daddy issues
I think them making Charlie a robot was the start of the lore falling down a cliff and no longer making sense and where we are today with the lore Like seriously remember when the most crazy thing about this franchise was the fact that kids were being killed and possessing animatronics
>I think them making Charlie a robot was the start of the lore falling down a cliff and no longer making sense and where we are today with the lore Honestly, less that, more FNAF 4.
@@Wizardjones69 Say this in English now, what the hell ARE you trying to convey? "Change her minds in robots is not change age"??? What does the 3 YEARS relate to, exactly.
When reading the books, it felt very weird that Circus Baby was like flirting kind of with Carlton because she's supposed to be possessed by a child and it was just really uncomfortable-
Well, she *was* a child. As in past tense. It’s clear that she really doesn’t have the mentality of a child anymore. She’s grown up, for a lack of better word.
Another edition to Scott Cawthon’s greatest hits: Chuck’s Daddy Issues Circus Baby being redesigned to look like, Harley Quinn of all characters Bring William Afton back again(x100) Seal of Approval on all menfolk in the novels looking the exact same Pretty much every game story decision from keeping Springtrap alive in fnaf 3 onwards Gotta say the books had potential to be good stories, even stupid stuff like Charliebot, if planned ahead and actually set up prior to its reveal, could have been a decent inclusion to the story. Just imagine a final confrontation between Charlie and William at the end of what would be the first book, and he drops the bombshell that her whole life was a lie, that she was a robot, then the rest of the trilogy would be her coming to terms with it.
As a prior correctional psychologist, I was REALLY not looking forward to some of the implications here, but I'm happy that you handled the subject matter adroitly.
I feel like so much of the narrative issues with FNAF nowadays lies heavily in the fact that they just can't seem to let go of their past characters. I'm getting really sick of hearing how X's character was ruined because they wanted to put the focus on Henry/William. Why can't we just have a character with their OWN motives and feelings for a change? Thanks for another entertaining analysis
That whole "she's just a weird mistake of her creator"-angle _could_ work, _if_ the story was primarily about how despite that she becomes her own fully realized person who develops beyond what her father had in mind. That she ultimately isn't just a product but a person, artificial or no. It doesn't sound like that's happening here, though.
Imagine, if that "idea" that all of this is basically Charlie's fult wasn't just something the book tells us, but imagine if that's also what Charlie thinks? A point of view that could've easily been caused by her father, that would be absolutely heartbreaking, and unfortunately that actually seems to be how she feels. Ok so, away from that depressing topic, I've thought of another thing that they could've done as a twist. Imagine again springtrap, rater that saying "I didn't take him, I took you" and then scuttling away, imagine if instead, in a harsh scene, rather, (Possibly originally brought up by Charlie maybe saying something about Michael) imagine if Henry was actually the one responsible for mci, (in the book universe not the in-game one) of course all besides Sammy, but imagine that, up until now henry has been seen as someone caught in the crossfire, but now instead he was the one who dumped a whole ass tank of gasoline on the fire and made the problem worse, it would also give him more of a motive to make that murder robot: out of guilt of what he had done, maybe it felt good in the moment, making more bear his pain, but later regretting it, just an idea that's been floating around my brain for a while, I have others, but those would be major spoilers for what I've been cooking up recently. I'm glad to see someone else on the internet who still gives these books attention, as I'm a massive nerd who still has a special place in my heart for all these guys, awesome video (As always) very entertaining! I'm glad to see that you've been getting the popularity you deserve!! Thank you for coming to my Ted-Talk
Remember when Charlie actively chose to end her relationship in the first book so she could move on from Freddy's and her father? Seriously though, I used to love (and still have a soft spot) for Pizza sim's ending where Henry comes in and sets fire to the pizzaria before I saw stuff about the books. Knowing the plot of the whole book series was shafted just to give Henry more character, that isn't even canon to the games, that isn't even handled well, gives the ending a way bitter taste.
>gives the ending a way bitter taste. Now consider the fact the Signs were there even in 6 that the Ending was never gonna stick :V ...also, basically, FNAF 3's entire ending existing.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm noticing a pattern of fnaf side-lining, sexualising, or otherwise mistreating their female characters. Maybe it's nothing, but the more I think about it, the more examples I come up with.
I notice it. I'll give the benefit of a doubt and say it's because of recycling plot elements, but it IS noticeable. Especially with Vanny having similar issues.
It's likely the tree Henry sat near in all his scenes resembling Charlie's and John's kiss _is_ the same tree, since it's a tree in his own backyard. I just hate that the focus moved to this mess. William's plot in detail, and the way all his goofy mad science works, could've been most of the book. Or the kidnapping, hunting and various other antics the animatronics got up to throughout the story with all those other kids and perhaps even some unfortunate guests who happened to stay a bit too late after the doors locked. It would've made for a much better focus on the point of the franchise, and less of, well, this. They could've brought Henry back up better. The Twisted animatronics were hidden _in his basement,_ as well as that entire false pizzeria thing - have it instead be them discovering just what exactly he did, and how much of William's work he knew of. That would've been so much better, but no, it instead is just this weird stuff where Charlie suddenly needs to know about him for no good reason. That's a simple, fixable problem in the planning stage, not something to just leave as-is with a patch job all the way to the end. That said, TFC does have some neat concepts - one such is the fact that the children don't see William as their murderer, but just as 'Bonnie', their yellow-furred rabbit friend from before he lured them to those back rooms. This, actually, makes FNaF 3's gameplay make a lot more sense as to why the various forms of the animatronics - which were always used as only weapons by the souls at that point, since the hallucinations, various changing wall decorations, and the interference to the electronic systems in all three of the first games were various tools used by the spirits to allow the slow-moving animatronics to get close so they could use them as what they were: just another weapon in their arsenal. Thus, the Phantoms continuing to use those forms despite not even having the physically moving forms lines up perfectly with TFC, even with the part where possessions, or remnant or whatever name it's given, aren't stopped by fire. All that's done through burning them - or, more accurately, through melting them down entirely, which a mere fire would struggle to do, though it might still work well enough to break the animatronic - is that they are rendered immobile by broken joints and bent frames, no longer capable of moving unless the spirit were to drag the whole damn thing around, and most aren't powerful enough to do so. Thus, they don't use the spare casings and whatnot for their attacks, and resort to assisting Springtrap, who to them is their friend and also still hunting the workers in search of their killer just as they did, in his path closer to the guard. But instead we get a completely different company not reading into any of this detail and spitting out utter nonsense about how Springtrap, and only in his Springtrap form rather than in any of his subsequent iterations, can summon hallucinations to assist in the torture before the kill. And because they get the stamp of a brand name plastered onto the cover, that gets taken as fact.
I feel like the writers were afraid that actual themes of trauma and overcoming it because of the child audience of the books and series, not understanding that teaching the wrong lessons could potentially do more damage than dancing around the issue could. I feel like all the original reviews of the Silver Eyes fail to see past the fact that it's a FNAF Book and actually disect it. like i feel a lot of this could've been caught sooner rather than after the fact so to speak. Random question: What music do you use for the background a lot of it is oddly familiar but i don't recognise some of it as FNAF music
Oh, definitely. Fnaf goods tend to get a positive response regardless of their quality and usually lack proper critique. Which is unfortunate, because nothing's perfect and everything can have its quirks caught in time to prevent future reccurences. These two songs, In the Garden and Sloppy Clav by Godmode, are actually RUclips Audio Library songs. ^_^ They're some of my favorites though, because they get the mood across without being too jarring.
I love how they treat teens like they don't or shouldn't know about topics like this. I'm nearly 18 and I can say a of us drink, smoke and face family problems. It's not a good thing, but that's why some people in this age group should be more informed. Not to mention the "messed up topic consuming edgy teen" stereotype exists for a reason.
The books made me want to write a fan fiction in the POV of Charlie’s brother and him trying to find the truth about his dad and his obsessions while also trying move onfrom his trauma. Bc I was left with so many questions about him. Did the mom cut off his dad and aunt or did the aunt keep in contact with her nephew or was it her decision to not be in contact with him?
Y'know, the symbolic outfit thing at the end _could_ have been made into something halfway decent if they had done two simple things: given her a new haircut and replaced the jacket with something else. You could make the dress work symbolically as a growth-through-assimilation thing common in fiction, taking on the good and rejecting the bad of her former opponent. But, to make that work, another symbol would be needed to show that she's not just becoming Baby or slotting into her "intended" role. For that: the haircut, ideally one that's even shorter. The use of a haircut to symbolise growth and a change in personal identity is a very usable trope, and having her go with an even shorter haircut would work to emphasise a separation between her and both Baby and "Perfect" Charlie, going in the exact opposite direction of the dress and rejecting traits that she doesn't want to embody. Lastly, replacing the jacket is a, "no fucking duh," suggestion, true. But, notably, I said to _replace_ the jacket, not drop it. Keeping some sort of outerware as a symbolic tie-back, about how you always carry the past with you, is fine. But ONLY if it's not the exact same jacket, because that's too much attachment to the past right there. As for the boots, eh, I honestly have no opinions there. I can't even pretend to know or care about footware, so I'll leave that to people who do. Edit: as Tympest Books points out, Charlie's combat boots are explicitly linked to her personality and identity by Jessica, so keeping them would be a better decision than going with the high-heel boots (which Google says are specifically called stiletto boots, but I have no idea how much faith to put into that terminology). And, upon further reflection, I do suppose that having one piece of the outfit remain identical to her old look is a better idea than replacing all of it, giving it more of a sense of continuity from one state to the next, and that works better to symbolically ground her by making it so she's literally connected to the ground by the article that symbolises her past self.
Having read the books but not the graphic novels, I would think that letting Charlie keep her combat boots would be an important part of grounding the redesign in still being her. There's a scene in TFC of Jessica trying very hard to not be overwhelmed with horror at what Afton and Circus Baby are doing, and she does so by centering herself by thinking about shoes. Combat boots, specifically Charlie's worn, steady combat boots, are the only shoes really gone into detail on during the scene. So not only are the shoes given this sort of personality, but they're also tied very heavily into how Jessica thinks of and identifies Charlie as Charlie.
@@tympestbooks1727 Upon reflection, agreed, and have edited the original post to include some further thoughts. And to credit your insight, as one ought.
Okay, but now I'm imagining an undead Henry scenario like William and now I want a fnaf game Kingdom Hearts style where the two engage in battle intercut with exposition dumps about them. Get on it, Scott!
Unless she only remembers pieces of it and Henry was able to convince he it didn't happen or happened to Sammy instead of her. Then as Charlie uncovers the truth, she starts to recontextualize what she remembers- something that would parallel with childhood traumatic memories being regained later in life.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 Honestly yeah, that WOULD check out... Though in general i kinda do REALLY like the thought that there's a "Real" Charlie and a "Fake" Charlie running around potentially, and the two meeting at some point. (Or literally just the Spiderman meme) Hell, honestly if you wanted to get Spicy, have THAT be the "Big Reveal". Could even change PoVs to the REAL Charlie in that instance, and her encounter with her Doppelganger...
YESSSSS YESSSSSS I've been looking forward to this! Charlie and Baby should've teamed up and gotten over their daddy issues or at least made a move in that direction at the end. RIP to what could've been an iconic duo 🥲
You know there is an oddly specific better example of the whole "female lead wearing their fathers jacket to signify their strong connection with them", that being rosemary winter from resident evil village, (spoilers for those who haven't played it) in the games epilogue, it shows a teenage rose wearing her father Ethan winters jacket, this is a very well done example, because the entire story is about Ethan trying to save baby rose, When he stayed behind to sacrifice himself, he left behind his jacket to remember him, and told Chris to teach her to be strong, thus this weirdly specific scenario of "female character wearing jacket of father they almost know nothing about to signify connection" was depicted in a better way then the fnaf books, you know your story is badly written when even the most oddly specific story beat is done better in a different series...
The novels are just so uncomfortable... like why we gotta take this 5 year old child, make them grown up and then get people to simp for their sexiness like... I get the concept but the delivery is just 💀
Maybe Scott just really wants a father figure to take care of him whilst also being his boyfriend. Or maybe Scott just didn’t proof read this book… …twice
The third book manages to spoil everything it had to spoil plots, characters, story. And when it comes to a character that I dislike Henry, to this day I don't understand his popularity in the fandom.
People like Henry because he’s one of the few adult characters in this series that isn’t a murderer or Michael so the fandom decided they could do whatever they wanted with him. He’s also the only other character that opposes William so that makes him automatically a “good guy”. The fnaf fandom basically just plays with the characters like dolls (when they’re not theorizing). Honestly most fandom stuff I see of Henry is either him being a father for Michael or a sad man who can help kill afton. Tl:dr: people just slapped Henry’s name on an oc and decided they liked it. Then the oc became so popular that it replaced the actual character. Edit: I’m not insulting the fandom. I do this too and I respect the creativity.
It's probably partially because of his relationship with William, both canon......and fanon. (No disrespect intended as a fellow Willry shipper, just pointing out William was *definitely* shown to be obsessed with Henry)
My guess would be that many people didn't read the books and only knew about Henry from FFPS, or they wanted to have at least one character who falls on the "good guy" morality spectrum. I mean, William: a vile sadist. Micheal: morally gray. He was kinda problematic at the beggining, but later he fixed the things he messed up. Elizabeth: She just seemed to be a bit stubborn, but Circus Baby, a careless manipulator took the control when she died. I can't tell if Scap Baby is supposed to be her or Circus Baby. The missing children: they're vengeful and probably fueled by dark paranormal forces. Charlie: She's more self aware, but she still attacked innocent workers. Fazbear company: All of them are greedy people who don't care about their workers, put kids into danger and let a serial killer get away because he was one of their biggest money makers. At least this is what I think. I'm one of these people and while I can't see into everyone's mind, these are the reasons why I prefer fanon Henry.
13:45 I found the moment about Sammy's and Henry's graves on pg. 69 of the paperback. "John, you took me to see the grave yourself, remember?" John paused and looked confused for a moment, trying to reconcile what he'd just heard. "You took me yourself, to see Sammy's grave." "I took you to the cemetery, but I never saw Sammy's grave, or your father's," John corrected. "Then go look sometime." Charlie's voice was patient. I think it's Elizabeth trying to hint that John should check out Sammy's grave and see for himself that it was actually Charlie's. The line, "It's not like they're going anywhere" isn't part of the original conversation at all.
That... is so weird. O.o Why would Elizabeth want John to see the grave, that would almost immediately ruin a good chunk of her plan. Plus, does that mean Henry's grave doesn't exist? I suppose he could've faked his death somehow. We've established illusion discs and fake blood appear so... this is so odd.
I wish we got more information about the emily family (from the games) because it could've been so interesting to me at least. I still love Henry in pizza sim but i feel like more information could made the insanity ending and true ending more impactful even though they were already impactful. Maybe they could reveal that Gregory is an emily cause I mean Sammy is still alive somewhere out there i mean it be more interesting than making him a robot or afton to me at least.
>Gregory is an emily Which, unless he was MAYBE a son of Sammy, would have to mean "Child robot" most likely :V Remember, at minimum Henry is probably at LEAST 61 years old as of FNAF 6, possibly older... And he also died at least 12 years ago as of SB, meaning either he got laid and knocked up someone into his 60s at minimum, JUST prior to his death (kind of counters the "Good Parents (plural)" mentioned too), or something else
At this point, I’m ready to put out my crack theory that John was also a robot built by Henry as an immortal companion for his immortal robot daughter. And John was a robot which had the unfortunate likeness of himself too. Which makes things creepier.
Poor Charlie, tossed aside so the focus could be on her obsessed father. "This series has daddy issues" is a way more enlightening sentence than I ever thought it would be. Another great video, I`ve been really enjoying your content since I discovered it last week. They have shown me what a great character Charlotte Emily (in the books) could have been and how the story failed her. They also expose a lot of problems with the books beyond not fitting well with the games. Keep up the great work, from a new subscriber.
The top two weirdest thing that's fnaf has had the weirdest is baby spring-trap That was something I never expected in this franchise This is the second weirdest just a girl that some reason has very much Daddy issues more than Elizabeth bruh.
you know who would have been great to save the day at the end of pizza sim and give that big cool monologue? charlie. i think even if you just fixed a few things from tfc-- or at the very least fix the gross message about how conforming to what others, including your abusers, want you to be is good-- she would have been the perfect book character to have as the final hero. because really, she and afton's kids are arguably the biggest victims of the series. how wonderful would it have been to see charlie and michael, the lone survivors of their families and the abuse they suffered, be the two to ultimately take down afton and free all the childrens spirits? and with how og charlie/the puppet is probably the most compassionate and empathetic of the of the trapped children, i think it would've been really sweet to see robo-charlie be the one to save her. like it's a confirmation of her acceptance of why she was made, the person she is and her right to exist, and that she still cares and wants to help anyways because its the right thing to do. both charlies are some of my favorite characters BECAUSE of their compassion and desire to protect, especially when so many of the other characters are so vengeful and bitter (though that is usually completely justified). and seeing her potential get thrown away, and her get brushed aside as "not a real person," honestly has always made me really sad. especially since its in favor of henry, who is way less engaging and likable.
We can say that charlie in the silver eyes is not have to be a robot, but when twisted ones....... COMES, its REALLY strange, its like the most not good plot twist of a book
“Sorry buddy but everybody was too busy reading about Baby shaking her tatas” BAHAHAHAHA PERFECT VIDEO. anyway, with the constant sexualization of Charlie/Baby does the book indirectly sexualize others characters? new fan from Brazil s2
In the Silver Eyes it's mostly just Baby and Charlie, but in the other books it comes and goes. Mostly with the designs. Like, an initial design for Eleanor was pretty much Baby wearing a thong before they decided on the long-neck version. XD
@@Wizardjones69 You mean... Charlie in the books? She believes she's a teen, nearly an adult, with Memories to match. And she might even BE 17+ at that point, potentially. The REAL Charlie in the books WAS 3 years old, but she's also a corpse that doesnt interact with the story AT ALL aside from mentions. Unless you're talking about Game Charlie who IS present in the games at least?
surprised there is not more comments, i sat through and read them all rather quickly wow but honestly, it truly is strange why they went this direction with charlie's character, because i feel like this is a lot harder to come up with than to do something a lot more normal and connected to the first story. charlie as i first met her in the game seemed to be such a sweet kid and i really like how the little things they added to her character made her so cool, like a big sister to all the other kids. i could even say i like then with storytelling how the similarities between her and henry shine due to both failing to be protectors, its really poetic. i like how she still had some headstrong smart elements in the book, but then they just DESTROYED her. and made everything so WEIRD. seeing the list of shoddy people hired to create these books and graphic novels, It seems they were aiming for something weird from the start... another thing i really wonder is why the novels had went out of the way to depict so many white men with brown hair. im not sure if its specifically from the books or just a result of the bad character design of the graphic novels, but why cant people have different features? i literally could barely tell john and henry apart in that comparison. if you had henry shave there i would be at a loss. hell, i thought it was henry there in the panel with john laying down, but apparently that was william!? i get the parralels between the two, but its still pretty stupid, and why is john even put near them? a lil tanjent, i will always stand by my headcanon of henry having black hair as i first met him through the games and he just has the voice of someone who would have black hair, plus lefty and the puppet existing and being all black. it contrasts to afton's white/silver motifs with his eyes (this is the only design in theory thing i like about william but how they went about to draw it is SOOOO goofy) and his funtimes. i feel like these two men need more contrasts than similarities in their designs. in the diner, the place is not ran by two springbonnies or two fredbears, so why would we have the two men look so identical? i want that contrast within the dynamic to carry over. i feel like even a minor change like a hair color, different build, maybe yknow a hat? would already bring henry's design up to stand better against williams. as for john, he just needs to look like anything else good god.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 i am actually going to explode, why would they not keep that detail WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE BROWN HAIR (they draw the line at jessica of all people)
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 forgot to obviously mention, love your videos! i binge them all at work, you are my meditative snarky voice to get me out of the void of my job.
Why does the graphic novels have Henry Emily, William Afton and John NoLastName all look alike? It isn't bad enough that you could easily write in a flimsy excuse for Johnny's lack of a character, while conveniently aging to look exactly like a Young Henry, being that he also is a Robot one of the Two Terrible Dads built in their shared image as a control unit for Charlie (Or maybe just write John as Micheal and make him the Protagonist); but the fact that they all share the same features makes it look like some Jekyll, Hyde and Son case of Multiple Personalities of Abuse. Hell, both Henry and Willie have lost daughters to Neglect, abandoned their sons and wives to chase esoteric bullshit and are effectively the root of their families ruin. They almost are two faces of the same Monster.
Well that was fucked up. I mean, you already told about the frequent similarities between John and Henry in your previous vids, but I wasn't aware about all the rest. And yeah, good idea to make a parallel between Fnaf 6 and the books at 13:16, to show how Henry's story got developped in both around the same time. Maybe one could think you could be looking too much into things, for example the choice of clothes for Charlie at the end of the graphic novel (9:52), but then again, those panels had to be drawn and checked and all, so, yeah, maybe those choices were kinda intentional. Great vid as always! Also yes, Ham Sandwich.
i think the perfect Charlie attire wearing a dress thing was less to signify she is an adult now and more to show how she's a fusion of teen charlie bot and adult charliebot
7:11 that...was scary, like you know when you had your first fnanf jumpscare at 13 and it got you really bad? yeeeah, i legitimately got jumpscared by this XD here, i gave you my like, please never again XD
Honestly, this was a very interesting video. I read the first two books in the trilogy, but only ever started the third book, never finishing it out of boredom, which is rare for me because I like reading. Just thought it was interesting idk
Something that I realized about Charlie’s origin is that it shares some similarities with Astro boy/the mighty Atom’s. A brilliant robot engineer father who loses their child in a tragic way. The father lost in sadness and grief, builds a robot duplicate of the child to fill the void. Things go well for a time, until the father becomes dissatisfied with how the robot turned out and becomes angry with the robot. Eventually leading the father getting rid of the robot in a very cruel way (though Henry’s method of getting rid of Charlie was more extreme then just selling Astro to the circus).
I’ve only read the graphic novels and I honestly didn’t read the last part in the graveyard as Charlie being stuck in the past and refusing to change but more that Charlie ending her life because she CANNOT move and John joins her because he doesn’t know how to be without her. I never thought about it this way. 😭
I love these videos that talk about some of the writing choices in FNaF. The character videos are cool too but these videos are also fun to think about. Well, not sure if fun is the right word but still
TFC revealing that Charlie was a robot was like Bionicle revealing that The Matoran Universe was a robot. The Difference was that in the case of Bionicle IT MADE SENSE LORE-WISE AND PEOPLE LIKED IT!
You know, I'm starting to question something. Henry created 4 robots, each in a different stage of life for Charlie. Ella is toddler Charlie, the main Charlie is the character the we follow in trilogy & Baby is the adult Charlie. But that's 3 that we heard about in the books. If Ella is 1, Charlie is 3 & Baby is 4, then where's the 2nd Charlie robot, who could be child or pre-teen Charlie? Anyway, on the topic of the video, I can understand Henry grieving for the lost of his daughter but I don't think that replacing her was the best way to go. Heck, he even neglected hid son who had no relevance after the 2nd book. And I think it's ironic that Charlie was portrayed as an object, considering that she's a robot created by Henry. But that makes me question how Charlie was able to roam around freely without anyone suspecting anything. I don't know if her friends calling her weird would count. But I do wonder how the trilogy would go if the original Charlie was involved after her death. Did she possessed the puppet like she did in the game universe? How would she feel about Henry replacing her with cyborg replicas? Heck, instead of killing himself, I wonder how things would turn out if Henry told robot Charlie the truth about herself, possibly due to guilt of replacing his daughter. It may cause some existential crisis but maybe that might could Kickstart her investigation at Freddy's. What if she were to meet the original Charlie who's soul still wonders the earth? Will Robot Charlie deal with an unexpected foe who will get in the way or would the two team up, with Charlotte helping Robot Charlie understand more about herself along the way? Maybe even help Henry overcome the loss & come to acceptance. Who knows how the story would've gone if Henry didn't took his own life. Also, having John mirror Henry by behavior & even appearance is a little strange as you mentioned. It's one thing if it's a coincidence but literally making John a clone of Henry? Maybe have Charlie tell John how he reminds her of her father during certain moments which could lead to John asking her if she feels like she's dating a younger version of Henry, which could lead to an awkward situation that could lead to sudden laughter or John considering being different but still the same John Charlie loves. Though this is a little ironic considering that John doesn't accept Charlie's changes, even though it was Baby but what if it really was his Charlie? Still doesn't change the fact that he was in love a robot though. Anyway, I guess the events of the trilogy happened all because of Henry, who created robotic replicas of his murdered daughter, neglecting other family members including his son, who I'm surprised he didn't try to turn into Charlie, creating a robot to take his own life abandoning his replica daughter who is left in the care of her aunt, leaving the 4th robot unfinished which gets taken by his former business partner to create a killing machine, and said robot daughter is now having daddy issues, even having a love interest who might as well be Henry's clone. The last one probably isn't due to Henry but having John & Henry similar to eachother, even by appearance, is still strange. At least Henry in the games TRIED to do something after Charlie's murder, even though that did nothing in the long run as the murderer himself is somehow back.
It’s like they forgot Charlie existed and suddenly realised half way through TFC that they needed to include her because it’s her perspective these stories are being told from, so they shoehorned her in but didn’t actually make her a focal point. Instead, they turned her into a plot device so they didn’t have to somehow try make her relevant to the narrative. They should have just left her out of the book and had Sexy Baby take over for her and kept the ending where Charlie returns as an adult. At least then, they wouldn’t have bastardised the half-assed character resurgence that ruined her. On top of that, she’s not even on the cover of the graphic novel.
I actually read all the way through The Fourth Closet around a week or so ago. When Charlie finds Henry’s shirt, there is still that instant of, “Daddy?” before she puts it on I also do want to sort of put in my two cents here. Daddy on its own is not a sexual word, nor do I think it should be thought of as such. I sort of take that a bit more personally since that’s what I call my father and have since I was little because calling him just Dad doesn’t feel right. I don’t think Charlie should be looked at sideways for using the word to refer to her father, even at the age she’s at in TFC. Hell, I’m older than her and saw it as normal while reading
coming back to rewatch this (because i love charlie and seeing someone actually acknowledge how crummy she was written past silver eyes is so insanely vindicating), and while i know the weird conformist message is something you adressed in the video, i wanted to mention an additional layer to it that, whether intentional or not, i absolutely picked up. as a disabled person (physically and mentally), i see a lot of myslef in charlie-- as she's disabled herself, having what i read as depression and anxiety-- and i really appreciate her character. it's rare to see disabled characters, especially in a genre as ableist as horror, be the good guys and have agency, and charlie's really shines a lot because of it. then the twisted ones and fourth closet happened, and with them came the pervasive theme that charlie was the one who was "broken" and needed to be fixed. her feelings? her trauma? her existence as a whole? all just an accident while henry was trying to create the "perfect" charlie. she wasn't *meant* to be like this, she *shouldn't* be like this, and it's *bad* that she's like this. tto and tfc focused more on charlie's trauma, but in doing so they decided to strip her of her agency so they could actually focus on the real main character of the books, henry, and wittled her down into an object that needed to be repaired by getting rid of her disabilities at the end. it makes the ending feel 10× as gross as it already was. the idea that disabled people just need to get over it and be like everyone else is disgustingly common and seeing charlie become "perfect charlie" at the end is just... so uncomfortable for me because of it. like, is it so hard to write a disabled character coming to terms with who they are and recovering WITHOUT being ableist about it? i promise you that it is incredibly easy, just look at how the owl house did it.
Hey, I really enjoyed reading your comment, but can you dive more into how Charlie is disabled? Is is confirmed or you just get those vibes from her? I'm not autistic myself (at least I'm not diagnosed) so maybe that's why I didn't notice, but I thought she was pretty usual in the first book. And then they decided to make her a robot, but I never really thought of it as a reference to something deeper, I just thought it's a part of the story. Soo can you talk more about Charlie's autistic traits? Because your comment got me interested in the topic and I would like to understand it more
@@HowWasTheFalll thank you for the reply! i'm happy to elaborate further. what i meant when i said charlie is disabled is that- even while she is never explicitly confirmed as such- i see a lot of my own personal experiences as a disabled person in her character. i see her as having anxiety and depression, which are both disabilities in the same way something like autism is- where it impedes on your ability to function like other, neurotypical people. i think it's also possible to read her as having ptsd, but i don't feel comfortable saying for certain that she does as i don't have it myself. charlie doesn't quite think or behave like most of the other characters; she's naturally nervous due to her past trauma, she fixates on it quite a bit, and she feels like very few people understand her because of it. i read this as disability coding- where a writer intentionally or accidentally gives a character attributes that are often associated with disability/neurodivergence, but it is never stated outright in the text. an example of purposeful disability coding would be luz from the owl house, who is coded to have adhd. they never say the words in the show, but the text surrounding her supports this reading. as for accidental coding, data from star trek was coded as autistic. robots, aliens, and other types of non-human characters are often easy ways for a writer to hint at a character being an "other" aside from the obvious species difference. robots are especially common for autistic coding due to the stigma around autistic people being "robotic," or "cold," or "unfeeling." data is just one of the many autistic robots in fiction, but i think his coding was accidental. i'm not a star trek person and i can't go into much depth about data specifically, so i recommend the video "the autistic robot" by oakwrym. anyways, back to charlie: the treatment of her by other characters- especially her father- is something that i found myself relating a lot to as a disabled person. because once a new, "better" charlie (baby) comes around, almost everyone seems to like her better this way. now she's not so difficult, so anxious, so traumatized. now she's "better." this only gets worse when you learn charlie is a robot, created only to replace henry's dead daughter. because all of her emotions- her flaws, her lingering trauma, her difficulties- are now apparently just an "accident." it's treated that way by henry, by baby, by the other characters, and by the narrative itself. which is a very, very uncomfortable story decision to make when you've written a disabled character without even realizing it. that only gets more uncomfortable when she's killed off, then replaced by the "perfect charlie"- who, in a disabled reading, has effectively been "cured" of her conditions. i hope this makes sense. it's going on four in the morning so honestly, it might not be all too cohesive. but the point is, while charlie may not canonically be disabled, there's enough subtext there that i (and other disabled folk) can relate to her in that way. it's not even necessarily how charlie behaves, but the story around her- being chastised since she was young for being herself; how her past experiences isolate her from her friends in a way they don't understand; ect, ect.
I'm starting to understand your perspective a lot better than I did some time ago when you engaged in Your Henry Rant. (I think I still hold to game Henry being a significantly better person than Book Henry btw.) I admit to not being able to see or come close to realizing the truth of these little details and the ultimate result of the sum of these parts... And I'm honestly a bit ashamed I didn't until now. With the context of this video. Charlie and her actions/decisions both small and large, make just a little more sense.. Well, as much sense as you can make from a book about dysfunctional families dealing with discount Chuck E' Cheese.
If the writers really wanted to have the book be focused on Henry, then they should’ve just wrote a Henry prequel. They could’ve shoved all the story they wanted into that book. And then they could expand on Charlie’s character in the fourth closet.
Thanks for the reminder that Scott Cawthorn is Christian. The movie also reminded me of that fact. But you pointing out the unspoken final message of The Fourth Closet really hammered the point back home into my head that Scott Cawthorn is a Conservative Republican Christian. Of course, he's gonna put his Christian values into his work.
i actually liked reading the silver eyes graphic novel that one was the best of them in terms of story. Good to just. stop there and not read the others. and by that I mean as a standalone story it's pretty alright
@@Wizardjones69 true yeah the art is a little weird at times but eh i can live with it. they got more detailed in fourth closet but :( don't like! where they took the story! don't care about humanoid circus baby!
Weird thought, but if you replace every instance of the word "daddy" with the word "dad", does it become less creepy? I'm not sure if it matters but I feel like, if it's still creepy, then there's definitely more than just an undercurrent there. EDIT: this is what I get for pausing the video to comment, i guess.
Daddy is more like something a toddler would say. Saying dad is quite normal for teens and even grownups. Everyone who uses "daddy" as a teen or adult often show severe daddy issues, often to an unhealthy degree.
@@obambagaming1467 I don’t have daddy issues and I still say it… It just feels comfortable that way. I swear the internet ruins innocent words like that.
Great video once again. I enjoyed all the points you made. I’ve never read any of the books but these make me want to and have peaked my curiosity. Writers do make mistakes at times.
Any white male with brown hair character in these novels really runs the risk of blending together, John looks like Henry in the 3rd book for sure, but then he also looks a lot like William in the first book minus the crazy eyes and teeth. But then, also, Henry looks a bit like William sometimes? I don't wanna just call the art bad cuz that'd be an overly simple statement, it really feels like staying on model and keeping characters distinct is a massive problem for the art besides tweaking some features and giving them some what different attire.
It's very strange how over different FNaF books you see an emergent pattern of how FNaF writers seem to have a weird concept of what identity is. Put this story next to "B-7" and the Mimic stories and this weird theme emerges that identity in a horror story has to be this thing that is thrust on you and you can't discover on your own terms; whenever you are supposedly realizing on your own that you were wrong about your identity you actually just end up repeating the things other people would want you to say. Charlie has to turn into a Very Normal Lady because that's what other people think her identity should be so that must be what it is. She has to be Henry's mistake because that's what other people see so that must be what she sees. In a way it's like they are trying to say a robot child is literally nothing more than what went into creating it although the story seems to begin with an assumption that isn't true, and you could just as easily throw that accusation at a human, saying Michael Afton is just his father's mistakes or something. It is very unsatisfying because it is really not how anything works. People are more complicated, and for that matter causality itself is more complicated, going back and forth and coming in from all directions. it almost makes you wonder, is William Afton actually the most galaxy-brained character in the series just by deciding he doesn't mind being a monster such that nobody can ruin his identity by trying to tell him what he is?? everybody else suffers from all the things they have to accept. he may be in pain but he never has to accept anything, he always comes back
If I were to rewrite the trilogy (not that I could actually) I would keep the silver eyes as is,but change more of the other two, specifically the fourth closet book. For the Twisted Ones, I think the book should be about a new reopening of Freddy Fazbear pizza with the twisted animatronics using illusion disks to perform and collect agony for Afton’s secret plan for immoral life. It could be Charlie being reminded and perhaps be in rage by the fact that someone restarted her father franchise. It would have been cool to have a mysterious person reopen the restaurant and Charlie could go and see the Twisted animatronics in their true form. Then, she could run away from them and at one point return to find the owner of the place and get trapped in the pizzeria while the twisted animatronics haunt and chase them. And, William Afton could have also chased her in his spring trap form and give him a scary vibe. Then Charlie sets the pizzeria on fire. After escaping, Charlie and her friends learn about illusion disks or something by somehow and Charlie could explain how it works. Then, Afton could have appeared later in the story after the twisted animatronics run rampage through the streets, chasing Charlie for some odd reason. springtrap survived the fire and he uses an illusion disk himself to appear twisted and chase her around too. And then, when they finally catch her, her friends have learn about illusion disks enough to create something to turn them completely off but after the illusion disks are off, Afton dies after being runned over by a train. And his body parts are everywhere. But then Charlie emerges, and she sees herself as a robot. Then, since her illusion disk isn’t like aftons, it reactivates and she is human again. The book ends with John saying, “That’s not Charlie” as they are all suprised and shocked that Charlie is a robot. Is this book rewrite bad? Probably. Is it better than Charlie literally dying and Afton appearing for two scene? Yes, probably.
I think that's a really neat rewrite! Don't sell yourself short! 8D Imagine Charlie basically having to prove that she's the real Charlie (from TSE) and not like a plant from Afton. Which requires her having to face her past and what she is, along with dealing with being revealed as a robot.
For the Fourth Closet rewrite, me personally, I would written it like this. It’s been months of Charlie coming to terms that she’s not human, while her friends are somewhat disturbed. John, however, is trying to help her and he’s, although confused, stays with Charlie. As the beginning of the book progresses, Charlie’s other friends try to get the idea that Charlie is a robot. They dig into what Henry had done, and what they could discover. Meanwhile, there is a change of perspective where Circus Baby, is collecting remaining pieces of Springtrap and wants to make him proud. As Charlie and her friends discover the reasons, or some, of why Henry did it, Circus Baby Rental places opens up to the public, opened by the same mysterious owner than opened the one with the twisted ones. Jessica and Carlton go investigate and to see who was the one behind the new pizzerias as they go underground and get trapped inside the facility. Jessica gets separated and must crawl through Ballora gallery while Carlton crawls in Funtime auditorium where he gets trapped and is stuck is another springlock suit (like in the silver eyes) and is being manipulated by Baby. Charlie and John go looking for Jess and Car since they have been gone. Marla joins in too. After they go into circus baby and rental, Charlie goes into the vents and they eventually get to Circus Baby gallery where they are ambushed by the bidybads. Jessica gets past ballora and is chased by Funtim Freddy. Carlton goes through what Michael did in night 4 except ballora isn’t scooped. Charlie and her friends find Carlton and gets out. They are guided by Circus Baby to go into the scooping room. Meanwhile, Jessica is chased by freddy and finds the rest and they all run with circus baby seemingly on their side. Then, in the scooping room, they see a destroyed Funtime foxy which rises and chases them around. Charlie and John find a room where the remains of Afton lie while Carlton and Jessica escape the mangled Funtime foxy. Then, they are confronted by Circus Baby, who explains tells her that she will make daddy proud. She presses a button and Afton rises. Circus Baby, Funtime Freddy, Mangled Funtime Foxy, and Ballora chase them, with Afton’s fixed corpse, now resembling scrap trap chasing them too. They lead into the scooping room where Afton finally dies, and reveals that he never took sammy, he took Charlie. The four funtimes get scooped as well, leaving them broken. And then, they fort Ennard and chase them until they escape the underground facility, trapping them in the dark. The story ends in a happy note, with John and the others accepting Charlie, and, although John can never be with Charlie, they can always be best friends. Is this rewrite bad? Yes Is it slightly better? Probably
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 thanks by the way. Although this probably isn’t the best rewrite, I wanted it to have some of the games mixed into it. Like when Springtrap is burned in FNAF 3. And I think the twisted ones could have done a better way to explain illusion disks. I would have them be sound waves that cause hallucinations and you expect what you think your going to see BUT the illusion disks can’t break physics and can only take form of what’s there. For example, if there a ball, and the illusion disks activates, it would appear like another ball, maybe a bowling ball or a baseball, as long as it takes the form what’s already there. It’s like water! Water can only take form from the vessel it’s using
I think this is the artist's fault. She's know, at least on twitter, on wanting at all cost to portrait Afton as a pedophile so....maybe she did it? I'd like to read the book for see if there are actual differences...
3:26 Imagine calling a characters flesh out quirks a mistake me from Watching TSAMS seeing what happened with most the moons and recalling that I think of the twins as Charlie's sons/daughter across multiple versions. I'm just like welp like parent like child
I don't know where I've heard this but I fully believe it now that the fact that the books aren't trying to be close to the games after a certain point, Scott has been trying to make the games just like the books. I think that's a huge mistake because they have issues being ghosted written by a different writer every single time
I think Charlie being revealed to be a robot is... kind of just unnecessary? It goes a bit too far into sci-fi for my tastes, and you make a lot of good points about the more serious ramifications of it Now, because I like coming up with alternate ideas for anything, I would like to share my idea for what the Fourth Closet could do without this big twist. First, I think the reveal of what caused Henry's death should show that it was "just" William (because it always is). After William ran away, he would have come back for the second Missing Children Incident a la FNAF 2, killed Henry, took back the company, and stole all of Henry's gadgets to build Circus Baby's in 1989. Second, I think Baby should have been her own thing. She escapes from Circus Baby's Pizza World as Ennard after dismantling the returned Scraptrap for leaving her down there, and the big conflict of the book would be her trying to murder Charlie and take her place with Illusion Discs. And I think exactly the illusion discs are would be different too. Instead of doing weird sound stuff, they are revealed to be powered by concentrated ectoplasm... or as William calls it, Remnant. And that the original, sound-based versions were not actually built by William, but by Henry to enhance the animatronic stage shows, adding another level to just how far William leached off of someone who thought he was a friend.
Both William and Henry are awful fathers. One's a murderer and the other became so obsessed with his dead kid that he pushed his wife and son away. In fnaf, there are no good guys.
The “these books are sold to children at book fairs” comment overlapping with watching a teenager get Ridley’d through the chest, with blood, is quite amusing. FNAF really got dealt an unlucky hand by being “horror for kids” in some ways when you think about it. Now, limitations to tend to breed innovation sometimes, but it’s also part of the reason quite a lot of people were unhappy with the movie being a mere PG-13. I know film and game age ratings are a joke anyway, but the sentiment is there. If that next video of yours is going to have the deviantart-tier “Eleanor concept art” in it, then perhaps it is for the best that we do not directly see mature imagery in this series very often. Tell me, have you looked into any fan works that attempt to re-tell Charlie’s character arc and death (and rebirth…) in a more satisfying and compelling way?
I both understand their disappointment and feel like the PG-13 thing isn't the problem. 9 with PG-13 and still pretty spooky. PG-13 can still get away with blood and such. My issue is that it's directed by someone known for doing horror films that are not very scary. Of course, a director doesn't write the script, but shooting scenes is a very key part of setting up the horror, so... tentatively hopeful. Yes it will. XD And Eleanor isn't even in the video. I'm bringing it up for no good reason. I don't know of too many, but only because I don't see too many people writing about Charlie. I have a friend who is writing a series about Charlie post-TSE where TTO and TFC hasn't happened. It deals with Charlie progressing into a relationship with John and trying to escape Freddy's legacy- but perhaps not able to get as far as she would like. It expands on both of their characters and tackles her complicated feelings with her childhood. I could probably send you the name of it once I check in with them! I also have a fnaf fanfiction serial novel that features Charlie as a major character in the second book. Basically, a Charlie who survived childhood (Sammy was the one taken) ends up losing her life and becoming an animatronic. The story deals with her coping with her loss and learning to adjust to this new existence, along with found family tropes. But that's already a book in, so it would require a lot of questionable reading to get to the juicy stuff. XD
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 Oh, I didn’t consider checking the director’s rather limited IMDB page. Folly on my part. Most of her other work doesn’t seem particularly notable. And yes, like 9, limitations imposed by either budget or desired rating restrictions can provide the audience with a very distinct and creative viewing experience. I guess it’s not a massive shock, in hindsight, with the average age group of this fanbase, an R rating wasn’t exactly likely in the first place. Kinda funny that we have all this heavy lifting for Charlie in these books, but then she’s fizzled out of the story by the time you get to game number…7 or 8 depending on who you ask.
They could've nearly completely fixed Robot Charlie which is a genuinely interesting idea by just saying that it's OG Charlie's spirit possessing a robot and then explaining everything weird with supernatural ghost shenanigans. It would've made a lot more sense then what they did, though it seems like they were trying to shoehorn in Agony. The fact that they missed this blindingly obvious idea when they had just done it with Michael possessing himself astounds me.
I'm not against robot kids in mainline FNaF. My views on Gregbot make it seem otherwise, but it would be an interesting concept to pull off. But this isn't about the games, this is about The Fourth Closet. I just feel like they should have done it a little differently. I feel like they should have had Charlie (the REAL Charlie) be possessing the Puppet like in the games, and the two interacting: Spirit Charlie is confused and interested in the fact her body is still alive and aging even though she definitely remembers dying, and Robot Charlie unaware of why the Puppet is so focused on her. The reveal happens in some other way, like Robot Charlie getting damaged enough that either A. whatever is covering the endoskeleton gets removed so the metal shows through, or B. the illusion disc (if that is in use) is broken and everyone including Robot Charlie herself is made aware of her current (un)life status. If not through damage but, say, the gang finding blueprints, have it happen in The Twisted Ones (I think you brought up that idea before) and The Fourth Closet is her trying to find whereever the hell the real her went considering children have possessed animatronics before, then the Puppet shenanigans happen where it's both Charlies trying to find a way to make sure William gets what's coming for him. It had potential to wrap up more loose ends, but they didn't even though that could very likely have been the plan at that point.
Honestly, yeah. Both Charlies meeting up would've been interesting... As for the B Option, it's pretty much stated that the Three Charlies dont use Illusion Discs, they're just THAT Human Looking. Adult Charlie/Charlie #4 was the only one using an Illusion Disc, being finished by Afton instead. Damage would be neat though... Even if the Remnant would likely patch that up over time probably.
@@higueraft571 Yeah, I don't remember the others using illusion discs but I wanted to account for that as well. But I do like the idea that wound's too deep to heal normally (because it's the equivalent of a cut all the way down to the bone) so Robot Charlie has a bandaged arm to make sure no one outside her group of friends knows about the robot thing, just to be careful.
Just got done with the trilogy. My goodness the ending had me so confused. Thank you very much for making "Multiple" videos about this. I've got the Fazbear Frights to start up next, 12 books! Hopefully they make more sense than this trilogy did for me. Appreciate the information about them originally only being a single book, It did feel like some padding came along and pacing changed after the silver eyes. Which i really enjoyed! I'm hoping a therapy session with your videos about Forth Closet can help me get over it and move on to the next books. I prey they're better!
Scott stop making your female characters say 'Daddy' challenge: Difficulty impossible. It was weird coming out of baby and it's weird coming out of Charlie. Site note if there is one thing we can praise the graphic novel for, it's given you a lot of upset charlie pictures to use as reaction images to some of the dumber things in the franchise.
Valid case for Charlie (Though it has been pointed out this... WOULD fit someone with severe Daddy Issues), though for Baby... I will point out the dead child in Baby IS a Child who was lured in with the promise of Ice Cream, after being told not to go near the funny murder clown :V
I can say that I've had my own issues in the past and at one point had a long relationship with someone who reminded me of my abusive mother, and regress myself sometimes, never in my life would I have expected to see an incorrect parallel to this kind of trauma in a fnaf graphic novel.
I feel like the graphic novels really were a failure of design because on top of these things you mentioned there's also that whole "William also looks like Henry" thing. Like damn they couldn't make three seperate facial structure designs for white guys with brown hair?
The art style muddies individual features. The only difference between the women is their hair color and hair shape. The features on all the characters look damn near identical.
@@pinkanimositygaming I mean to a degree this is true but at least in the first graphic novel volume the girls didn't all have "NARROW SCOUT FROM TF2 CARTOON FACE" like Henry and William
Maybe William and Henry are supposed to look like the same person in the first place. As in, they were the same man at one point in time before something split them off.
@@justice8718Like Charlie and Elizabeth in TFC?
@@Sakura19883 Kinda.
I don't think I'll ever get over how the child-piloted giant murderous clown toddler named "Circus Baby" of all characters was turned into a femme fatale, and that the only other named child character got caught in the crossfire of that somehow. Especially since at that point, Toy Chica was already around.
“BuT tOY cHiCA Isn’T LorE iMpoRtAnt!!!!!”
Pinky, maybe? I know she wasn't the writer, but it seems like she's the designer behind the most femme fatale characters of the bunch. She's the one who designed Vanny to be nothing but a lady in a skinsuit, she designed the Glamrocks, and she made a very interesting interpretation of Eleanor that didn't end up making it.
@NotRealName NotAtAll what’s with Elanor?
I'm going to show the picture in my next video- in a joke, lol- but there was a design Pinky did for Eleanor that is just so... like, literally wearing a thong with all of it hanging out from every which way. Though I don't know if this was like an early design or if she was just drawing her version of the character, but it IS a reference sheet.
Part of me thinks it has to be a joke, but I'm not sure.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 W H A T-
I'm really glad you didn't dismiss regression as "cringe" like most youtubers do! It's refreshing to see someone with empathy for trauma victims
I really appreciate it too
RUclipsrs have done that? Who?
Yeah. Also very happy that we're all able to discuss this without being weird. It's *very* refreshing.
Well, “cringe” is a catch-all term for “Bad” or “don’t like” these days. Which, I can say that character assassination and hokey writing are “cringe”, but they are not “cringey”.
🤓🤓🤓
Making Tom and Henry look the same is like re-using a model for two different characters
Henry and William also look the same, so I think this is an issue with the artist rather than an indication of Charlie's daddy issues (not that she doesn't have any, just that Tom looking like Henry doesn't mean much since a lot of the characters look the same)
Edit: Bruh I got John and Tom mixed up, my bad
Edit 2: Wait were you talking about John but got your white boy names mixed up? idek anymore
I'd agree, but the fact they even put him in the same clothes at one point. XD That's a decision somebody made.
Yeah! They could easily change his hair color, eye color, made him have curlier hair, glasses or whatever. BUT NO, HE HAD TO BE A CARBON COPY OF HENRY BECAUSE REASONS@@notrealnamenotatall2476
Or using one actor to voice two drastically different characters
(Looking at you, Mortanius and William the Nemesis)
Tom? Don’t you mean John?
This isn't a Charlie problem only, it's a problem with every fnaf character that isn't William. The character is treated as an object, vague information is spread about them and they die off unsatisfying. Like you said, Charlie in the books AND games, CC doesn't have a canon name and is completely forgotten by the games, Michael Afton stopped his father only for him to come back, making all the years he put in meaningless. Elizabeth is barely given any character, the MCI children are only there for the animatronics to move around, Henry is introduced at the last minute and dies, we know nothing of Gregory's origins and given literally nothing about Vanessa. Charlie deserved better... they all deserved better.
Totally agree!
True true
I just wish there rlly was a book solely dedicated not expanding lore or puzzle pieces for it, rather just a dark telling of each (human) characters existence in a more surreal, dream-like, eldritch horror type of stories where its shaped similarly to silent hill, trapped in a world of your own delusions and facing your memories as they are more of a burden than a gift. This way it would still fit into the whole fnaf spooky theme or vibes, but also give a lot more ground for exploring the fnaf universe by fleshing out its important (human) characters and humanizing them to give them actual character. One idea i have with this concept in mind is a nightmarish version of a trip down memory lane, except the main protag of the story turns out to be William himself going through his life as hes body is dead and trapped in the yellow metal rabbit casket. However the reveal is that William is suffering Alzheimer’s disease from his mind still prolonged to be alive, thus his memories slowly get erased and warped as his humanity slowly descents further from any semblance of his real self. Falling into further into the illness made his mental conditions worsen which would lead to total loss of his self identity by the end. This way imo is a unique and more interesting exploration of how William is a person but also highlight how he would dramatically go through a sudden change of character, which makes him create this belief that hes this persona of his own body, a reasoning behind why springtrap as a character stands alone and William afton ceases to be in that form. This is just how i would tackle the characterization in fnaf universe atleast, with a dash of memories and dreamscapes to fit it in with the franchise still
Admittedly, depending if you look at the book in a weird way...
CC MAY have a name we just simply havent connected yet.
But then again the reach of that conclusion would be interesting
(Namely that the two Speaking in the Logbook are NOT TOYSHNK and CC, Cassidy and """""evan""""", but instead Springtrap and Cassidy(CC).)
...which would then mean that TOYSHNK is still unnamed.
And dont forget about the whole "DCI" thing that may or may not exist, whatever the Multiple Simultaneous Springlock Failures is, if Phone Guy became Spooky or just Died, and so on :V
*Oh boy, long comment of my opinions on each because I have some strong emotions on a lot of them*
Crying Child: Give him a dang name. I like the old fanon name Chris, then Fazbear Frights steamrolled that and made the fandom consensus that his name is Evan, and if they're confirming his name as Garrett in the FNaF Movie I'm just going to pick one of the previous two or continue calling him Little Man since he's called that in FNaF 4 before the Bite. Confirm something or tell the fandom to choose one they want.
Michael: Let's be damn honest here, if his dad's corpse that has been rotting longer than Mike has (may not even BE rotting by the time FNaF 6 rolls around because remnant is some crazy stuff) survived that fire, Michael absolutely could too. He doesn't need to possess Glamrock Freddy to make a return because he could logically return as himself. Bottom line is to *let him come back.*
Elizabeth: She REALLY deserved better. Elizabeth has many reasons to be pissed off at her dad, whether it be dying to one of his murder robots which she later possesses or being repeatedly shocked by him in the Sister Location bunker. Don't make her his bootlicker.
MCI Children: You know what? If we're only doing child protagonists from now on, that's not ruling out child GHOST protagonists. You can let the OG MCI kids return as they realize William never actually died or let us play as one of the missing (more specifically, dead) children from that newspaper in the Security Breach Escape ending. It would give us a good look at how ghosts possessing things works in FNaF and honestly it would just be cool for a child protagonist to be already dead, but with a set goal whether it be revenge or setting everyone else free (or both, both could honestly run at the same time).
Henry: I think we needed a bit more on him BEFORE he died, so he definitely needed better.
Gregory: ...At least don't make him a robot. They already made him Patient 46, so that is enough. Don't tack on more than there needs to be, plus you could actually do some clever stuff with a possible amnesia scenario with Gregory (that maybe being why he hesitates when asked his name, since he's not sure he's remembering right).
Vanessa: Yeah she deserved better. Give her a real backstory, the "altered" one we get from the CDs isn't good enough for her own as it may have been edited to represent the Afton family instead.
*If you decided to read this whole comment I'm sorry, I got really invested in this one*
i think its really weird that baby calls charlie "an angsty teen" in tfc despite her being, like, a whole ass adult at this point. like i know 19 has "teen" in it but there is a huge difference between a 19 year old and a 17 year old. its always felt like another kind of icky way the book tried to infantilize her
Tbh the human brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25, so she’s pretty much still a teenager developmentally at 19, and while she’s obviously a robot, Henry may have programmed something similar within her robot brain.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Also, how much more mature Fourth Charlie looks even though Charlie herself looks like an adult, comparing her to like Marla. The only difference between the two, save a peculiar amount of height (growth spurt at 18?) is the fact that they thin her eyes, increase her curves, and put on makeup. XD
As someone who has been both 17 and 19, there is absolutely no difference 😂.
If I had a nickel for each time a daughter in this series became obsessed with their father and in turn, pretty much killing off the character in favor of putting focus on the father, I would have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
Also, I will now meme the sh*t out of HAM SANDWICH
I “just want to talk” to whoever came up with the needlessly stupid confusing situation of introducing a male character by their last name, making that last name a girl’s first name, then naming his daughter Charlie.
Henry Charlie and Emily Charlie /j
Mario Mario and Luigi Mario.
It's the other way around. Only henry first name was known. I think it has to do with Scott being cryptid.
I have a few questions for whoever decided that ANYONE should have the last name Emily. It's a combination of secondhand embarrassing and hard to take seriously. Also, I find Henry's name hard to take seriously in general because I like BATIM better than FNAF. So I'd also like to know why EVERYONE is named Henry.
@@ceinwenchandler4716 at least it’s not William Joey
“The series has daddy issues”
I shouted “yes!” When you said this. And nodded so hard when you talked about how “growing up to forfeit your own identity to become what your parents want” is a bad message for kids.
My dad is still trying to make his deceased father proud, and he is flabbergasted that I don’t seek his approval in my own life. He respects when I remind him that his disapproval has no worth, but he doesn’t understand it and can’t relate.
But damn. Could you imagine how cool it would’ve been if Robot Charlie’s flaws in her programming actually had allowed her to break out of her family’s cycle of grooming? That’s a cool story.
This definitely shouldn't have been a trilogy with changing writers with each book
Yeah, there's definitely a disconnect in the writing style of each book. Not sure why the decision was made to swap unless there was a monetary reason.
Star Wars Sequel Trilogy be like
@@kaiserreichempireofohio834 Stupid argument. You reLize the original star wars movies are directed by different people? And so are 99 percent of franchises.
@@michaelraymon111 all of the movies in the OT were written by Lucas. They were DIRECTED by different people but the story was unified by Lucas’s vision.
As far as I remember, the PT was both fully written and directed by Lucas.
The ST on the other hand was an absolute clown ride with no one taking the helm for the story and jerking the beloved franchise in their own visions, all different from each other. They made it up as they went, believing that fans wouldn’t notice which completely ruined the trilogy and set back the franchise years.
One of the franchise’s writers, Dave Filoni seems to be the only one in Lucasfilms who knows and has passion in George Lucas’s vision. Hopefully he gets more control and is able to fix the blunders by the others.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 you know i think the biggest problem with the novel trilogy was that at the start should have been a completly different universe opposed to the dream timeline of the games.with his own characters ecc.
The Scott un happy with the dream story use the elements from that for write the new games story.
Just that was the end of the books because the things that were planned for them were scrapped for mostly and tgey started insert always more game elements
Some of the crazy narrative decisions in the novels makes me wish they didn't merge with the games. Having Circus Baby have a complete 180 in terms of personality was dumb and changing William from a legitimate threat in FNAF 3 to cartoonishly evil monologues in Pizzeria Sim just made me disappointed. Henry's speech in Pizzeria Sim was fine but it felt like every character was butchered to fit with the books.
I mean, maybe stuff would be the same even without the books. Maybe the only difference would be we didn't know about MoltenMCI(if it even is canon).
I don't know.
@@LucasTF The lore changes with every game anyway so even without the books it's still a mess. There would be some things that could happen without the books like Molten MCI since the candy cadet stories hint at it, but that's all I can really think of.
Nah i think in pizzeria Sim he was still good
@@SubZero-hs9xc You mean Afton? I mean, at release I didn't mind it, I actually kind of liked it, but seeing the Special Delivery voice lines cranked up the James Bond villain to 100, and made me question this portrayal of the character.
Whether voices fit the games or not is another discussion, specially for Springtrap, but William Afton's voice is not bad, it's very good, although I wish you could hear him in pain, and maybe have him be less """edgy""".
Baby was done so dirty and for what
Charlie getting essentially sidelined in a story that should have her be in the focus, and getting her personality changed!?
Girl can't catch a break, in life and death
I swear daddy issues is becoming a regular thing in fnaf. Charlie, circus baby, vanny, glamrock freddy and his fans, what's next? I swear either scott is making the perfect baits for characters to be popular or he himself has daddy issues
I think them making Charlie a robot was the start of the lore falling down a cliff and no longer making sense and where we are today with the lore
Like seriously remember when the most crazy thing about this franchise was the fact that kids were being killed and possessing animatronics
>I think them making Charlie a robot was the start of the lore falling down a cliff and no longer making sense and where we are today with the lore
Honestly, less that, more FNAF 4.
Nah, at least is not strange as charlie still have 3 YEARS, change her mind in robots is not change age, so john is a.................
@@Wizardjones69 Say this in English now, what the hell ARE you trying to convey?
"Change her minds in robots is not change age"???
What does the 3 YEARS relate to, exactly.
Yep, this is why I don't support the "Gregory is a robot" theory either.
They pretty much erased the puppet which is an important piece of the lore of FNAF
When reading the books, it felt very weird that Circus Baby was like flirting kind of with Carlton because she's supposed to be possessed by a child and it was just really uncomfortable-
Well, she *was* a child. As in past tense. It’s clear that she really doesn’t have the mentality of a child anymore. She’s grown up, for a lack of better word.
Another edition to Scott Cawthon’s greatest hits:
Chuck’s Daddy Issues
Circus Baby being redesigned to look like, Harley Quinn of all characters
Bring William Afton back again(x100)
Seal of Approval on all menfolk in the novels looking the exact same
Pretty much every game story decision from keeping Springtrap alive in fnaf 3 onwards
Gotta say the books had potential to be good stories, even stupid stuff like Charliebot, if planned ahead and actually set up prior to its reveal, could have been a decent inclusion to the story. Just imagine a final confrontation between Charlie and William at the end of what would be the first book, and he drops the bombshell that her whole life was a lie, that she was a robot, then the rest of the trilogy would be her coming to terms with it.
As a prior correctional psychologist, I was REALLY not looking forward to some of the implications here, but I'm happy that you handled the subject matter adroitly.
I feel like so much of the narrative issues with FNAF nowadays lies heavily in the fact that they just can't seem to let go of their past characters. I'm getting really sick of hearing how X's character was ruined because they wanted to put the focus on Henry/William. Why can't we just have a character with their OWN motives and feelings for a change? Thanks for another entertaining analysis
That whole "she's just a weird mistake of her creator"-angle _could_ work, _if_ the story was primarily about how despite that she becomes her own fully realized person who develops beyond what her father had in mind. That she ultimately isn't just a product but a person, artificial or no. It doesn't sound like that's happening here, though.
Imagine, if that "idea" that all of this is basically Charlie's fult wasn't just something the book tells us, but imagine if that's also what Charlie thinks? A point of view that could've easily been caused by her father, that would be absolutely heartbreaking, and unfortunately that actually seems to be how she feels.
Ok so, away from that depressing topic, I've thought of another thing that they could've done as a twist. Imagine again springtrap, rater that saying "I didn't take him, I took you" and then scuttling away, imagine if instead, in a harsh scene, rather, (Possibly originally brought up by Charlie maybe saying something about Michael) imagine if Henry was actually the one responsible for mci, (in the book universe not the in-game one) of course all besides Sammy, but imagine that, up until now henry has been seen as someone caught in the crossfire, but now instead he was the one who dumped a whole ass tank of gasoline on the fire and made the problem worse, it would also give him more of a motive to make that murder robot: out of guilt of what he had done, maybe it felt good in the moment, making more bear his pain, but later regretting it, just an idea that's been floating around my brain for a while, I have others, but those would be major spoilers for what I've been cooking up recently. I'm glad to see someone else on the internet who still gives these books attention, as I'm a massive nerd who still has a special place in my heart for all these guys, awesome video (As always) very entertaining! I'm glad to see that you've been getting the popularity you deserve!! Thank you for coming to my Ted-Talk
Remember when Charlie actively chose to end her relationship in the first book so she could move on from Freddy's and her father? Seriously though, I used to love (and still have a soft spot) for Pizza sim's ending where Henry comes in and sets fire to the pizzaria before I saw stuff about the books. Knowing the plot of the whole book series was shafted just to give Henry more character, that isn't even canon to the games, that isn't even handled well, gives the ending a way bitter taste.
>gives the ending a way bitter taste.
Now consider the fact the Signs were there even in 6 that the Ending was never gonna stick :V
...also, basically, FNAF 3's entire ending existing.
Yeah, because that was how the original book was planned
The other soffered the fact that they use elements of the books for fill the games
Maybe it's just me, but I'm noticing a pattern of fnaf side-lining, sexualising, or otherwise mistreating their female characters. Maybe it's nothing, but the more I think about it, the more examples I come up with.
I notice it. I'll give the benefit of a doubt and say it's because of recycling plot elements, but it IS noticeable. Especially with Vanny having similar issues.
If you're gonna become an anime, you might as well go all in.
Which examples ? Like i don't remember fnaf sexualising ANY characters, it's about robots
I’m not sure if it’s me or does it seem like fnaf mistreats characters that aren’t white males?
@@grenouillesupreme I'm useless without tone tags, you're joking right?
It's likely the tree Henry sat near in all his scenes resembling Charlie's and John's kiss _is_ the same tree, since it's a tree in his own backyard.
I just hate that the focus moved to this mess. William's plot in detail, and the way all his goofy mad science works, could've been most of the book. Or the kidnapping, hunting and various other antics the animatronics got up to throughout the story with all those other kids and perhaps even some unfortunate guests who happened to stay a bit too late after the doors locked. It would've made for a much better focus on the point of the franchise, and less of, well, this.
They could've brought Henry back up better. The Twisted animatronics were hidden _in his basement,_ as well as that entire false pizzeria thing - have it instead be them discovering just what exactly he did, and how much of William's work he knew of. That would've been so much better, but no, it instead is just this weird stuff where Charlie suddenly needs to know about him for no good reason. That's a simple, fixable problem in the planning stage, not something to just leave as-is with a patch job all the way to the end.
That said, TFC does have some neat concepts - one such is the fact that the children don't see William as their murderer, but just as 'Bonnie', their yellow-furred rabbit friend from before he lured them to those back rooms. This, actually, makes FNaF 3's gameplay make a lot more sense as to why the various forms of the animatronics - which were always used as only weapons by the souls at that point, since the hallucinations, various changing wall decorations, and the interference to the electronic systems in all three of the first games were various tools used by the spirits to allow the slow-moving animatronics to get close so they could use them as what they were: just another weapon in their arsenal. Thus, the Phantoms continuing to use those forms despite not even having the physically moving forms lines up perfectly with TFC, even with the part where possessions, or remnant or whatever name it's given, aren't stopped by fire. All that's done through burning them - or, more accurately, through melting them down entirely, which a mere fire would struggle to do, though it might still work well enough to break the animatronic - is that they are rendered immobile by broken joints and bent frames, no longer capable of moving unless the spirit were to drag the whole damn thing around, and most aren't powerful enough to do so. Thus, they don't use the spare casings and whatnot for their attacks, and resort to assisting Springtrap, who to them is their friend and also still hunting the workers in search of their killer just as they did, in his path closer to the guard.
But instead we get a completely different company not reading into any of this detail and spitting out utter nonsense about how Springtrap, and only in his Springtrap form rather than in any of his subsequent iterations, can summon hallucinations to assist in the torture before the kill. And because they get the stamp of a brand name plastered onto the cover, that gets taken as fact.
10/10 essay
I have never read something in a comment section and been this entranced by the content being written. Well done ❤
The novels sure are weird....I kinda wish they didn't overlap with the games after a point...
I feel like the writers were afraid that actual themes of trauma and overcoming it because of the child audience of the books and series, not understanding that teaching the wrong lessons could potentially do more damage than dancing around the issue could. I feel like all the original reviews of the Silver Eyes fail to see past the fact that it's a FNAF Book and actually disect it. like i feel a lot of this could've been caught sooner rather than after the fact so to speak.
Random question: What music do you use for the background a lot of it is oddly familiar but i don't recognise some of it as FNAF music
Oh, definitely. Fnaf goods tend to get a positive response regardless of their quality and usually lack proper critique. Which is unfortunate, because nothing's perfect and everything can have its quirks caught in time to prevent future reccurences.
These two songs, In the Garden and Sloppy Clav by Godmode, are actually RUclips Audio Library songs. ^_^ They're some of my favorites though, because they get the mood across without being too jarring.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 personally aside from better writing I wish they made better figures and plushes but that's more a Funko issue than anything
I love how they treat teens like they don't or shouldn't know about topics like this. I'm nearly 18 and I can say a of us drink, smoke and face family problems. It's not a good thing, but that's why some people in this age group should be more informed. Not to mention the "messed up topic consuming edgy teen" stereotype exists for a reason.
The books made me want to write a fan fiction in the POV of Charlie’s brother and him trying to find the truth about his dad and his obsessions while also trying move onfrom his trauma. Bc I was left with so many questions about him. Did the mom cut off his dad and aunt or did the aunt keep in contact with her nephew or was it her decision to not be in contact with him?
That sounds like a really cool idea! Not enough people remember or write about Sammy. :)
I have a fanfic on hiatus thats basically just fnaf but Henry has custody of Sammy, and he accidentally prevents the murders lol.
Y'know, the symbolic outfit thing at the end _could_ have been made into something halfway decent if they had done two simple things: given her a new haircut and replaced the jacket with something else. You could make the dress work symbolically as a growth-through-assimilation thing common in fiction, taking on the good and rejecting the bad of her former opponent. But, to make that work, another symbol would be needed to show that she's not just becoming Baby or slotting into her "intended" role. For that: the haircut, ideally one that's even shorter. The use of a haircut to symbolise growth and a change in personal identity is a very usable trope, and having her go with an even shorter haircut would work to emphasise a separation between her and both Baby and "Perfect" Charlie, going in the exact opposite direction of the dress and rejecting traits that she doesn't want to embody. Lastly, replacing the jacket is a, "no fucking duh," suggestion, true. But, notably, I said to _replace_ the jacket, not drop it. Keeping some sort of outerware as a symbolic tie-back, about how you always carry the past with you, is fine. But ONLY if it's not the exact same jacket, because that's too much attachment to the past right there. As for the boots, eh, I honestly have no opinions there. I can't even pretend to know or care about footware, so I'll leave that to people who do.
Edit: as Tympest Books points out, Charlie's combat boots are explicitly linked to her personality and identity by Jessica, so keeping them would be a better decision than going with the high-heel boots (which Google says are specifically called stiletto boots, but I have no idea how much faith to put into that terminology). And, upon further reflection, I do suppose that having one piece of the outfit remain identical to her old look is a better idea than replacing all of it, giving it more of a sense of continuity from one state to the next, and that works better to symbolically ground her by making it so she's literally connected to the ground by the article that symbolises her past self.
Having read the books but not the graphic novels, I would think that letting Charlie keep her combat boots would be an important part of grounding the redesign in still being her. There's a scene in TFC of Jessica trying very hard to not be overwhelmed with horror at what Afton and Circus Baby are doing, and she does so by centering herself by thinking about shoes. Combat boots, specifically Charlie's worn, steady combat boots, are the only shoes really gone into detail on during the scene. So not only are the shoes given this sort of personality, but they're also tied very heavily into how Jessica thinks of and identifies Charlie as Charlie.
@@tympestbooks1727 Upon reflection, agreed, and have edited the original post to include some further thoughts. And to credit your insight, as one ought.
Okay, but now I'm imagining an undead Henry scenario like William and now I want a fnaf game Kingdom Hearts style where the two engage in battle intercut with exposition dumps about them.
Get on it, Scott!
Why not just have the original Charlie possess robot Charlie & make that the explanation for why she is acting off?
Because Real Charlie would probably remember the whole Dying Thing and know she's a "fake" person :V
Unless she only remembers pieces of it and Henry was able to convince he it didn't happen or happened to Sammy instead of her. Then as Charlie uncovers the truth, she starts to recontextualize what she remembers- something that would parallel with childhood traumatic memories being regained later in life.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 Honestly yeah, that WOULD check out...
Though in general i kinda do REALLY like the thought that there's a "Real" Charlie and a "Fake" Charlie running around potentially, and the two meeting at some point.
(Or literally just the Spiderman meme)
Hell, honestly if you wanted to get Spicy, have THAT be the "Big Reveal". Could even change PoVs to the REAL Charlie in that instance, and her encounter with her Doppelganger...
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 I like the idea of her only remembering vaguely what happened.
How the heck would a 3 year old (her age at death) be convincing enough as a teenager?
YESSSSS YESSSSSS I've been looking forward to this! Charlie and Baby should've teamed up and gotten over their daddy issues or at least made a move in that direction at the end. RIP to what could've been an iconic duo 🥲
This is fnaf, there are no happy endings, only happy possibilities
You're so right
god the phrase "sexy Baby" never ceases to make me shudder 💀
You know there is an oddly specific better example of the whole "female lead wearing their fathers jacket to signify their strong connection with them", that being rosemary winter from resident evil village, (spoilers for those who haven't played it) in the games epilogue, it shows a teenage rose wearing her father Ethan winters jacket, this is a very well done example, because the entire story is about Ethan trying to save baby rose,
When he stayed behind to sacrifice himself, he left behind his jacket to remember him, and told Chris to teach her to be strong, thus this weirdly specific scenario of "female character wearing jacket of father they almost know nothing about to signify connection" was depicted in a better way then the fnaf books, you know your story is badly written when even the most oddly specific story beat is done better in a different series...
The novels are just so uncomfortable... like why we gotta take this 5 year old child, make them grown up and then get people to simp for their sexiness like... I get the concept but the delivery is just 💀
I always felt weird about it
Yeah Bro💀
Its worst, she die WITH 3 YEARS 💀☠
Maybe Scott just really wants a father figure to take care of him whilst also being his boyfriend.
Or maybe Scott just didn’t proof read this book…
…twice
A bit too rush
Bruh
The third book manages to spoil everything it had to spoil plots, characters, story. And when it comes to a character that I dislike Henry, to this day I don't understand his popularity in the fandom.
People like Henry because he’s one of the few adult characters in this series that isn’t a murderer or Michael so the fandom decided they could do whatever they wanted with him. He’s also the only other character that opposes William so that makes him automatically a “good guy”. The fnaf fandom basically just plays with the characters like dolls (when they’re not theorizing). Honestly most fandom stuff I see of Henry is either him being a father for Michael or a sad man who can help kill afton.
Tl:dr: people just slapped Henry’s name on an oc and decided they liked it. Then the oc became so popular that it replaced the actual character.
Edit: I’m not insulting the fandom. I do this too and I respect the creativity.
@@FrozenFennekin That's exactly it
I like fanon Henry. Canon Henry is uh... not great.
It's probably partially because of his relationship with William, both canon......and fanon. (No disrespect intended as a fellow Willry shipper, just pointing out William was *definitely* shown to be obsessed with Henry)
My guess would be that many people didn't read the books and only knew about Henry from FFPS, or they wanted to have at least one character who falls on the "good guy" morality spectrum. I mean, William: a vile sadist. Micheal: morally gray. He was kinda problematic at the beggining, but later he fixed the things he messed up. Elizabeth: She just seemed to be a bit stubborn, but Circus Baby, a careless manipulator took the control when she died. I can't tell if Scap Baby is supposed to be her or Circus Baby. The missing children: they're vengeful and probably fueled by dark paranormal forces. Charlie: She's more self aware, but she still attacked innocent workers. Fazbear company: All of them are greedy people who don't care about their workers, put kids into danger and let a serial killer get away because he was one of their biggest money makers. At least this is what I think. I'm one of these people and while I can't see into everyone's mind, these are the reasons why I prefer fanon Henry.
I read The Fourth Closet while absolutely zonked from sleep deprivation, and I feel like that's probably one of the best ways to experience it
13:45 I found the moment about Sammy's and Henry's graves on pg. 69 of the paperback. "John, you took me to see the grave yourself, remember?" John paused and looked confused for a moment, trying to reconcile what he'd just heard. "You took me yourself, to see Sammy's grave." "I took you to the cemetery, but I never saw Sammy's grave, or your father's," John corrected. "Then go look sometime." Charlie's voice was patient. I think it's Elizabeth trying to hint that John should check out Sammy's grave and see for himself that it was actually Charlie's. The line, "It's not like they're going anywhere" isn't part of the original conversation at all.
That... is so weird. O.o Why would Elizabeth want John to see the grave, that would almost immediately ruin a good chunk of her plan. Plus, does that mean Henry's grave doesn't exist? I suppose he could've faked his death somehow. We've established illusion discs and fake blood appear so... this is so odd.
I wish we got more information about the emily family (from the games) because it could've been so interesting to me at least. I still love Henry in pizza sim but i feel like more information could made the insanity ending and true ending more impactful even though they were already impactful. Maybe they could reveal that Gregory is an emily cause I mean Sammy is still alive somewhere out there i mean it be more interesting than making him a robot or afton to me at least.
>Gregory is an emily
Which, unless he was MAYBE a son of Sammy, would have to mean "Child robot" most likely :V
Remember, at minimum Henry is probably at LEAST 61 years old as of FNAF 6, possibly older...
And he also died at least 12 years ago as of SB, meaning either he got laid and knocked up someone into his 60s at minimum, JUST prior to his death (kind of counters the "Good Parents (plural)" mentioned too), or something else
Sometimes i wonder if John is actually a robot because he has the personality of a microwave who only exists to warm up and care for Charlie.
It just dawned on me that like almost ever other character in fnaf has some sort of daddy issues
It’s crazy when you think about how many characters have them lol
At this point, I’m ready to put out my crack theory that John was also a robot built by Henry as an immortal companion for his immortal robot daughter. And John was a robot which had the unfortunate likeness of himself too. Which makes things creepier.
Poor Charlie, tossed aside so the focus could be on her obsessed father.
"This series has daddy issues" is a way more enlightening sentence than I ever thought it would be.
Another great video, I`ve been really enjoying your content since I discovered it last week. They have shown me what a great character Charlotte Emily (in the books) could have been and how the story failed her. They also expose a lot of problems with the books beyond not fitting well with the games.
Keep up the great work, from a new subscriber.
Thank you so much! 8D I hope you enjoy the upcoming videos!
This went from "daddy issues" to "borderline electra complex" real fast
The top two weirdest thing that's fnaf has had the weirdest is baby spring-trap
That was something I never expected in this franchise
This is the second weirdest just a girl that some reason has very much Daddy issues more than Elizabeth bruh.
Someone sitting down and writing Springtrap mpreg for an official FNaF book is one of the biggest mysteries of the series tbh
you know who would have been great to save the day at the end of pizza sim and give that big cool monologue? charlie. i think even if you just fixed a few things from tfc-- or at the very least fix the gross message about how conforming to what others, including your abusers, want you to be is good-- she would have been the perfect book character to have as the final hero. because really, she and afton's kids are arguably the biggest victims of the series. how wonderful would it have been to see charlie and michael, the lone survivors of their families and the abuse they suffered, be the two to ultimately take down afton and free all the childrens spirits? and with how og charlie/the puppet is probably the most compassionate and empathetic of the of the trapped children, i think it would've been really sweet to see robo-charlie be the one to save her. like it's a confirmation of her acceptance of why she was made, the person she is and her right to exist, and that she still cares and wants to help anyways because its the right thing to do. both charlies are some of my favorite characters BECAUSE of their compassion and desire to protect, especially when so many of the other characters are so vengeful and bitter (though that is usually completely justified). and seeing her potential get thrown away, and her get brushed aside as "not a real person," honestly has always made me really sad. especially since its in favor of henry, who is way less engaging and likable.
Seeing the graphics novels Henry, John & Afton all looked the same to me.
We can say that charlie in the silver eyes is not have to be a robot, but when twisted ones....... COMES, its REALLY strange, its like the most not good plot twist of a book
Me seeing Charlie’s and John’s relationship: “that feels morally ambiguous”
“Sorry buddy but everybody was too busy reading about Baby shaking her tatas” BAHAHAHAHA PERFECT VIDEO. anyway, with the constant sexualization of Charlie/Baby does the book indirectly sexualize others characters?
new fan from Brazil s2
In the Silver Eyes it's mostly just Baby and Charlie, but in the other books it comes and goes. Mostly with the designs. Like, an initial design for Eleanor was pretty much Baby wearing a thong before they decided on the long-neck version. XD
love your content it’s the highlight of my week 😈
Thank you!
I agree with your agreement I think daddy issues are everywhere in fnaf
I loved Charlie and her character! *THEN THEY HAD TO MAKE HER A ROBOT!!*
That still grinds my gears so much...
...honestly, the Robot part doesnt really change the Character much?
Make the story CREEPY in the wrong not so good way, so she have 3 YEARS IN ALL THE STORIES
@@Wizardjones69 You mean... Charlie in the books?
She believes she's a teen, nearly an adult, with Memories to match.
And she might even BE 17+ at that point, potentially.
The REAL Charlie in the books WAS 3 years old, but she's also a corpse that doesnt interact with the story AT ALL aside from mentions.
Unless you're talking about Game Charlie who IS present in the games at least?
I wasn't aware regression in trauma victims was considered common, the more you know.
surprised there is not more comments, i sat through and read them all rather quickly wow
but honestly, it truly is strange why they went this direction with charlie's character, because i feel like this is a lot harder to come up with than to do something a lot more normal and connected to the first story. charlie as i first met her in the game seemed to be such a sweet kid and i really like how the little things they added to her character made her so cool, like a big sister to all the other kids.
i could even say i like then with storytelling how the similarities between her and henry shine due to both failing to be protectors, its really poetic.
i like how she still had some headstrong smart elements in the book, but then they just DESTROYED her. and made everything so WEIRD. seeing the list of shoddy people hired to create these books and graphic novels, It seems they were aiming for something weird from the start...
another thing i really wonder is why the novels had went out of the way to depict so many white men with brown hair. im not sure if its specifically from the books or just a result of the bad character design of the graphic novels, but why cant people have different features?
i literally could barely tell john and henry apart in that comparison. if you had henry shave there i would be at a loss. hell, i thought it was henry there in the panel with john laying down, but apparently that was william!?
i get the parralels between the two, but its still pretty stupid, and why is john even put near them?
a lil tanjent,
i will always stand by my headcanon of henry having black hair as i first met him through the games and he just has the voice of someone who would have black hair, plus lefty and the puppet existing and being all black. it contrasts to afton's white/silver motifs with his eyes (this is the only design in theory thing i like about william but how they went about to draw it is SOOOO goofy) and his funtimes. i feel like these two men need more contrasts than similarities in their designs. in the diner, the place is not ran by two springbonnies or two fredbears, so why would we have the two men look so identical? i want that contrast within the dynamic to carry over. i feel like even a minor change like a hair color, different build, maybe yknow a hat? would already bring henry's design up to stand better against williams.
as for john, he just needs to look like anything else good god.
You know, unless I'm wrong, the Silver Eyes refers to Charlie having black hair. So Henry having black hair would've made a lot of sense, really!
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 i am actually going to explode, why would they not keep that detail WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE BROWN HAIR (they draw the line at jessica of all people)
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 forgot to obviously mention, love your videos! i binge them all at work, you are my meditative snarky voice to get me out of the void of my job.
Why does the graphic novels have Henry Emily, William Afton and John NoLastName all look alike? It isn't bad enough that you could easily write in a flimsy excuse for Johnny's lack of a character, while conveniently aging to look exactly like a Young Henry, being that he also is a Robot one of the Two Terrible Dads built in their shared image as a control unit for Charlie (Or maybe just write John as Micheal and make him the Protagonist); but the fact that they all share the same features makes it look like some Jekyll, Hyde and Son case of Multiple Personalities of Abuse. Hell, both Henry and Willie have lost daughters to Neglect, abandoned their sons and wives to chase esoteric bullshit and are effectively the root of their families ruin. They almost are two faces of the same Monster.
Well that was fucked up.
I mean, you already told about the frequent similarities between John and Henry in your previous vids, but I wasn't aware about all the rest.
And yeah, good idea to make a parallel between Fnaf 6 and the books at 13:16, to show how Henry's story got developped in both around the same time.
Maybe one could think you could be looking too much into things, for example the choice of clothes for Charlie at the end of the graphic novel (9:52), but then again, those panels had to be drawn and checked and all, so, yeah, maybe those choices were kinda intentional.
Great vid as always!
Also yes, Ham Sandwich.
Thank you! ^_^
i think the perfect Charlie attire wearing a dress thing was less to signify she is an adult now and more to show how she's a fusion of teen charlie bot and adult charliebot
7:11 that...was scary, like you know when you had your first fnanf jumpscare at 13 and it got you really bad? yeeeah, i legitimately got jumpscared by this XD
here, i gave you my like, please never again XD
Honestly, this was a very interesting video. I read the first two books in the trilogy, but only ever started the third book, never finishing it out of boredom, which is rare for me because I like reading. Just thought it was interesting idk
freud would have a field day with john's character
What if Scott was the reincarnation of Freud this whole time?
daddy issues are a michael thing lol
It's Fnaf, everybody gets to have Daddy Issues. XD
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 i just imagine michael and charlie being good friends just because they have daddy issues
@@BIRBdoctor I wish that happened in the fnaf games and books
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 And everybody’s parents are divorced.
Something that I realized about Charlie’s origin is that it shares some similarities with Astro boy/the mighty Atom’s.
A brilliant robot engineer father who loses their child in a tragic way. The father lost in sadness and grief, builds a robot duplicate of the child to fill the void. Things go well for a time, until the father becomes dissatisfied with how the robot turned out and becomes angry with the robot. Eventually leading the father getting rid of the robot in a very cruel way (though Henry’s method of getting rid of Charlie was more extreme then just selling Astro to the circus).
I’ve only read the graphic novels and I honestly didn’t read the last part in the graveyard as Charlie being stuck in the past and refusing to change but more that Charlie ending her life because she CANNOT move and John joins her because he doesn’t know how to be without her. I never thought about it this way. 😭
Love your analysis on the Sliver Eyes trilogy. This series doesn't get talked about enough
I love these videos that talk about some of the writing choices in FNaF. The character videos are cool too but these videos are also fun to think about. Well, not sure if fun is the right word but still
TFC revealing that Charlie was a robot was like Bionicle revealing that The Matoran Universe was a robot. The Difference was that in the case of Bionicle IT MADE SENSE LORE-WISE AND PEOPLE LIKED IT!
You know, I'm starting to question something. Henry created 4 robots, each in a different stage of life for Charlie. Ella is toddler Charlie, the main Charlie is the character the we follow in trilogy & Baby is the adult Charlie. But that's 3 that we heard about in the books. If Ella is 1, Charlie is 3 & Baby is 4, then where's the 2nd Charlie robot, who could be child or pre-teen Charlie?
Anyway, on the topic of the video, I can understand Henry grieving for the lost of his daughter but I don't think that replacing her was the best way to go. Heck, he even neglected hid son who had no relevance after the 2nd book. And I think it's ironic that Charlie was portrayed as an object, considering that she's a robot created by Henry. But that makes me question how Charlie was able to roam around freely without anyone suspecting anything. I don't know if her friends calling her weird would count. But I do wonder how the trilogy would go if the original Charlie was involved after her death. Did she possessed the puppet like she did in the game universe? How would she feel about Henry replacing her with cyborg replicas? Heck, instead of killing himself, I wonder how things would turn out if Henry told robot Charlie the truth about herself, possibly due to guilt of replacing his daughter. It may cause some existential crisis but maybe that might could Kickstart her investigation at Freddy's. What if she were to meet the original Charlie who's soul still wonders the earth? Will Robot Charlie deal with an unexpected foe who will get in the way or would the two team up, with Charlotte helping Robot Charlie understand more about herself along the way? Maybe even help Henry overcome the loss & come to acceptance. Who knows how the story would've gone if Henry didn't took his own life. Also, having John mirror Henry by behavior & even appearance is a little strange as you mentioned. It's one thing if it's a coincidence but literally making John a clone of Henry? Maybe have Charlie tell John how he reminds her of her father during certain moments which could lead to John asking her if she feels like she's dating a younger version of Henry, which could lead to an awkward situation that could lead to sudden laughter or John considering being different but still the same John Charlie loves. Though this is a little ironic considering that John doesn't accept Charlie's changes, even though it was Baby but what if it really was his Charlie? Still doesn't change the fact that he was in love a robot though.
Anyway, I guess the events of the trilogy happened all because of Henry, who created robotic replicas of his murdered daughter, neglecting other family members including his son, who I'm surprised he didn't try to turn into Charlie, creating a robot to take his own life abandoning his replica daughter who is left in the care of her aunt, leaving the 4th robot unfinished which gets taken by his former business partner to create a killing machine, and said robot daughter is now having daddy issues, even having a love interest who might as well be Henry's clone. The last one probably isn't due to Henry but having John & Henry similar to eachother, even by appearance, is still strange.
At least Henry in the games TRIED to do something after Charlie's murder, even though that did nothing in the long run as the murderer himself is somehow back.
It’s like they forgot Charlie existed and suddenly realised half way through TFC that they needed to include her because it’s her perspective these stories are being told from, so they shoehorned her in but didn’t actually make her a focal point. Instead, they turned her into a plot device so they didn’t have to somehow try make her relevant to the narrative. They should have just left her out of the book and had Sexy Baby take over for her and kept the ending where Charlie returns as an adult. At least then, they wouldn’t have bastardised the half-assed character resurgence that ruined her. On top of that, she’s not even on the cover of the graphic novel.
14:29 I am forever convinced that irl children becoming involved in the FNaF franchise is the root cause of many of its problems.
I actually read all the way through The Fourth Closet around a week or so ago. When Charlie finds Henry’s shirt, there is still that instant of, “Daddy?” before she puts it on
I also do want to sort of put in my two cents here. Daddy on its own is not a sexual word, nor do I think it should be thought of as such. I sort of take that a bit more personally since that’s what I call my father and have since I was little because calling him just Dad doesn’t feel right. I don’t think Charlie should be looked at sideways for using the word to refer to her father, even at the age she’s at in TFC. Hell, I’m older than her and saw it as normal while reading
coming back to rewatch this (because i love charlie and seeing someone actually acknowledge how crummy she was written past silver eyes is so insanely vindicating), and while i know the weird conformist message is something you adressed in the video, i wanted to mention an additional layer to it that, whether intentional or not, i absolutely picked up.
as a disabled person (physically and mentally), i see a lot of myslef in charlie-- as she's disabled herself, having what i read as depression and anxiety-- and i really appreciate her character. it's rare to see disabled characters, especially in a genre as ableist as horror, be the good guys and have agency, and charlie's really shines a lot because of it.
then the twisted ones and fourth closet happened, and with them came the pervasive theme that charlie was the one who was "broken" and needed to be fixed. her feelings? her trauma? her existence as a whole? all just an accident while henry was trying to create the "perfect" charlie. she wasn't *meant* to be like this, she *shouldn't* be like this, and it's *bad* that she's like this. tto and tfc focused more on charlie's trauma, but in doing so they decided to strip her of her agency so they could actually focus on the real main character of the books, henry, and wittled her down into an object that needed to be repaired by getting rid of her disabilities at the end.
it makes the ending feel 10× as gross as it already was. the idea that disabled people just need to get over it and be like everyone else is disgustingly common and seeing charlie become "perfect charlie" at the end is just... so uncomfortable for me because of it. like, is it so hard to write a disabled character coming to terms with who they are and recovering WITHOUT being ableist about it? i promise you that it is incredibly easy, just look at how the owl house did it.
Hey, I really enjoyed reading your comment, but can you dive more into how Charlie is disabled? Is is confirmed or you just get those vibes from her? I'm not autistic myself (at least I'm not diagnosed) so maybe that's why I didn't notice, but I thought she was pretty usual in the first book. And then they decided to make her a robot, but I never really thought of it as a reference to something deeper, I just thought it's a part of the story. Soo can you talk more about Charlie's autistic traits? Because your comment got me interested in the topic and I would like to understand it more
@@HowWasTheFalll thank you for the reply! i'm happy to elaborate further.
what i meant when i said charlie is disabled is that- even while she is never explicitly confirmed as such- i see a lot of my own personal experiences as a disabled person in her character. i see her as having anxiety and depression, which are both disabilities in the same way something like autism is- where it impedes on your ability to function like other, neurotypical people. i think it's also possible to read her as having ptsd, but i don't feel comfortable saying for certain that she does as i don't have it myself.
charlie doesn't quite think or behave like most of the other characters; she's naturally nervous due to her past trauma, she fixates on it quite a bit, and she feels like very few people understand her because of it. i read this as disability coding- where a writer intentionally or accidentally gives a character attributes that are often associated with disability/neurodivergence, but it is never stated outright in the text.
an example of purposeful disability coding would be luz from the owl house, who is coded to have adhd. they never say the words in the show, but the text surrounding her supports this reading.
as for accidental coding, data from star trek was coded as autistic. robots, aliens, and other types of non-human characters are often easy ways for a writer to hint at a character being an "other" aside from the obvious species difference. robots are especially common for autistic coding due to the stigma around autistic people being "robotic," or "cold," or "unfeeling." data is just one of the many autistic robots in fiction, but i think his coding was accidental. i'm not a star trek person and i can't go into much depth about data specifically, so i recommend the video "the autistic robot" by oakwrym.
anyways, back to charlie:
the treatment of her by other characters- especially her father- is something that i found myself relating a lot to as a disabled person. because once a new, "better" charlie (baby) comes around, almost everyone seems to like her better this way. now she's not so difficult, so anxious, so traumatized. now she's "better."
this only gets worse when you learn charlie is a robot, created only to replace henry's dead daughter. because all of her emotions- her flaws, her lingering trauma, her difficulties- are now apparently just an "accident." it's treated that way by henry, by baby, by the other characters, and by the narrative itself. which is a very, very uncomfortable story decision to make when you've written a disabled character without even realizing it. that only gets more uncomfortable when she's killed off, then replaced by the "perfect charlie"- who, in a disabled reading, has effectively been "cured" of her conditions.
i hope this makes sense. it's going on four in the morning so honestly, it might not be all too cohesive. but the point is, while charlie may not canonically be disabled, there's enough subtext there that i (and other disabled folk) can relate to her in that way. it's not even necessarily how charlie behaves, but the story around her- being chastised since she was young for being herself; how her past experiences isolate her from her friends in a way they don't understand; ect, ect.
I'm starting to understand your perspective a lot better than I did some time ago when you engaged in Your Henry Rant. (I think I still hold to game Henry being a significantly better person than Book Henry btw.)
I admit to not being able to see or come close to realizing the truth of these little details and the ultimate result of the sum of these parts... And I'm honestly a bit ashamed I didn't until now.
With the context of this video. Charlie and her actions/decisions both small and large, make just a little more sense.. Well, as much sense as you can make from a book about dysfunctional families dealing with discount Chuck E' Cheese.
Yay!! More videos on FNaF’s funky, weird ass books!
Also thank you for respecting regression! As it's something that I do and it's very helpful. And most don't respect it as coping.
I'm surprised more people don't acknowledge it as a coping mechanism. It's pretty well known and makes a lot of sense!
Super awesome video. I’m really underwhelmed by how Charlie was handled through the story. She deserves better.
This is pretty funky. What a weird thing that's become of this. (14:55 "Why'd (you) have to say golden?")
If the writers really wanted to have the book be focused on Henry, then they should’ve just wrote a Henry prequel. They could’ve shoved all the story they wanted into that book. And then they could expand on Charlie’s character in the fourth closet.
Thanks for the reminder that Scott Cawthorn is Christian. The movie also reminded me of that fact. But you pointing out the unspoken final message of The Fourth Closet really hammered the point back home into my head that Scott Cawthorn is a Conservative Republican Christian. Of course, he's gonna put his Christian values into his work.
i actually liked reading the silver eyes graphic novel that one was the best of them in terms of story. Good to just. stop there and not read the others. and by that I mean as a standalone story it's pretty alright
Just the art is little odd, but the silver eyes is the better of the trilogy?
YES
@@Wizardjones69 true yeah the art is a little weird at times but eh i can live with it. they got more detailed in fourth closet but :(
don't like! where they took the story! don't care about humanoid circus baby!
Weird thought, but if you replace every instance of the word "daddy" with the word "dad", does it become less creepy? I'm not sure if it matters but I feel like, if it's still creepy, then there's definitely more than just an undercurrent there.
EDIT: this is what I get for pausing the video to comment, i guess.
Daddy is more like something a toddler would say.
Saying dad is quite normal for teens and even grownups.
Everyone who uses "daddy" as a teen or adult often show severe daddy issues, often to an unhealthy degree.
also, calling someone "daddy" in particular is now kinda sexualized which is what made me die inside the most
@@obambagaming1467 I don’t have daddy issues and I still say it…
It just feels comfortable that way. I swear the internet ruins innocent words like that.
Great video once again. I enjoyed all the points you made. I’ve never read any of the books but these make me want to and have peaked my curiosity. Writers do make mistakes at times.
Any white male with brown hair character in these novels really runs the risk of blending together, John looks like Henry in the 3rd book for sure, but then he also looks a lot like William in the first book minus the crazy eyes and teeth. But then, also, Henry looks a bit like William sometimes?
I don't wanna just call the art bad cuz that'd be an overly simple statement, it really feels like staying on model and keeping characters distinct is a massive problem for the art besides tweaking some features and giving them some what different attire.
It's very strange how over different FNaF books you see an emergent pattern of how FNaF writers seem to have a weird concept of what identity is. Put this story next to "B-7" and the Mimic stories and this weird theme emerges that identity in a horror story has to be this thing that is thrust on you and you can't discover on your own terms; whenever you are supposedly realizing on your own that you were wrong about your identity you actually just end up repeating the things other people would want you to say. Charlie has to turn into a Very Normal Lady because that's what other people think her identity should be so that must be what it is. She has to be Henry's mistake because that's what other people see so that must be what she sees.
In a way it's like they are trying to say a robot child is literally nothing more than what went into creating it although the story seems to begin with an assumption that isn't true, and you could just as easily throw that accusation at a human, saying Michael Afton is just his father's mistakes or something. It is very unsatisfying because it is really not how anything works. People are more complicated, and for that matter causality itself is more complicated, going back and forth and coming in from all directions.
it almost makes you wonder, is William Afton actually the most galaxy-brained character in the series just by deciding he doesn't mind being a monster such that nobody can ruin his identity by trying to tell him what he is?? everybody else suffers from all the things they have to accept. he may be in pain but he never has to accept anything, he always comes back
I mean, Henry wanted a teenage daughter, what teenage daughter DOESN'T have Daddy issues 😅
If I were to rewrite the trilogy (not that I could actually) I would keep the silver eyes as is,but change more of the other two, specifically the fourth closet book. For the Twisted Ones, I think the book should be about a new reopening of Freddy Fazbear pizza with the twisted animatronics using illusion disks to perform and collect agony for Afton’s secret plan for immoral life. It could be Charlie being reminded and perhaps be in rage by the fact that someone restarted her father franchise. It would have been cool to have a mysterious person reopen the restaurant and Charlie could go and see the Twisted animatronics in their true form. Then, she could run away from them and at one point return to find the owner of the place and get trapped in the pizzeria while the twisted animatronics haunt and chase them. And, William Afton could have also chased her in his spring trap form and give him a scary vibe. Then Charlie sets the pizzeria on fire. After escaping, Charlie and her friends learn about illusion disks or something by somehow and Charlie could explain how it works. Then, Afton could have appeared later in the story after the twisted animatronics run rampage through the streets, chasing Charlie for some odd reason. springtrap survived the fire and he uses an illusion disk himself to appear twisted and chase her around too. And then, when they finally catch her, her friends have learn about illusion disks enough to create something to turn them completely off but after the illusion disks are off, Afton dies after being runned over by a train. And his body parts are everywhere. But then Charlie emerges, and she sees herself as a robot. Then, since her illusion disk isn’t like aftons, it reactivates and she is human again. The book ends with John saying, “That’s not Charlie” as they are all suprised and shocked that Charlie is a robot.
Is this book rewrite bad?
Probably.
Is it better than Charlie literally dying and Afton appearing for two scene?
Yes, probably.
I think that's a really neat rewrite! Don't sell yourself short! 8D Imagine Charlie basically having to prove that she's the real Charlie (from TSE) and not like a plant from Afton. Which requires her having to face her past and what she is, along with dealing with being revealed as a robot.
For the Fourth Closet rewrite, me personally, I would written it like this.
It’s been months of Charlie coming to terms that she’s not human, while her friends are somewhat disturbed. John, however, is trying to help her and he’s, although confused, stays with Charlie. As the beginning of the book progresses, Charlie’s other friends try to get the idea that Charlie is a robot. They dig into what Henry had done, and what they could discover. Meanwhile, there is a change of perspective where Circus Baby, is collecting remaining pieces of Springtrap and wants to make him proud. As Charlie and her friends discover the reasons, or some, of why Henry did it, Circus Baby Rental places opens up to the public, opened by the same mysterious owner than opened the one with the twisted ones. Jessica and Carlton go investigate and to see who was the one behind the new pizzerias as they go underground and get trapped inside the facility. Jessica gets separated and must crawl through Ballora gallery while Carlton crawls in Funtime auditorium where he gets trapped and is stuck is another springlock suit (like in the silver eyes) and is being manipulated by Baby. Charlie and John go looking for Jess and Car since they have been gone. Marla joins in too. After they go into circus baby and rental, Charlie goes into the vents and they eventually get to Circus Baby gallery where they are ambushed by the bidybads. Jessica gets past ballora and is chased by Funtim Freddy. Carlton goes through what Michael did in night 4 except ballora isn’t scooped. Charlie and her friends find Carlton and gets out. They are guided by Circus Baby to go into the scooping room. Meanwhile, Jessica is chased by freddy and finds the rest and they all run with circus baby seemingly on their side. Then, in the scooping room, they see a destroyed Funtime foxy which rises and chases them around. Charlie and John find a room where the remains of Afton lie while Carlton and Jessica escape the mangled Funtime foxy. Then, they are confronted by Circus Baby, who explains tells her that she will make daddy proud. She presses a button and Afton rises. Circus Baby, Funtime Freddy, Mangled Funtime Foxy, and Ballora chase them, with Afton’s fixed corpse, now resembling scrap trap chasing them too. They lead into the scooping room where Afton finally dies, and reveals that he never took sammy, he took Charlie. The four funtimes get scooped as well, leaving them broken. And then, they fort Ennard and chase them until they escape the underground facility, trapping them in the dark. The story ends in a happy note, with John and the others accepting Charlie, and, although John can never be with Charlie, they can always be best friends.
Is this rewrite bad?
Yes
Is it slightly better?
Probably
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 yeah! She would like have to prove that she isn’t part of aftons robotic plan!
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 thanks by the way. Although this probably isn’t the best rewrite, I wanted it to have some of the games mixed into it. Like when Springtrap is burned in FNAF 3. And I think the twisted ones could have done a better way to explain illusion disks. I would have them be sound waves that cause hallucinations and you expect what you think your going to see BUT the illusion disks can’t break physics and can only take form of what’s there. For example, if there a ball, and the illusion disks activates, it would appear like another ball, maybe a bowling ball or a baseball, as long as it takes the form what’s already there. It’s like water! Water can only take form from the vessel it’s using
I think this is the artist's fault. She's know, at least on twitter, on wanting at all cost to portrait Afton as a pedophile so....maybe she did it?
I'd like to read the book for see if there are actual differences...
That was Pinkypills, she only drew for The Silver Eyes. The Twisted Ones and The Fourth Closet are drawn by different people
3:26 Imagine calling a characters flesh out quirks a mistake me from Watching TSAMS seeing what happened with most the moons and recalling that I think of the twins as Charlie's sons/daughter across multiple versions.
I'm just like welp like parent like child
Another banger as always!
Tldr: the story itself has daddy issues
I don't know where I've heard this but I fully believe it now that the fact that the books aren't trying to be close to the games after a certain point, Scott has been trying to make the games just like the books. I think that's a huge mistake because they have issues being ghosted written by a different writer every single time
Hi ive enjoyed learning about the story it odd how close this sinks up with Chuck e cheese and showbiz
I think Charlie being revealed to be a robot is... kind of just unnecessary? It goes a bit too far into sci-fi for my tastes, and you make a lot of good points about the more serious ramifications of it
Now, because I like coming up with alternate ideas for anything, I would like to share my idea for what the Fourth Closet could do without this big twist.
First, I think the reveal of what caused Henry's death should show that it was "just" William (because it always is). After William ran away, he would have come back for the second Missing Children Incident a la FNAF 2, killed Henry, took back the company, and stole all of Henry's gadgets to build Circus Baby's in 1989.
Second, I think Baby should have been her own thing. She escapes from Circus Baby's Pizza World as Ennard after dismantling the returned Scraptrap for leaving her down there, and the big conflict of the book would be her trying to murder Charlie and take her place with Illusion Discs.
And I think exactly the illusion discs are would be different too. Instead of doing weird sound stuff, they are revealed to be powered by concentrated ectoplasm... or as William calls it, Remnant. And that the original, sound-based versions were not actually built by William, but by Henry to enhance the animatronic stage shows, adding another level to just how far William leached off of someone who thought he was a friend.
Both William and Henry are awful fathers. One's a murderer and the other became so obsessed with his dead kid that he pushed his wife and son away. In fnaf, there are no good guys.
You're right, there are no good guys. Except for the Crying child
The “these books are sold to children at book fairs” comment overlapping with watching a teenager get Ridley’d through the chest, with blood, is quite amusing. FNAF really got dealt an unlucky hand by being “horror for kids” in some ways when you think about it. Now, limitations to tend to breed innovation sometimes, but it’s also part of the reason quite a lot of people were unhappy with the movie being a mere PG-13. I know film and game age ratings are a joke anyway, but the sentiment is there.
If that next video of yours is going to have the deviantart-tier “Eleanor concept art” in it, then perhaps it is for the best that we do not directly see mature imagery in this series very often.
Tell me, have you looked into any fan works that attempt to re-tell Charlie’s character arc and death (and rebirth…) in a more satisfying and compelling way?
I both understand their disappointment and feel like the PG-13 thing isn't the problem. 9 with PG-13 and still pretty spooky. PG-13 can still get away with blood and such. My issue is that it's directed by someone known for doing horror films that are not very scary. Of course, a director doesn't write the script, but shooting scenes is a very key part of setting up the horror, so... tentatively hopeful.
Yes it will. XD And Eleanor isn't even in the video. I'm bringing it up for no good reason.
I don't know of too many, but only because I don't see too many people writing about Charlie.
I have a friend who is writing a series about Charlie post-TSE where TTO and TFC hasn't happened. It deals with Charlie progressing into a relationship with John and trying to escape Freddy's legacy- but perhaps not able to get as far as she would like. It expands on both of their characters and tackles her complicated feelings with her childhood. I could probably send you the name of it once I check in with them!
I also have a fnaf fanfiction serial novel that features Charlie as a major character in the second book. Basically, a Charlie who survived childhood (Sammy was the one taken) ends up losing her life and becoming an animatronic. The story deals with her coping with her loss and learning to adjust to this new existence, along with found family tropes. But that's already a book in, so it would require a lot of questionable reading to get to the juicy stuff. XD
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 Oh, I didn’t consider checking the director’s rather limited IMDB page. Folly on my part. Most of her other work doesn’t seem particularly notable.
And yes, like 9, limitations imposed by either budget or desired rating restrictions can provide the audience with a very distinct and creative viewing experience. I guess it’s not a massive shock, in hindsight, with the average age group of this fanbase, an R rating wasn’t exactly likely in the first place.
Kinda funny that we have all this heavy lifting for Charlie in these books, but then she’s fizzled out of the story by the time you get to game number…7 or 8 depending on who you ask.
They could've nearly completely fixed Robot Charlie which is a genuinely interesting idea by just saying that it's OG Charlie's spirit possessing a robot and then explaining everything weird with supernatural ghost shenanigans. It would've made a lot more sense then what they did, though it seems like they were trying to shoehorn in Agony. The fact that they missed this blindingly obvious idea when they had just done it with Michael possessing himself astounds me.
I love the gag where someone puts a picture of Freud when talking about loving someone similar to their mom/dad, massive missed opportunity
I'm not against robot kids in mainline FNaF. My views on Gregbot make it seem otherwise, but it would be an interesting concept to pull off. But this isn't about the games, this is about The Fourth Closet. I just feel like they should have done it a little differently. I feel like they should have had Charlie (the REAL Charlie) be possessing the Puppet like in the games, and the two interacting: Spirit Charlie is confused and interested in the fact her body is still alive and aging even though she definitely remembers dying, and Robot Charlie unaware of why the Puppet is so focused on her. The reveal happens in some other way, like Robot Charlie getting damaged enough that either A. whatever is covering the endoskeleton gets removed so the metal shows through, or B. the illusion disc (if that is in use) is broken and everyone including Robot Charlie herself is made aware of her current (un)life status. If not through damage but, say, the gang finding blueprints, have it happen in The Twisted Ones (I think you brought up that idea before) and The Fourth Closet is her trying to find whereever the hell the real her went considering children have possessed animatronics before, then the Puppet shenanigans happen where it's both Charlies trying to find a way to make sure William gets what's coming for him. It had potential to wrap up more loose ends, but they didn't even though that could very likely have been the plan at that point.
Honestly, yeah. Both Charlies meeting up would've been interesting...
As for the B Option, it's pretty much stated that the Three Charlies dont use Illusion Discs, they're just THAT Human Looking.
Adult Charlie/Charlie #4 was the only one using an Illusion Disc, being finished by Afton instead.
Damage would be neat though... Even if the Remnant would likely patch that up over time probably.
@@higueraft571 Yeah, I don't remember the others using illusion discs but I wanted to account for that as well. But I do like the idea that wound's too deep to heal normally (because it's the equivalent of a cut all the way down to the bone) so Robot Charlie has a bandaged arm to make sure no one outside her group of friends knows about the robot thing, just to be careful.
Okay, Charlie (Puppet) meeting robot Charlie certainly sounds interesting, imagine how awkward that may be.
Just got done with the trilogy. My goodness the ending had me so confused. Thank you very much for making "Multiple" videos about this. I've got the Fazbear Frights to start up next, 12 books! Hopefully they make more sense than this trilogy did for me.
Appreciate the information about them originally only being a single book, It did feel like some padding came along and pacing changed after the silver eyes. Which i really enjoyed! I'm hoping a therapy session with your videos about Forth Closet can help me get over it and move on to the next books. I prey they're better!
Scott stop making your female characters say 'Daddy' challenge: Difficulty impossible. It was weird coming out of baby and it's weird coming out of Charlie. Site note if there is one thing we can praise the graphic novel for, it's given you a lot of upset charlie pictures to use as reaction images to some of the dumber things in the franchise.
Valid case for Charlie (Though it has been pointed out this... WOULD fit someone with severe Daddy Issues), though for Baby...
I will point out the dead child in Baby IS a Child who was lured in with the promise of Ice Cream, after being told not to go near the funny murder clown :V
I can say that I've had my own issues in the past and at one point had a long relationship with someone who reminded me of my abusive mother, and regress myself sometimes, never in my life would I have expected to see an incorrect parallel to this kind of trauma in a fnaf graphic novel.