while MatPat may have gotten wrong that the MCI was the Golden Freddy Murders one of the drawins in the office in FNaF 2 depicts kids hanging out with Golden Freddy, implying that yes, Scott concretely intended someone to have used Golden Freddy to lure and kill kids, MatPat just got which set of kids wrong in the video.
I do believe he meant AT THE TIME it got everything almost right. Most of it could be explain as some things weren't introduced at the time so he obviously couldn't have known of spring bonnie then. Also we know scott didn't have it all planned out then, it's more of a "that's what i had in mind at the time". Then again... I don't know if i trust scott with lore anymore.
The issue is Scott then said he’s only ever made one retcon up until FNAF 6. So supposedly if a video “was almost entirely correct,” then it should be almost entirely correct up until FNAF 6. However, it’s just not.
You also need to look at the context of that statement. What scott is trying to say is that he got his message across for the first three games, but the fourth game was too confusing for people to get it. In that context he is clearly saying that GT got almost everything right about the things he was trying to get across while making that game. There were some things that scott simply had not made a decision about. Scott isn't talking about those things, and getting non-existant lore wrong doesn't make sense. Scott wasn't trying to say that every bit of speculation in that video is now cannon.
3:55 Actually, in the FNAF 2 era Matpat just said '90s'. I presume this is because he still remembered the minimum wage calculation only gave him 1991-1996 and he singled out 1993 because of the IRL thing, and NO OTHER REASON. He only switched to specifically saying 1993 around FNAF 4, presumably because of community inertia using that and him forgetting how he got the number. This is one of those massive fandom mandela effects that sort of circular sourced itself into existence. Matpat literally never proved 1993 or even provided evidence for that specific year, he got 1991-1996 and just said "The Aurora Murders were in 1993" and then said he proved it was in "the early 90s" in his FNAF 2 video. The fandom ran away with it so hard even Mat forgot.
4:40 Also FYI, during his FNAF 4 theory era Matpat said that FNAF 4's Minigames were set at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza, not Fredbears. (citing the FNAF 3 tapes as proof as the two suits were at Freddy's)
"A whole six years ahead of when we determined the first game took place" So yes, this video does imply FNAF 1 takes place in 1993. ruclips.net/video/d1kw1RmzrPc/видео.htmlsi=vBLBc-5vWJaskisy&t=174
Nowhere does it say Matpat was right SINCE the part 2 video, just because HE didn't know it was at Fredbears doesn't mean Scott and the rest of the community didn't know it was?
@@sh1zuh31 Lore and Timeline are 2 different things. When Scott said "we found the lore", he meant that we found every Easter egg, every minigame, and every hidden detail. After that, he goes on to say that nobody solved FNaF 4, referring not to the timeline (because by then MatPat found the 1983 Easter egg) but all the subtle things linking the events of the game to future events (like the distorted Phone Guy Call in the background or Nightmare being called Shadow Freddy in the files). That's why his hints in FNaF World aren't about the when, but the why.
This is what I have been wondering about that Scott post for a while now. Is he referring to secrets and details you can find in the first 3 games, or is he also talking about the story itself?
Dude, I love your breakdown of this whole thing. I was (originally) going to start a channel discussing lore of MD until it only had one season. I also plan on discussing the lore of Jake Southgate’s “Fredbear’s Family Diner” (I needed more lore with CC vs Charlie in order of whom passed first). I’ve always liked your vids but this one is so meticulous and presented in a way that is a true, engaging, video essay about straight up facts and analysis. If I ever were to do a nuts and bolts for any fandom, your tone and general non-boring academic approach is what I’d strive for. I’m in several fandoms, both fan-based films like “Fredbear’s Family Diner” and official ones like MD, various manga/anime, and indie projects like Hazbin Hotel. This is a huge inspiration to me because you’re speaking about the more technical side of lore and writing. (Got in a semi-argument on Twitter/X because my History degree was conflicting, badly, with rumored canon because people don’t do the research. It was enough to make me not want to interact on there anymore.) I’ve always been mildly afraid of the FNAF community, having left LOL because my god. Your video helped make me feel like my goals of being a theorist and simply someone who analyzes the intent of an author isn’t insane for a fandom. And that means so much to me in the middle of a really turbulent year and coming year. Thank you for the videos and your scrips and hard work.
i like the idea of phone guy being purple guy but literally everything points towards him not being. ommon sense and overanalyzing of the phone guy calls tells me that he's 100% not the killer
You mention in the video that Scott talked about why he didn’t plan on bringing Springtrap back and I genuinely want to find which post he shared that in, I've had no luck trying to find it
@ Correct me if I am wrong about the following info Scott said there was one big retcon (the one that Matpat theorized that the Crying Child was supposed to be the puppet but got retconned) and small seamless retcons (Fnaf 1 posters of the MCI say that the killer was convicted is a good example)
@ Scott has never referred to anything being a retcon beyond the SINGLE seamless retcon. He also said the retcon was NOT popularly discussed topic, hence why it was a seemless change, which means it’s not a theorist video of any kind.
@@Idk-xj1iqwouldn't the seamless retcon be that Golden Freddy is possessed by two spirits? I haven't played the games yet, but that seems to be the retcon.
Given he was clearly referring to Matpat's video as almost entirely right at the time of 2's release and the info it had then, since he initally said same thing in comments of that video, it not fitting exactly with info from 3 or 4 is expected. The dates are an example of something that stays 100% correct while thinking Golden Freddy was suit used in murders becomes "A Golden suit was used" that gets general vibe correct. While Scott avoids the standard changing retcon the fact he still adds new info we hadn't before, which technically is a retcon but is rarely considered such and Scott certainly doesn't consider it such, means that vid is still limited though it still makes date arguing useless since those can't change without rewriting retcon.
Puppetstuff and Charlieplush to Willstuff and Willplush, girl, William stole all her roles while transitioning from Fnaf 4 to Sister Location 😭😭. He wont let her have ANYTHING.
7:38 In TSE, which was written between 3-4 had William use Fredbear for Michael Brooks (GF). Is it possible that he used both Fredbear and Springbonnie in the games? Maybe the same way. Fredbear for GF. I don't think it has to be debunked or retconned. Great video though, it is interesting to note all of this.
My theory is that in FNaF 1-3 Fredbear's Family Diner was not the restaurant with Springlock Animatronics but just Brown Freddy Animatronic called Fredbear and it was Take Cake Location closed due to the murder of a boy(SAVE HIM) outside who possessed the Puppet. The Owner sold the franchise to people who created Fazbear Entertainment. In FNaF 4 Scott changed Fredbear's Family Diner and Fazbear's origins.
@sh1zuh31 I think that is just the stage in Freddy Fazbear's Pizza. Notice three clouds. There is also one child missing in the crowd in this minigame. Reference to MCI. From FnaF 3 Tapes we know that Freddy's had two springlock animatronics. Based on informations from this and previous games we had no reason to believe Springlock Animatronics were at Fredbear's. They were made just for Freddy's and its Sister Locations.
But the springlocks were objectively said to be used for parties and to be worn, they were never implied to be used on stage, considering the other animatronics can't move around during the day without someone manning them. They wouldn't put the characters on stage unless it was implying there was a time in which they were the main show. So we had plenty of reason to assume it was Fredbears.
@sh1zuh31 I believe Springlock Animatronics did perform on stage on occasions. But this is all my speculation and if it was true it was changed so it doesn't matter now.
MatPat's theories being correct is the scariest FNaF thing I can think of.
TRUEEEEEE SO TRUEEEEE
Greg bot
how? what's wrong with that
while MatPat may have gotten wrong that the MCI was the Golden Freddy Murders
one of the drawins in the office in FNaF 2 depicts kids hanging out with Golden Freddy, implying that yes, Scott concretely intended someone to have used Golden Freddy to lure and kill kids, MatPat just got which set of kids wrong in the video.
I genuinely thought that was what FNAF 3's Follow minigames were showing until everything after 3 cemented that William used Spring Bonnie.
Without Matpat the theory community is scurrying around like piranha's with a cow leg in the fish tank
I do believe he meant AT THE TIME it got everything almost right. Most of it could be explain as some things weren't introduced at the time so he obviously couldn't have known of spring bonnie then. Also we know scott didn't have it all planned out then, it's more of a "that's what i had in mind at the time". Then again... I don't know if i trust scott with lore anymore.
The issue is Scott then said he’s only ever made one retcon up until FNAF 6. So supposedly if a video “was almost entirely correct,” then it should be almost entirely correct up until FNAF 6. However, it’s just not.
Scott made this post after FNAF-3, so Spring Bonnie did exist as a character and a pretty established one too
After fnaf 4*@@gameslayer3976
You also need to look at the context of that statement. What scott is trying to say is that he got his message across for the first three games, but the fourth game was too confusing for people to get it. In that context he is clearly saying that GT got almost everything right about the things he was trying to get across while making that game.
There were some things that scott simply had not made a decision about. Scott isn't talking about those things, and getting non-existant lore wrong doesn't make sense. Scott wasn't trying to say that every bit of speculation in that video is now cannon.
3:55 Actually, in the FNAF 2 era Matpat just said '90s'. I presume this is because he still remembered the minimum wage calculation only gave him 1991-1996 and he singled out 1993 because of the IRL thing, and NO OTHER REASON. He only switched to specifically saying 1993 around FNAF 4, presumably because of community inertia using that and him forgetting how he got the number. This is one of those massive fandom mandela effects that sort of circular sourced itself into existence. Matpat literally never proved 1993 or even provided evidence for that specific year, he got 1991-1996 and just said "The Aurora Murders were in 1993" and then said he proved it was in "the early 90s" in his FNAF 2 video. The fandom ran away with it so hard even Mat forgot.
4:40 Also FYI, during his FNAF 4 theory era Matpat said that FNAF 4's Minigames were set at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza, not Fredbears. (citing the FNAF 3 tapes as proof as the two suits were at Freddy's)
"A whole six years ahead of when we determined the first game took place"
So yes, this video does imply FNAF 1 takes place in 1993.
ruclips.net/video/d1kw1RmzrPc/видео.htmlsi=vBLBc-5vWJaskisy&t=174
Nowhere does it say Matpat was right SINCE the part 2 video, just because HE didn't know it was at Fredbears doesn't mean Scott and the rest of the community didn't know it was?
@@sh1zuh31 Lore and Timeline are 2 different things. When Scott said "we found the lore", he meant that we found every Easter egg, every minigame, and every hidden detail. After that, he goes on to say that nobody solved FNaF 4, referring not to the timeline (because by then MatPat found the 1983 Easter egg) but all the subtle things linking the events of the game to future events (like the distorted Phone Guy Call in the background or Nightmare being called Shadow Freddy in the files). That's why his hints in FNaF World aren't about the when, but the why.
This is what I have been wondering about that Scott post for a while now. Is he referring to secrets and details you can find in the first 3 games, or is he also talking about the story itself?
Dude, I love your breakdown of this whole thing.
I was (originally) going to start a channel discussing lore of MD until it only had one season. I also plan on discussing the lore of Jake Southgate’s “Fredbear’s Family Diner” (I needed more lore with CC vs Charlie in order of whom passed first).
I’ve always liked your vids but this one is so meticulous and presented in a way that is a true, engaging, video essay about straight up facts and analysis. If I ever were to do a nuts and bolts for any fandom, your tone and general non-boring academic approach is what I’d strive for.
I’m in several fandoms, both fan-based films like “Fredbear’s Family Diner” and official ones like MD, various manga/anime, and indie projects like Hazbin Hotel. This is a huge inspiration to me because you’re speaking about the more technical side of lore and writing. (Got in a semi-argument on Twitter/X because my History degree was conflicting, badly, with rumored canon because people don’t do the research. It was enough to make me not want to interact on there anymore.) I’ve always been mildly afraid of the FNAF community, having left LOL because my god.
Your video helped make me feel like my goals of being a theorist and simply someone who analyzes the intent of an author isn’t insane for a fandom.
And that means so much to me in the middle of a really turbulent year and coming year. Thank you for the videos and your scrips and hard work.
i like the idea of phone guy being purple guy but literally everything points towards him not being. ommon sense and overanalyzing of the phone guy calls tells me that he's 100% not the killer
I can't stand looking at Five Laps footage for another 12 minutes, so I'll treat this as a podcast for when I'm busy with other stuff.
Why is that?
11:30
the post-night minigames also show us the puppet at the fnaf 1 location
You mention in the video that Scott talked about why he didn’t plan on bringing Springtrap back and I genuinely want to find which post he shared that in, I've had no luck trying to find it
I think most of these would be as Scott calls them, “seamless retcons”
Technically retcons, but not as huge
Scott confirmed there was only one retcon AFTER this post was made. The Halloween update was in 2015, while the retcon post was September 2017.
@
Correct me if I am wrong about the following info
Scott said there was one big retcon (the one that Matpat theorized that the Crying Child was supposed to be the puppet but got retconned) and small seamless retcons (Fnaf 1 posters of the MCI say that the killer was convicted is a good example)
@ Scott has never referred to anything being a retcon beyond the SINGLE seamless retcon.
He also said the retcon was NOT popularly discussed topic, hence why it was a seemless change, which means it’s not a theorist video of any kind.
@@Idk-xj1iqwouldn't the seamless retcon be that Golden Freddy is possessed by two spirits? I haven't played the games yet, but that seems to be the retcon.
Given he was clearly referring to Matpat's video as almost entirely right at the time of 2's release and the info it had then, since he initally said same thing in comments of that video, it not fitting exactly with info from 3 or 4 is expected.
The dates are an example of something that stays 100% correct while thinking Golden Freddy was suit used in murders becomes "A Golden suit was used" that gets general vibe correct. While Scott avoids the standard changing retcon the fact he still adds new info we hadn't before, which technically is a retcon but is rarely considered such and Scott certainly doesn't consider it such, means that vid is still limited though it still makes date arguing useless since those can't change without rewriting retcon.
Puppetstuff and Charlieplush to Willstuff and Willplush, girl, William stole all her roles while transitioning from Fnaf 4 to Sister Location 😭😭. He wont let her have ANYTHING.
He won't even let her live ffs
7:38 In TSE, which was written between 3-4 had William use Fredbear for Michael Brooks (GF). Is it possible that he used both Fredbear and Springbonnie in the games? Maybe the same way. Fredbear for GF. I don't think it has to be debunked or retconned.
Great video though, it is interesting to note all of this.
Idk why people try so hard to deny that William could've used the GF suit in fnaf 2
like he isnt picky, he is gonna use what he has on hand😭😭😭
Over the Years.
My theory is that in FNaF 1-3 Fredbear's Family Diner was not the restaurant with Springlock Animatronics but just Brown Freddy Animatronic called Fredbear and it was Take Cake Location closed due to the murder of a boy(SAVE HIM) outside who possessed the Puppet. The Owner sold the franchise to people who created Fazbear Entertainment. In FNaF 4 Scott changed Fredbear's Family Diner and Fazbear's origins.
Thing is FNAF 3 shows Fredbear and Springbonnie on stage in the Stage 01 minigame
@sh1zuh31 I think that is just the stage in Freddy Fazbear's Pizza. Notice three clouds. There is also one child missing in the crowd in this minigame. Reference to MCI.
From FnaF 3 Tapes we know that Freddy's had two springlock animatronics. Based on informations from this and previous games we had no reason to believe Springlock Animatronics were at Fredbear's. They were made just for Freddy's and its Sister Locations.
But the springlocks were objectively said to be used for parties and to be worn, they were never implied to be used on stage, considering the other animatronics can't move around during the day without someone manning them. They wouldn't put the characters on stage unless it was implying there was a time in which they were the main show. So we had plenty of reason to assume it was Fredbears.
@sh1zuh31 I believe Springlock Animatronics did perform on stage on occasions.
But this is all my speculation and if it was true it was changed so it doesn't matter now.
First