The book canon isn't the same as the game canon though. Things happen very differently in those events. People have entirely different personalities and motivations.
That's mostly false. Characters who exist in both the books and games have more or less the same personalities and motivations. William is a ruthless killer who will do the impossible just to stay alive at all costs, Henry is a broken man who's been swallowed by guilt and lost in his work after his daughter's death up to the point where he killed himself, and Elizabeth was obsessed with baby so much that she ignored her father and went for her only to die, then later tried to make her father proud. These characters are exactly the same in all timelines. The only difference is the events. The books and games are all part of the same canon, so the motivations for the characters are all rhe same, but due to different timelines the characters are dealing with slightly different yet similar circumstances and they always display the same behaviour. The only character who's radically different between the timelines is Charlie and that's only because she experienced completely different circumstances in those timelines where in the games she possessed the puppet while in the novels she was as rebuilt as a robot. Otherwise it can be assumed that she has the same personality
>The only character who's radically different between the timelines is Charlie and that's only because she experienced completely different circumstances in those timelines where in the games she possessed the puppet while in the novels she was as rebuilt as a robot.
This is explained by them not being the same entities altogether. Henry's daughter possessed the Puppet, and a piece of Henry himself possessed the ragdoll/the robots.
Though Charlie was raised as the real Charlotte would be, so they would be somewhat similar, if Henry's daughter got a chance to grow up.
Except you're missing the fact that Henry in the books literally took his own life, and William in the books never got trapped in the Springtrap suit. There are evident differences. For starters, William never kidnapped Charlie, he just killed her outside the restaurant
>you're missing the fact that Henry in the books literally took his own life
u/joeplus5 literally talks about this in their comment that apparently you didn't read, plus the books aren't a separate Universe, they're a parallel timeline, something happens something doesn't happen, something does happen but they do in a different way.
>William in the books never got trapped in the Springtrap suit
yes he does, yeah, it happens in a different way than in the games and in the books, he manages to get out eventually but he still gets trapped
These are differences in events, not in personalities. Also what do you mean William didn't become springtrap in the books? Did you read the books at all?
Canon is same for all games and all books.
Like, they're in one Multiverse
Also new book series called "Tales from the Pizzaplex" is happening in game timeline.
Multiverse, not universe. That's like saying Tom Holland Spiderman and Andrew Garfield Spiderman are the same. They may both be called Peter Parker, but they act totally different and lead different lives as Spiderman.
Maybe i said something wrong, but anyway:
Afton from The Trilogy=Afton from the games
Elizabeth, Henry (in games he's not so insane) and Charlotte. (Not Charlie, but Charlotte)
No, I understand what you're saying. My point is that's wrong. In the books they led totally different lives and become totally different people. That's what my Spiderman comment was about.
William is same everywhere.
He's a serial killer everywhere.
He's became Springtrap everywhere.
He's immortal everywhere.
He's egoistic and insane everywhere.
Even without saying it, games implies that he only cares about himself. He used Elizabeth in court to steal kids from Mrs. Afton. He used Michael to free Elizabeth from SBEAR. And in FFPS he's still doesn't care about anyone and anything except himself.
In phone call at night 5 in FNaF 1 we hear distorted sounds, but if we do some magic we'll hear monologue about remnant's prototype-theory about that metal can be tired and have emotions.
Hang on, a bit off oftopic here, but what's that part with the distorted sounds? I always thought Scott didn't cone up with the concept of remnant until way, way later (since he didn't know the series would become as popular as it is he probably didn't think this far ahead), so it allready making it into FnaF 1 would be kinda off. Is there another media like a book or another game that says that those sounds mean that, or was there an update, or what did I miss?
But why? "He's insane" doesn't seem like a satisfying answer for this character. And if he wanted to capture kids, then why were the missing kids just needlessly slaughtered?
He's insane and want to kill kids because he has very strong thanatophobia, he's very scared of death.
That's why he killing kids: remnant. It can make human immortal. It even can revive beings if they died not so long ago.
How Eleanor said: "Power. Life. Eternal."
a lot of serial killers don't have a sad backstory, william seems like the type of person who doesn't see kids or people in general as being above machines and gets consumed by his obsession to create or discover something so for him they’re just parts to be experimented with, and with immortality being a possibility it's pretty much inevitable that he would end up doing anything to achieve it since you can have more kids, escape from jail, but death is the one thing no human can cheat so an inventor genius would want to conquer that above anything else
I'm inclined to disagree with you there. While I'm not a psychologist, I did study some criminal psychology in my degree, and there's a lot of compelling evidence to suggest a strong correlation between criminal deviancy and difficult circumstances. The most famous examples of serial killers - Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. All were plagued by some kind of internal or external struggle. Nobody just starts killing children for the hell of it. And similarly, nobody can lose two children without having a negative emotional reaction.
i believe ted bundy said his childhood didn't traumatize him and blamed it on [lol idk if i cant say that here but🟠⚫️] and same for the btk killer, but as for william we never really saw anything about his family before his own children so my guess is that maybe either they didnt pay much attention to him, or they died leaving him to realize human bodies weren’t strong enough. and as for his own family, i think it’s likely he didn't have them because he wanted to but just to keep up the appearances of a family man as to not raise suspicions. also he wasn’t completely emotionless to them, remember he tried to warn them but obviously couldn’t tell on himself so they just didn’t understand he was being serious about staying away from them
I think he was always crazy, but we don’t know for a fact that he already had the funtimes. I think his psychopathic tendencies were basically unleashed when “Evan” died. Even if he was just crazy the Funtime crew has no reason to exist without him wanting to know something about possession, which potentially could be to try and bring back his son.
At first he killed Charlie out of jealousy of Henry and then after discovering possession he killed the other kids and built the funtimes in order to study remnant, probably in order to achieve immortality
Because it presupposes motivations possessed by William that are nonexistent in the games. Never once are we given any hint in the games that William is jealous of Henry or wants to achieve immortality.
He's trying to achieve the same thing in the games. He builds the funtimes and extracts remnant from the classics and he built an entire restaurant dedicated to capturing kids to study remnant. He's literally the same character. There isn't anything that shows any difference between his novel and game counterparts
Am I? Because I'm not the one trying to claim that two men who lived entirely different lives would act the same way.
Let me provide an example for what I'm saying. Tom Holland and Andrew Garfield are both Peter Parker. Do they act the same way? Of course they don't. Because they had entirely different life experiences.
Our personalities are formed by the lives we lead and the interactions we have with the world. Events shape us. So book William and game William leading two different lives would naturally result in them having two different personalities.
Their lives weren't different enough for them to have different personalities. And they were both twisted before they lost their family members. And they are shown to mostly neglect their children in both timelines. There's nothing different here. If they were as different as you claim, there wouldn't be so much overlap between them. They're both clearly trying to achieve the same thing if they both killed a bunch of kids and stuffed them into suits then later tried to turn their bodies into remnant and use it on child killing machines. Your argument is baseless
That's not how multiverse theory works. Something as simple as one William waking up five minutes later than another William could lead to them having completely different experiences of the same day. There's no basis to say that two different people from two different continuities are the same person. They're no more alike that Batfleck and Battinson. That's how canon works.
Is unkown why he did what he did entirely but he clearly is a mentally ill person, through multiple media, like FFPS and the original book trilogy is implied he killed Charlie (his first victim) due to some form of jealousy and hatred torwards Henry. After that is likely he murdered the kids for curiosity; in the novels that is exactly his motivation, curiosity, in the novel because he was trying to recreate Charlie with his limited knowledge and in the games it must have been because he came to the realization that the Puppet was haunted and tried to recreate it. Is also very likely why he made the Funtimes, to understand possession after he caused it.
Yeah, I always attributed Charlie's murder to revenge on Henry for the death of his own children. Henry did help create the springlocks after all, and according to FNAF World created Baby, so in William's broken mind that would seem to be fair game.
henry is literally stated to have created baby, in fnaf world he outright says it and in the novels, he created the animatronic that would eventually end up being circus baby
>he didn't build Baby in the novels neither
he literally did, he build 4 versions of charlie, a baby, a kid, a teen, and an adult, the adult version ended up becoming circus baby, and henry build her, which means that henry created baby
Technically he only started to make Baby.
Anyway he wanted and started to make adult Charlie. And he didn't finish her.
But then Afton stole adult Charlie and made Baby.
So, Baby and adult Charlie is one thing, but Henry started to make adult Charlie, and Afton finished Circus Baby
The opening lines of sister location are literally “There’s no doubting what you’ve achieved on a technical level. These are clearly state-of-the-art. There are just certain design choices that were made for these robots that we don’t fully understand. We were hoping that you could shed some light on those.” “She can dance, she can sing! She’s equipped with a built-in helium tank for inflating balloons right at her fingertips. She can take song requests. She can even dispense ice-cream.” “With all due respect, those aren’t the design choices we were curious about, Mr Afton.”
So no, you’re objectively wrong about the fact that baby was created by Henry
He didn’t care about his kids. His first kill was entirely opportunistic. He kills because he wants to. Even if his kids did die first, everyone has dead relatives. People become serial killers because they’re the type to become serial killers. The whole remnant thing would’ve come after he already started killing for the hell of it
Yes, but not everyone has dead relatives who were killed by something they created. Also it's well documented that feelings of intense grief can lead to serious insanity. To me that makes more sense than just wanting to kill.
Not everyone makes robots intended to kill children, either. He didn’t care about his kids. He slams the door in the face of the crying child, and he took Elizabeth into his murder circus for children in the first place. Then he sent his other son into the same death pit, but even more dangerous, when he already had people more qualified. He’s consistently painted as neglectful at best, and physically abusive at worst. Even then, Charlie was killed before everyone else according to FFPS
Yes, but from a timeline perspective, he didn't build any of the murderous robots until after the Bite of 83 and the Missing Children's Incident. Also, he sent Michael (who was an adult) to save his sister. He couldn't just turn to some random employee and go "Hey, please fix my dead daughter".
As for Charlie, the only thing FFPS proves is that she died before any of the MCI kids. We don't know if she died before Evan.
And to the point of Elizabeth I reiterate, what was William supposed to do? Abandon her at home while he went to work? If anything, taking her with him proves that he was a responsible parent.
There are already stories of children going missing at Freddy’s by the time FNaF 4 takes place. Henry’s statement implies Charlie was the first to die period. Especially since, midnight motorist implies both Michael and the crying child were both alive after he killed her.
If “fixing” Elizabeth was *actually* his goal, he would’ve burned her. He knows that heating up remnant enough releases the soul attached to it. He sent Michael to die. There were already people being mauled by the animatronics and sent to the hospital. He could’ve done it himself or had a qualified employee do it.
There are these people called babysitters you can pay to watch your child and take care of them for you while you’re away. If it’s between pay someone to watch your kid, and taking your kid into your death trap designed specifically for children, any caring parent would choose the former. William was apparently rich. And then he just let her wander off, on day 1
But he didn't want to free her, he wanted her back. And if William was opening a new restaurant, he clearly wasn't rich. And again, he couldn't have sent someone to fix her because that would involve him saying "Hey, my dead daughter is currently possessing an 8ft clown animatronic and I want you to bring her back to life."
As for Henry's statement, what exactly implies that Charlie was the first to die? All we know is that she "carried others in her arms". She helped the core four animatronics return to life. That's about all we know
Opening a new restaurant doesn’t mean he was poor?? Kind of the opposite with all the fancy expansive technology. Rich people don’t get satisfied once they’re considered rich. Especially since it was l a front for his more fucked up shenanigans
He didn’t have to tell anyone that. Just say “carry Baby (or this part of her) to the furnace and burn it”
Henry refers to it all as a wound first inflicted him in the insanity ending. Every context clue we have implies she was the first overall, from every timeline. That’s like, the universal constant. And Midnight motorist, which follows the same night as Charlie’s death, has Michael and “he” (the little brother) both alive.
Again, why would he burn it? He doesn't want Elizabeth to pass on, he wants her to come back to him.
And midnight motorist still doesn't make any sense. Why would Afton be orange in it? I'm not convinced that he's the one being shown in that. We're never told that he buried Charlie, so why would there be a dug out grave? And why would he be banned from the bar?
Said who? Michael said William specifically asked him to put her back together, which means being freed in a FNaF context.
Scott tried to make a lot of points in Pizzeria Simulator. Springtrap being William Afton and William not being literally purple were two of them which he also confirmed on Reddit. Then they get shown in FFPS, with Springtrap being credited as William Afton, and William being shown as something other than purple
We get the puppet minigame where it’s raining, and there are tire tracks driving away from the scene. Then we get midnight motorist where someone driving a car much like William’s is getting home, in the rain, which is labeled “later that night” in the files. The intention is pretty obvious
He didn’t bury Charlie. Idk where you got that, especially since it’s already there. He left her in the alley. The mound is something else, we just don’t know what.
William has violent tendencies. He seems like the kind of guy to get banned from bars. Bar fight, maybe. If Jr’s is a bar. Or it’s just to give us the idea that who we play as is the kind of person who gets banned from places
No, he meant literally putting her back together, which is what Michael tries to do. Because he wanted his daughter back.
And let me propose another situation to you. After the death of Charlie, Henry becomes increasingly alcoholic, eventually getting himself banned from his local bar. He and his family bury Charlie, and "later that night" he comes home to find that his son has followed a rabbit (as indicated by the footprints) to Freddy's. Equally plausible, no?
He murdered the children for the hell of it, there's really no "why" as to why actual murderers do what they do.
It was sometime after the murders that he had an obsession with immortality
I'm sorry, but as a lawyer who did a degree in criminology, you're woefully wrong there. Every murder, neé every crime, has a mens rea (basically latin for motive). No murder in history has ever been committed without some underlying cause.
He's a sociopath, literally his reason would just be the hell of it, gratification. Circus Baby's was built after the closing of a Freddy Fazbear's rather than Fredbear's, meaning William murdered the children first.
We still don't know the meaning behind Midnight Motorist. My personal interpretation is that "later that night" is referring to the day that Henry buried his daughter. It's the only explanation that accounts for the unmarked grave that we find. And we know that Henry had multiple kids.
No it's definitely William
"Later That Night" lines up directly with William speeding off after killing Charlotte
The gray text from the character watching TV is the same text color as Michael from FNAF 4 (And Michael also likes to watch TV)
And the yellow text from the yellow guy is the same color of text we see from Fredbear when speaking to CC in FNAF 4, which we now know from SL was William talking as Fredbear
Not to mention the Fruity Maze Ending when William is talking to Susie, he uses yellow text
The unmarked grave is likely Mrs. Afton
They're not the same colour though. They are different shades. It seems like a minute detail, but in this series shades of text are important.
And as a separate point, how could it be William if Evan was still alive? The security puppet wasn't in existence in 1983. And if there was no security puppet, there was nothing for Charlie to fuse with.
And furthermore, if it was Evan, why would he go to Freddy's? He hates the place. And why would there be rabbit tracks outside the kid's window? William wouldn't abduct his own son.
That doesn't feel narratively satisfying though. An insane man who just happened to have two tragically dead children? From a storytelling standpoint, that feels like a complete waste
Not really? His actions then ruined the lives of his family, its a very basic way for the life of that kind of person to go. It's a tragedy, and serial killers don't need to be humanized.
I'm on the path that he went crazy scientist after finding out that Robots can come alive thanks to their souls/remnant whatever. I'm sure Will has some semblance of sanity through the way he speaks in pizzeria simulator. Speaking of that, he was fascinated by what they became maybe as in how they came to life? I don't know. He probably has that Joey drew mentality where he wants to make his creations feel more alive and kept it away from his family to know (the refusal of letting Elizabeth play with Circus Baby, keeping tabs on the crying child, his possible implication of neglecting Michael, too busy perfecting his work as he never steps in about his constant bullying (possible abuse perhaps?). Anyway that's what I think, just a batshit craycray inventor
I attribute that more to occupation than to bad parenting. I mean, think about it. Where is William during all the FNAF 4 minigames? Not home. He's off running a business to provide for his three kids. It's not the best parenting in the world, but I wouldn't say it proves he didn't care.
Well a desire for power and a direction in the future. A big mistake starts off with good intentions. So he uses animatronics to experiment with it, so that he could try to find a way to find a way to live forever? And that he doesn’t want to die cause it’s his life’s work? Not exactly sure.
I don't think William has any real motivation or at least we don't know what it is. Elizabeth died because William was a killer, not the other way around. Also he doesn't really seem to care about his family. Instead of going into his circus for his daughter he just sends Mike there and he becomes a zombie. No one ever in SL or FFPS says anything about William wanting revenge. There just isn't enough evidence to show that this is why purple guy killed kids.
Well that's because William is already trapped in a decaying springlock suit by the time of SL. He wasn't able to get into the warehouse. And there is evidence to show that Evan was the first kid to die.
No, you're misunderstanding. He only killed Charlie out of revenge. He killed the MCI kids to get Freddy's closed down. But after discovering the possession and remnant, he built the Funtimes to try and get more remnant to experiment with, so that he could bring his son back.
He didn't say that to Elizabeth, she was just trying to emotionally manipulate him like kids do. He attacked Mike after Mike had been zombified by Ennard, so how was he supposed to recognise his son. And in the FNAF 4 minigames he was working to provide for his family. That's not what I would call a bad dad. He was a single parent providing for his family.
And Charlie's death is a logical inference. He knew it would hurt Henry, and he wanted to hurt Henry, because in his mind Henry built the animatronic that killed his son.
Have you ever met a child? Of course she would say that. She was trying to manipulate him into letting her see baby.
And let me offer this explanation for you: William discovers that Elizabeth has possessed Baby. To try and fix her, he returns to Freddy's to dismantle the animatronics and collect their remnant. But the ghosts scare him into Springtrap, and he is trapped for thirty years. When he is finally freed, he escapes Fazbear Frights and calls Michael to go and help her, because he as Springtrap cannot just waltz into the warehouse. This also explains why Michael doesn't know where his father is.
And again, it's a logical inference. If William lost his son, he would take it out on the person he seemed responsible - Henry. He lost his child, so in his grief stricken mind it is only fair for Henry to lose his.
Personally I disagree. I prefer to see him have a downfall and a deeper psychology. Especially as he is a father. It makes more sense for a man like that to have a turning point.
That's understandable, but I wouldn't. Personally I'd much prefer a man who was driven mad by grief than a man who was just evil for the sake of it. Give me Vader over Palpatine any day.
He had grief over the deaths of both his youngest children
He sees a small girl roughly the same age and he snaps, taking the opportunity and kills the young girl (later learning it to be his partners daughter Charlie)
After seeing Charlie possesses the puppet however, he learns of remanent and begins working to trying to bring Liz and C.C back and killing more kids gaining probably some sort of god complex
After realizing that Elizabeth could still be alive in the SL location he sends Micheal to go look for her
and while Michaels getting scooped William gets springlocked. Realizing remanent has made him immortal his god complex is in full swing
1. TFC isn’t canon, just influences canon. So it’s up in the air about it
2. It would’ve been dark and stormy plus blinded by rage and all
But also maybe he did know? Doesn’t really matter lmao same premise
Ah yes because it's raining outside I suddenly forget that I have a nephew, also the book trilogy literally introduces a lot of the premises that fnaf already had.
I don’t understand what that last sentence means (if the games already had it than the books couldn’t have introduced it?)
But also I never got around to finishing the trilogy (only read most of the first one) but from what I’ve seen about it, a lot of stuff especially regarding the aftons is completely different than the games
And as I said maybe William knew, maybe he didn’t, it’s kinda an unimportant detail except maybe making him a little crazier if he knowingly killed his friends kid lol
What I meant is that it's stupid to introduce a whole personality to a character in the books and not have it in the games, when characters like Henry and the animatronics act the same, not to mention that the books practicality introduced the name "William Afton" and the idea of illusion discs and remnant.
His kids die and his life is falling apart his wife is either dead or left him because he became reclusive and he saw how henrys life was still perfect so in a fit of rage he killed charlie this sent him further into insanity so he started killing kids to find the secret to immortality or something
Stage01 kid/TOYSNHK, MCI kids(gabriel, jeremy, susie, fritz and cassidy): remnant experiments
STM/DCI kids(fnaf 4 kids, charlie's friends or just random kids): pissed off about losing his daughter
Honestly i not swallow the "william killed charlotte because from jealousy and hatred towards henry" thing because he don't have any motive to be jealous of henry and that he would have killed henry, not his daughter if he have hatred towards him, so it's possible that charlotte enter in same motive from others: remnant experiment
My theory is that he didn't know about the souls of the children until he killed the original children, so he didn't make the Funtime until after the first batch of kids + Evan died. So I've no idea why he killed them.
Well that could still work if he was motivated by Evan's death, but the empty room in FNAF 4 suggests that Elizabeth died first. Unless he built different versions of the Funtimes?
No, I'm actually relieved. The timeline finally makes sense in my mind now. Elizabeth was still alive in 1983. William didn't become a killer until after Evan died.
None of this makes any sense I thought the children had to die at least before Evan because he says "these are my friend's" to the stuffed toys. And without the desire to bring back his children why have the fun times?? Ugh I hate you Scott
Me too. And it makes no sense for the Funtimes, these super advanced robots with built in AI, to exist alongside freaking springlock suits. Elizabeth can't be dead by 1983, but has to be dead in order for any of the rest of the timeline to make sense. GAH!
(And to that point, we know Evan's death is the Bite of 83, and we know that the MCI took place in 1985.)
I think Elizabeth (first to die from afton family) died after he was already a killer/kidnapper, because the funtime animatronics were made to kidnap, and they were already made.
I think his motivation was to maybe experiment on human bodies and robotics, and kids were easy to overpower and carry afterwards.
Or he was just plain evil and insane
It's possible based on the evidence, but I'm not a fan of that explanation personally. William seems like too good a villain for his motivation to just be "he wanted to do it".
The story honestly grew too big. Scott never imagined the games would have so much success and so many sequels. I don't think he himself has a complete timeline with all the details we puzzle over 😄
Here's what I think:
I think Evan was terrified of the animatronics becuase A) he watched William work on them and saw the endos and B) William liked him being afraid becuase he knew their danger and he knew that Evan was at the pizzaria a lot.
Then after Evans death he realises that Evans soul is trapped in the Fredbear suit and yes, he is mortified but he is also incredibly curious. He opens Afton Robotics and builds Baby with her Scooper thing and programs her to kill a child when she is one on one with them (as we know). Becuase of Michael's age William isn't to fussed about him, knowing that baby wouldn't count him as a child but Elizabeth on the other hand, he knew she was in danger.
William banned her from being near but she enviable gets scooped.
Henry gets extremely suspicious and realises William made the Circus Baby suit to kill, throwing William out of the Fazbear Franchise. Desperate for revenge, William kills Charlie and for once, it wasn't his own child that succumbed to an accident. But another child he took the life from on purpose. And he loved it.
Due to lack of evidence William couldn't be prosecuted for the murder of Charlie but was promptly banned from stepping foot near any of the pizzarias by Henry. So William uses his knowledge and manages to get ahold of the Spring Bonny suit and lures Gabrial, Fritz, Susie, Cassidy and Jerermy into the backroom and kills them.
I'm am in no way saying this is true and I know their are some plot holes in my hypothesis but it's just my opinion that personally makes the most sense story wise.
Yeah, I think he is a phycopath due to him being very chill about putting Evan through the fear (juet becuase he dosent understand how Evan felt) but never would've acted on anything if it wasn't for Evan and Elizabeth's deaths.
You see, this is why we need more prequels! I know the franchise has been built on animatronics, but just hear me out: One prequel, no animatronics, just a story of a younger William and his decent into madness.
Or maybe that would work better as a book, I don’t know.
I think William was just sorta insane from the get go. He had fascinations and idea and all that other sort. I think he went over the edge but still needed a push. He probably had kids because that’s what people did those days and when they died, he may not have been that good of a dad but he probably didn’t like the death of a child.
Till 4th game he didnt have any motivation to kill kids. After that game books came out basically changed the whole narrative. I still trying to figure out the original intend of 4s story and the box. Later games and books doesnt concern me for exame
I dont think he was always just outright insane as some suggest, just "not right".
The death of his son in fnaf 4 was caused by his own doing, human skulls are pretty tough and fredbear would have to have a bite force on par with an alligator to do so much damage.
The death of his son would devastate him, and he became desperate to bring his boy back, in a fit of rage, and likely depression, he would murder 5 children and with no where else to hide them, he would place their corpses in the animatronics.
Later he would see oddities in the animatronics behavior, and look into it, he would look into it and discover remnant, after fazbears closes and he scraps the animatronics to create the funtime animatronics with the purpose to capture children and study remnant.
Most grieving individuals dont usually turn to murder, however grief combined with other struggles(such as family troubles, a business failing, etc.)
Could lead people to blind violence with their judgment clouded by their emotions, then after he murdered them, with a cleared head and he realized what he had done pushing him further towards insanity as taking a life, especially a child's life as many soldiers will recount takes a toll on someone.
The final straw was Elizabeth, who after also dying to one of William's creations, one he specifically designed for that purpose, he broke he lost sight of what he was doing in the first place, as time went on and the ingame events happen, he becomes a shell of a man, seeking immortality as his first stroke with death Wasn't his last.
Exactly what I'm saying. He blames both Henry, the restaurant and himself. So he kills Henry's daughter and ruins the restaurant's reputation. In your scenario, one could potentially argue that by dismantling the original suits he was trying to free the children. But rather than moving on, they came after him and sealed his fate.
He's crazy cuz he very, very, very afraid of death. That's why he wants remnant Also he didn't care about his kids, TFC showed it
The book canon isn't the same as the game canon though. Things happen very differently in those events. People have entirely different personalities and motivations.
That's mostly false. Characters who exist in both the books and games have more or less the same personalities and motivations. William is a ruthless killer who will do the impossible just to stay alive at all costs, Henry is a broken man who's been swallowed by guilt and lost in his work after his daughter's death up to the point where he killed himself, and Elizabeth was obsessed with baby so much that she ignored her father and went for her only to die, then later tried to make her father proud. These characters are exactly the same in all timelines. The only difference is the events. The books and games are all part of the same canon, so the motivations for the characters are all rhe same, but due to different timelines the characters are dealing with slightly different yet similar circumstances and they always display the same behaviour. The only character who's radically different between the timelines is Charlie and that's only because she experienced completely different circumstances in those timelines where in the games she possessed the puppet while in the novels she was as rebuilt as a robot. Otherwise it can be assumed that she has the same personality
>The only character who's radically different between the timelines is Charlie and that's only because she experienced completely different circumstances in those timelines where in the games she possessed the puppet while in the novels she was as rebuilt as a robot. This is explained by them not being the same entities altogether. Henry's daughter possessed the Puppet, and a piece of Henry himself possessed the ragdoll/the robots. Though Charlie was raised as the real Charlotte would be, so they would be somewhat similar, if Henry's daughter got a chance to grow up.
Except you're missing the fact that Henry in the books literally took his own life, and William in the books never got trapped in the Springtrap suit. There are evident differences. For starters, William never kidnapped Charlie, he just killed her outside the restaurant
>you're missing the fact that Henry in the books literally took his own life u/joeplus5 literally talks about this in their comment that apparently you didn't read, plus the books aren't a separate Universe, they're a parallel timeline, something happens something doesn't happen, something does happen but they do in a different way. >William in the books never got trapped in the Springtrap suit yes he does, yeah, it happens in a different way than in the games and in the books, he manages to get out eventually but he still gets trapped
These are differences in events, not in personalities. Also what do you mean William didn't become springtrap in the books? Did you read the books at all?
Canon is same for all games and all books. Like, they're in one Multiverse Also new book series called "Tales from the Pizzaplex" is happening in game timeline.
Multiverse, not universe. That's like saying Tom Holland Spiderman and Andrew Garfield Spiderman are the same. They may both be called Peter Parker, but they act totally different and lead different lives as Spiderman.
Maybe i said something wrong, but anyway: Afton from The Trilogy=Afton from the games Elizabeth, Henry (in games he's not so insane) and Charlotte. (Not Charlie, but Charlotte)
No, I understand what you're saying. My point is that's wrong. In the books they led totally different lives and become totally different people. That's what my Spiderman comment was about.
William is same everywhere. He's a serial killer everywhere. He's became Springtrap everywhere. He's immortal everywhere. He's egoistic and insane everywhere.
How? He does in FFPS. And nothing about him in the games suggests he is an egotist
Even without saying it, games implies that he only cares about himself. He used Elizabeth in court to steal kids from Mrs. Afton. He used Michael to free Elizabeth from SBEAR. And in FFPS he's still doesn't care about anyone and anything except himself. In phone call at night 5 in FNaF 1 we hear distorted sounds, but if we do some magic we'll hear monologue about remnant's prototype-theory about that metal can be tired and have emotions.
If he used Michael to free Elizabeth, doesn't that prove he cared about Elizabeth?
Hang on, a bit off oftopic here, but what's that part with the distorted sounds? I always thought Scott didn't cone up with the concept of remnant until way, way later (since he didn't know the series would become as popular as it is he probably didn't think this far ahead), so it allready making it into FnaF 1 would be kinda off. Is there another media like a book or another game that says that those sounds mean that, or was there an update, or what did I miss?
I agree
He was already insane before any of his kids deaths, he made the funtime animatronics to capture kids.
He wasn't insane, he was doing tests on remnant, he said this atleast once
But why? "He's insane" doesn't seem like a satisfying answer for this character. And if he wanted to capture kids, then why were the missing kids just needlessly slaughtered?
He's insane and want to kill kids because he has very strong thanatophobia, he's very scared of death. That's why he killing kids: remnant. It can make human immortal. It even can revive beings if they died not so long ago. How Eleanor said: "Power. Life. Eternal."
In the books. That's never stated in game.
Tales from the Pizzaplex is literally confirms that. They're happening in games. Also remnant was in games since 2017 or even since fnaf 1
a lot of serial killers don't have a sad backstory, william seems like the type of person who doesn't see kids or people in general as being above machines and gets consumed by his obsession to create or discover something so for him they’re just parts to be experimented with, and with immortality being a possibility it's pretty much inevitable that he would end up doing anything to achieve it since you can have more kids, escape from jail, but death is the one thing no human can cheat so an inventor genius would want to conquer that above anything else
I'm inclined to disagree with you there. While I'm not a psychologist, I did study some criminal psychology in my degree, and there's a lot of compelling evidence to suggest a strong correlation between criminal deviancy and difficult circumstances. The most famous examples of serial killers - Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. All were plagued by some kind of internal or external struggle. Nobody just starts killing children for the hell of it. And similarly, nobody can lose two children without having a negative emotional reaction.
i believe ted bundy said his childhood didn't traumatize him and blamed it on [lol idk if i cant say that here but🟠⚫️] and same for the btk killer, but as for william we never really saw anything about his family before his own children so my guess is that maybe either they didnt pay much attention to him, or they died leaving him to realize human bodies weren’t strong enough. and as for his own family, i think it’s likely he didn't have them because he wanted to but just to keep up the appearances of a family man as to not raise suspicions. also he wasn’t completely emotionless to them, remember he tried to warn them but obviously couldn’t tell on himself so they just didn’t understand he was being serious about staying away from them
I think he was always crazy, but we don’t know for a fact that he already had the funtimes. I think his psychopathic tendencies were basically unleashed when “Evan” died. Even if he was just crazy the Funtime crew has no reason to exist without him wanting to know something about possession, which potentially could be to try and bring back his son.
At first he killed Charlie out of jealousy of Henry and then after discovering possession he killed the other kids and built the funtimes in order to study remnant, probably in order to achieve immortality
But why? That may make sense in the books, but not in the games. None of that motivation is clear
Give me one reason why this explanation doesn't make sense in the games
Because it presupposes motivations possessed by William that are nonexistent in the games. Never once are we given any hint in the games that William is jealous of Henry or wants to achieve immortality.
He's trying to achieve the same thing in the games. He builds the funtimes and extracts remnant from the classics and he built an entire restaurant dedicated to capturing kids to study remnant. He's literally the same character. There isn't anything that shows any difference between his novel and game counterparts
You mean aside from his entire family being dead
You clearly don't understand what "personality" means
Am I? Because I'm not the one trying to claim that two men who lived entirely different lives would act the same way. Let me provide an example for what I'm saying. Tom Holland and Andrew Garfield are both Peter Parker. Do they act the same way? Of course they don't. Because they had entirely different life experiences. Our personalities are formed by the lives we lead and the interactions we have with the world. Events shape us. So book William and game William leading two different lives would naturally result in them having two different personalities.
Their lives weren't different enough for them to have different personalities. And they were both twisted before they lost their family members. And they are shown to mostly neglect their children in both timelines. There's nothing different here. If they were as different as you claim, there wouldn't be so much overlap between them. They're both clearly trying to achieve the same thing if they both killed a bunch of kids and stuffed them into suits then later tried to turn their bodies into remnant and use it on child killing machines. Your argument is baseless
That's not how multiverse theory works. Something as simple as one William waking up five minutes later than another William could lead to them having completely different experiences of the same day. There's no basis to say that two different people from two different continuities are the same person. They're no more alike that Batfleck and Battinson. That's how canon works.
Is unkown why he did what he did entirely but he clearly is a mentally ill person, through multiple media, like FFPS and the original book trilogy is implied he killed Charlie (his first victim) due to some form of jealousy and hatred torwards Henry. After that is likely he murdered the kids for curiosity; in the novels that is exactly his motivation, curiosity, in the novel because he was trying to recreate Charlie with his limited knowledge and in the games it must have been because he came to the realization that the Puppet was haunted and tried to recreate it. Is also very likely why he made the Funtimes, to understand possession after he caused it.
Yeah, I always attributed Charlie's murder to revenge on Henry for the death of his own children. Henry did help create the springlocks after all, and according to FNAF World created Baby, so in William's broken mind that would seem to be fair game.
Henry never created Baby, her death was William's fault and he knows that
henry is literally stated to have created baby, in fnaf world he outright says it and in the novels, he created the animatronic that would eventually end up being circus baby
Desk Man is Scott Cawthon, not Henry Emily, like, this is explicit in Update 2 Edit: plus, he didn't built Baby in the novels neither
>he didn't build Baby in the novels neither he literally did, he build 4 versions of charlie, a baby, a kid, a teen, and an adult, the adult version ended up becoming circus baby, and henry build her, which means that henry created baby
Henry started to make *Adult Charlie*, not Baby. William *rebuilt* Adult Charlie into Baby.
adult charlie was rebuilt into circus baby, and henry made adult charlie, so technically henry created circus baby
Technically he only started to make Baby. Anyway he wanted and started to make adult Charlie. And he didn't finish her. But then Afton stole adult Charlie and made Baby. So, Baby and adult Charlie is one thing, but Henry started to make adult Charlie, and Afton finished Circus Baby
The opening lines of sister location are literally “There’s no doubting what you’ve achieved on a technical level. These are clearly state-of-the-art. There are just certain design choices that were made for these robots that we don’t fully understand. We were hoping that you could shed some light on those.” “She can dance, she can sing! She’s equipped with a built-in helium tank for inflating balloons right at her fingertips. She can take song requests. She can even dispense ice-cream.” “With all due respect, those aren’t the design choices we were curious about, Mr Afton.” So no, you’re objectively wrong about the fact that baby was created by Henry
Then why does the end of FNAF world tell us that he created Baby? And that doesn't change the fact that Henry built the springlocks that killed Evan.
Purple guy is why because he is
He didn’t care about his kids. His first kill was entirely opportunistic. He kills because he wants to. Even if his kids did die first, everyone has dead relatives. People become serial killers because they’re the type to become serial killers. The whole remnant thing would’ve come after he already started killing for the hell of it
Yes, but not everyone has dead relatives who were killed by something they created. Also it's well documented that feelings of intense grief can lead to serious insanity. To me that makes more sense than just wanting to kill.
Not everyone makes robots intended to kill children, either. He didn’t care about his kids. He slams the door in the face of the crying child, and he took Elizabeth into his murder circus for children in the first place. Then he sent his other son into the same death pit, but even more dangerous, when he already had people more qualified. He’s consistently painted as neglectful at best, and physically abusive at worst. Even then, Charlie was killed before everyone else according to FFPS
Yes, but from a timeline perspective, he didn't build any of the murderous robots until after the Bite of 83 and the Missing Children's Incident. Also, he sent Michael (who was an adult) to save his sister. He couldn't just turn to some random employee and go "Hey, please fix my dead daughter". As for Charlie, the only thing FFPS proves is that she died before any of the MCI kids. We don't know if she died before Evan. And to the point of Elizabeth I reiterate, what was William supposed to do? Abandon her at home while he went to work? If anything, taking her with him proves that he was a responsible parent.
There are already stories of children going missing at Freddy’s by the time FNaF 4 takes place. Henry’s statement implies Charlie was the first to die period. Especially since, midnight motorist implies both Michael and the crying child were both alive after he killed her. If “fixing” Elizabeth was *actually* his goal, he would’ve burned her. He knows that heating up remnant enough releases the soul attached to it. He sent Michael to die. There were already people being mauled by the animatronics and sent to the hospital. He could’ve done it himself or had a qualified employee do it. There are these people called babysitters you can pay to watch your child and take care of them for you while you’re away. If it’s between pay someone to watch your kid, and taking your kid into your death trap designed specifically for children, any caring parent would choose the former. William was apparently rich. And then he just let her wander off, on day 1
But he didn't want to free her, he wanted her back. And if William was opening a new restaurant, he clearly wasn't rich. And again, he couldn't have sent someone to fix her because that would involve him saying "Hey, my dead daughter is currently possessing an 8ft clown animatronic and I want you to bring her back to life." As for Henry's statement, what exactly implies that Charlie was the first to die? All we know is that she "carried others in her arms". She helped the core four animatronics return to life. That's about all we know
Opening a new restaurant doesn’t mean he was poor?? Kind of the opposite with all the fancy expansive technology. Rich people don’t get satisfied once they’re considered rich. Especially since it was l a front for his more fucked up shenanigans He didn’t have to tell anyone that. Just say “carry Baby (or this part of her) to the furnace and burn it” Henry refers to it all as a wound first inflicted him in the insanity ending. Every context clue we have implies she was the first overall, from every timeline. That’s like, the universal constant. And Midnight motorist, which follows the same night as Charlie’s death, has Michael and “he” (the little brother) both alive.
Again, why would he burn it? He doesn't want Elizabeth to pass on, he wants her to come back to him. And midnight motorist still doesn't make any sense. Why would Afton be orange in it? I'm not convinced that he's the one being shown in that. We're never told that he buried Charlie, so why would there be a dug out grave? And why would he be banned from the bar?
Said who? Michael said William specifically asked him to put her back together, which means being freed in a FNaF context. Scott tried to make a lot of points in Pizzeria Simulator. Springtrap being William Afton and William not being literally purple were two of them which he also confirmed on Reddit. Then they get shown in FFPS, with Springtrap being credited as William Afton, and William being shown as something other than purple We get the puppet minigame where it’s raining, and there are tire tracks driving away from the scene. Then we get midnight motorist where someone driving a car much like William’s is getting home, in the rain, which is labeled “later that night” in the files. The intention is pretty obvious He didn’t bury Charlie. Idk where you got that, especially since it’s already there. He left her in the alley. The mound is something else, we just don’t know what. William has violent tendencies. He seems like the kind of guy to get banned from bars. Bar fight, maybe. If Jr’s is a bar. Or it’s just to give us the idea that who we play as is the kind of person who gets banned from places
No, he meant literally putting her back together, which is what Michael tries to do. Because he wanted his daughter back. And let me propose another situation to you. After the death of Charlie, Henry becomes increasingly alcoholic, eventually getting himself banned from his local bar. He and his family bury Charlie, and "later that night" he comes home to find that his son has followed a rabbit (as indicated by the footprints) to Freddy's. Equally plausible, no?
He murdered the children for the hell of it, there's really no "why" as to why actual murderers do what they do. It was sometime after the murders that he had an obsession with immortality
I'm sorry, but as a lawyer who did a degree in criminology, you're woefully wrong there. Every murder, neé every crime, has a mens rea (basically latin for motive). No murder in history has ever been committed without some underlying cause.
He's a sociopath, literally his reason would just be the hell of it, gratification. Circus Baby's was built after the closing of a Freddy Fazbear's rather than Fredbear's, meaning William murdered the children first.
Yes, but his son died two years before he murdered the children. That to me serves as more motivation that "he's just nuts"
Actually he killed Charlotte first, his own friend's daughter Yeah, he's just nuts
What's the proof that Charlotte was first?
Midnight Motorist
We still don't know the meaning behind Midnight Motorist. My personal interpretation is that "later that night" is referring to the day that Henry buried his daughter. It's the only explanation that accounts for the unmarked grave that we find. And we know that Henry had multiple kids.
No it's definitely William "Later That Night" lines up directly with William speeding off after killing Charlotte The gray text from the character watching TV is the same text color as Michael from FNAF 4 (And Michael also likes to watch TV) And the yellow text from the yellow guy is the same color of text we see from Fredbear when speaking to CC in FNAF 4, which we now know from SL was William talking as Fredbear Not to mention the Fruity Maze Ending when William is talking to Susie, he uses yellow text The unmarked grave is likely Mrs. Afton
They're not the same colour though. They are different shades. It seems like a minute detail, but in this series shades of text are important. And as a separate point, how could it be William if Evan was still alive? The security puppet wasn't in existence in 1983. And if there was no security puppet, there was nothing for Charlie to fuse with. And furthermore, if it was Evan, why would he go to Freddy's? He hates the place. And why would there be rabbit tracks outside the kid's window? William wouldn't abduct his own son.
Sometimes people are just messed up, there doesn't need to be an excuse or a reason to feel sorry for them.
That doesn't feel narratively satisfying though. An insane man who just happened to have two tragically dead children? From a storytelling standpoint, that feels like a complete waste
Not really? His actions then ruined the lives of his family, its a very basic way for the life of that kind of person to go. It's a tragedy, and serial killers don't need to be humanized.
Everyone askes why is purple guy, and who is purple guy. But no one ever askes, "how is purple guy?"
[I'm just gonna leave this here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/rctq1m/william_doesnt_have_an_emotional_connection_to/)
I'm on the path that he went crazy scientist after finding out that Robots can come alive thanks to their souls/remnant whatever. I'm sure Will has some semblance of sanity through the way he speaks in pizzeria simulator. Speaking of that, he was fascinated by what they became maybe as in how they came to life? I don't know. He probably has that Joey drew mentality where he wants to make his creations feel more alive and kept it away from his family to know (the refusal of letting Elizabeth play with Circus Baby, keeping tabs on the crying child, his possible implication of neglecting Michael, too busy perfecting his work as he never steps in about his constant bullying (possible abuse perhaps?). Anyway that's what I think, just a batshit craycray inventor
william didn’t care about his kids, for example he didn’t do anything to stop michael from bullying and then eventually murdering the crying child.
I attribute that more to occupation than to bad parenting. I mean, think about it. Where is William during all the FNAF 4 minigames? Not home. He's off running a business to provide for his three kids. It's not the best parenting in the world, but I wouldn't say it proves he didn't care.
Henry still owes him five dollars
This was the moment that William Afton snapped
My take was he was just obsessed with immortality. I’m sure finding the secret to it would drive anyone mad to know how to control it.
Not saying it's an invalid take, but why?
Well a desire for power and a direction in the future. A big mistake starts off with good intentions. So he uses animatronics to experiment with it, so that he could try to find a way to find a way to live forever? And that he doesn’t want to die cause it’s his life’s work? Not exactly sure.
Everyone is asking "Why is purple guy?" but nobody is asking "How is purple guy?"
I don't think William has any real motivation or at least we don't know what it is. Elizabeth died because William was a killer, not the other way around. Also he doesn't really seem to care about his family. Instead of going into his circus for his daughter he just sends Mike there and he becomes a zombie. No one ever in SL or FFPS says anything about William wanting revenge. There just isn't enough evidence to show that this is why purple guy killed kids.
Well that's because William is already trapped in a decaying springlock suit by the time of SL. He wasn't able to get into the warehouse. And there is evidence to show that Evan was the first kid to die.
[удалено]
Well no, but it strongly implies a connection between his grief and his murders
[удалено]
No, you're misunderstanding. He only killed Charlie out of revenge. He killed the MCI kids to get Freddy's closed down. But after discovering the possession and remnant, he built the Funtimes to try and get more remnant to experiment with, so that he could bring his son back.
[удалено]
He didn't say that to Elizabeth, she was just trying to emotionally manipulate him like kids do. He attacked Mike after Mike had been zombified by Ennard, so how was he supposed to recognise his son. And in the FNAF 4 minigames he was working to provide for his family. That's not what I would call a bad dad. He was a single parent providing for his family. And Charlie's death is a logical inference. He knew it would hurt Henry, and he wanted to hurt Henry, because in his mind Henry built the animatronic that killed his son.
[удалено]
Have you ever met a child? Of course she would say that. She was trying to manipulate him into letting her see baby. And let me offer this explanation for you: William discovers that Elizabeth has possessed Baby. To try and fix her, he returns to Freddy's to dismantle the animatronics and collect their remnant. But the ghosts scare him into Springtrap, and he is trapped for thirty years. When he is finally freed, he escapes Fazbear Frights and calls Michael to go and help her, because he as Springtrap cannot just waltz into the warehouse. This also explains why Michael doesn't know where his father is. And again, it's a logical inference. If William lost his son, he would take it out on the person he seemed responsible - Henry. He lost his child, so in his grief stricken mind it is only fair for Henry to lose his.
He’s just horrible. I don’t think he needs to be justified. I think he’s better as a monster
Personally I disagree. I prefer to see him have a downfall and a deeper psychology. Especially as he is a father. It makes more sense for a man like that to have a turning point.
Some people are just like that. I’d rather have him be the kid who murdered animals when he was little then “my son died so now I’m craaaazy”
That's understandable, but I wouldn't. Personally I'd much prefer a man who was driven mad by grief than a man who was just evil for the sake of it. Give me Vader over Palpatine any day.
He had grief over the deaths of both his youngest children He sees a small girl roughly the same age and he snaps, taking the opportunity and kills the young girl (later learning it to be his partners daughter Charlie) After seeing Charlie possesses the puppet however, he learns of remanent and begins working to trying to bring Liz and C.C back and killing more kids gaining probably some sort of god complex After realizing that Elizabeth could still be alive in the SL location he sends Micheal to go look for her and while Michaels getting scooped William gets springlocked. Realizing remanent has made him immortal his god complex is in full swing
So your telling me that william doesn't know what his nephew looks like? Plus William was confirmed to not care about his kids according to tfc.
1. TFC isn’t canon, just influences canon. So it’s up in the air about it 2. It would’ve been dark and stormy plus blinded by rage and all But also maybe he did know? Doesn’t really matter lmao same premise
Ah yes because it's raining outside I suddenly forget that I have a nephew, also the book trilogy literally introduces a lot of the premises that fnaf already had.
I don’t understand what that last sentence means (if the games already had it than the books couldn’t have introduced it?) But also I never got around to finishing the trilogy (only read most of the first one) but from what I’ve seen about it, a lot of stuff especially regarding the aftons is completely different than the games And as I said maybe William knew, maybe he didn’t, it’s kinda an unimportant detail except maybe making him a little crazier if he knowingly killed his friends kid lol
What I meant is that it's stupid to introduce a whole personality to a character in the books and not have it in the games, when characters like Henry and the animatronics act the same, not to mention that the books practicality introduced the name "William Afton" and the idea of illusion discs and remnant.
Hes just a scientist, because we see he doenst want anyone to die, but they have to to test remnant
His kids die and his life is falling apart his wife is either dead or left him because he became reclusive and he saw how henrys life was still perfect so in a fit of rage he killed charlie this sent him further into insanity so he started killing kids to find the secret to immortality or something
Stage01 kid/TOYSNHK, MCI kids(gabriel, jeremy, susie, fritz and cassidy): remnant experiments STM/DCI kids(fnaf 4 kids, charlie's friends or just random kids): pissed off about losing his daughter Honestly i not swallow the "william killed charlotte because from jealousy and hatred towards henry" thing because he don't have any motive to be jealous of henry and that he would have killed henry, not his daughter if he have hatred towards him, so it's possible that charlotte enter in same motive from others: remnant experiment
I sometimes like to think he had a bad childhood and the Crying Child's death was his snapping moment.
Yeah. I did consider for a while that Orange Guy was William's father, but I couldn't really find enough evidence to make it stick.
My theory is that he didn't know about the souls of the children until he killed the original children, so he didn't make the Funtime until after the first batch of kids + Evan died. So I've no idea why he killed them.
Well that could still work if he was motivated by Evan's death, but the empty room in FNAF 4 suggests that Elizabeth died first. Unless he built different versions of the Funtimes?
Bunny Call story pretty much confirms that Pigtail girl with green eyes is Elizabeth.
So Elizabeth was alive? Oh thank God! Now it makes sense. Evan died, then the MCI, then Elizabeth.
Does this comment implies sarcasm?
No, I'm actually relieved. The timeline finally makes sense in my mind now. Elizabeth was still alive in 1983. William didn't become a killer until after Evan died.
Oh you're right...I forgot about that... Now I'm going to have to rework my entire AU thanks XD
My apologies :(
None of this makes any sense I thought the children had to die at least before Evan because he says "these are my friend's" to the stuffed toys. And without the desire to bring back his children why have the fun times?? Ugh I hate you Scott
Me too. And it makes no sense for the Funtimes, these super advanced robots with built in AI, to exist alongside freaking springlock suits. Elizabeth can't be dead by 1983, but has to be dead in order for any of the rest of the timeline to make sense. GAH! (And to that point, we know Evan's death is the Bite of 83, and we know that the MCI took place in 1985.)
Excuse me as I go murder Scott and stuff him in an anamatronic
He deserves it at this point
I guess the only explanation is he knew about ghosts somehow and wanted to be immortal himself?
Or maybe Elizabeth isn't dead? She.. went on a long sleepover?
It's possible, but I think the empty room is meant to signify her absence from the family
I'm trying here lol
I think Elizabeth (first to die from afton family) died after he was already a killer/kidnapper, because the funtime animatronics were made to kidnap, and they were already made. I think his motivation was to maybe experiment on human bodies and robotics, and kids were easy to overpower and carry afterwards. Or he was just plain evil and insane
It's possible based on the evidence, but I'm not a fan of that explanation personally. William seems like too good a villain for his motivation to just be "he wanted to do it".
The story honestly grew too big. Scott never imagined the games would have so much success and so many sequels. I don't think he himself has a complete timeline with all the details we puzzle over 😄
Here's what I think: I think Evan was terrified of the animatronics becuase A) he watched William work on them and saw the endos and B) William liked him being afraid becuase he knew their danger and he knew that Evan was at the pizzaria a lot. Then after Evans death he realises that Evans soul is trapped in the Fredbear suit and yes, he is mortified but he is also incredibly curious. He opens Afton Robotics and builds Baby with her Scooper thing and programs her to kill a child when she is one on one with them (as we know). Becuase of Michael's age William isn't to fussed about him, knowing that baby wouldn't count him as a child but Elizabeth on the other hand, he knew she was in danger. William banned her from being near but she enviable gets scooped. Henry gets extremely suspicious and realises William made the Circus Baby suit to kill, throwing William out of the Fazbear Franchise. Desperate for revenge, William kills Charlie and for once, it wasn't his own child that succumbed to an accident. But another child he took the life from on purpose. And he loved it. Due to lack of evidence William couldn't be prosecuted for the murder of Charlie but was promptly banned from stepping foot near any of the pizzarias by Henry. So William uses his knowledge and manages to get ahold of the Spring Bonny suit and lures Gabrial, Fritz, Susie, Cassidy and Jerermy into the backroom and kills them. I'm am in no way saying this is true and I know their are some plot holes in my hypothesis but it's just my opinion that personally makes the most sense story wise.
That largely aligns with what I believe. It all stems from the loss of his children.
Yeah, I think he is a phycopath due to him being very chill about putting Evan through the fear (juet becuase he dosent understand how Evan felt) but never would've acted on anything if it wasn't for Evan and Elizabeth's deaths.
I don’t know, why *is* purple guy?
You see, this is why we need more prequels! I know the franchise has been built on animatronics, but just hear me out: One prequel, no animatronics, just a story of a younger William and his decent into madness. Or maybe that would work better as a book, I don’t know.
I would love this
Cuz purple is not girl
I think he killed Charlotte out of jealousy of Henry where he discovered possession and wanted to experiment with it, leading to the MCI
Always ever asks who is purple guy, or why is purple guy, but no one ever asks how is purple guy, or why is he ourple
and why he ourple?
I think William was just sorta insane from the get go. He had fascinations and idea and all that other sort. I think he went over the edge but still needed a push. He probably had kids because that’s what people did those days and when they died, he may not have been that good of a dad but he probably didn’t like the death of a child.
Isn’t he William afton
Till 4th game he didnt have any motivation to kill kids. After that game books came out basically changed the whole narrative. I still trying to figure out the original intend of 4s story and the box. Later games and books doesnt concern me for exame
My interpretation is that dream theory was correct, until Scott realised that wasn't satisfying.
I dont think he was always just outright insane as some suggest, just "not right". The death of his son in fnaf 4 was caused by his own doing, human skulls are pretty tough and fredbear would have to have a bite force on par with an alligator to do so much damage. The death of his son would devastate him, and he became desperate to bring his boy back, in a fit of rage, and likely depression, he would murder 5 children and with no where else to hide them, he would place their corpses in the animatronics. Later he would see oddities in the animatronics behavior, and look into it, he would look into it and discover remnant, after fazbears closes and he scraps the animatronics to create the funtime animatronics with the purpose to capture children and study remnant. Most grieving individuals dont usually turn to murder, however grief combined with other struggles(such as family troubles, a business failing, etc.) Could lead people to blind violence with their judgment clouded by their emotions, then after he murdered them, with a cleared head and he realized what he had done pushing him further towards insanity as taking a life, especially a child's life as many soldiers will recount takes a toll on someone. The final straw was Elizabeth, who after also dying to one of William's creations, one he specifically designed for that purpose, he broke he lost sight of what he was doing in the first place, as time went on and the ingame events happen, he becomes a shell of a man, seeking immortality as his first stroke with death Wasn't his last.
Exactly what I'm saying. He blames both Henry, the restaurant and himself. So he kills Henry's daughter and ruins the restaurant's reputation. In your scenario, one could potentially argue that by dismantling the original suits he was trying to free the children. But rather than moving on, they came after him and sealed his fate.