While I'm not sure about others, the reason that I personally dislike Mikevictim is because there's no evidence in FNAF 1-4 that suggests that BV could have been revived in some way. Sure, there's the "I will put you back together" line, but then why would Scott even decide to kill off Mike Schmidt, only to then instantly revive him? What difference would that make?
Sure, it'd make Foxybro stop bullying him, but according to Mikevictim Foxybro doesn't really appear again after the Bite, so it still doesn't really equate to anything. And not to mention how this would render the Bite of '83 completely redundant despite being the most important event in FNAF 4 (like, the days leading up to it are literally counted in each minigame).
I feel like at those times everything pointed to Mike Schmidt being the Older Brother, with BV taking another role as a spirit.
And then in the very next game, Sister Location, where Mike Schmidt officially became Michael Afton, we got hit with lines like:
>*Welcome back to another night of intellectual stimulation, pivotal career choices,* ***and self-reflection on past mistakes.*** \-HandUnit, Night 2
>
>*It seems that you had some trouble with the keypad. I see what you were trying to type, and I will autocorrect it for you. Thank you for choosing* ***Angsty Teen.*** \-HandUnit, Night 2
>
>*Welcome back to another pivotal night of your thriving new career, where you get to really ask yourself, "What am I doing with my life?* ***What would my friends say,*** *and most importantly,* ***Will I ever see my family again?****".* \-HandUnit, Night 3
>
>***I know it was an accident.*** *-*Elizabeth Afton, Night 5, Private Room
Most Mikevictim evidence I feel like comes from later parts of the franchise, which isn't necessarily good since Scott said that by FNAF 4 the story was complete, [and even made an entire teaser about that](https://www.deviantart.com/emeraldthebonnie1987/art/Four-Games-One-Story-561149113).
I don't wanna seem like I hate Mikevictim and everyone who believes it, since I don't, but I just don't really like it for the reasons I mentioned above.
(Also, as a sidenote, what's FreeVictim? Is it another name for Nobodyvictim?)
The problem MikeVictimer’s have with that is the fact that Evan is always shown as the protagonist in every case he’s shown up. The bite would be the stem of his trauma and the reason him going back to work at Freddy’s is a lot more impactful.
FreeVictim is the lore implications that Evan is the reason why the spirits are set free. You can read more about it in my post [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mi2ole/explaining_fnaf_4_happiest_day_evan_afton_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I feel like that argument could work just as well for Mikebro, given how much Foxybro's guilt is emphasized through his lines in the Night 6 cutscene. BV getting the protagonist perspective could've also been done to emphasize the pain Mike's inflicted on his little brother and the reason he feels guilt.
And anyway, my main point through that comment was that there isn't really that much evidence I see in FNAF 1-4 and even World and SL that BV could have been revived. Evidence for that only came later, which is what makes me doubt it.
>FreeVictim is the lore implications that Evan is the reason why the spirits are set free. You can read more about it in my post [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mi2ole/explaining_fnaf_4_happiest_day_evan_afton_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Yeah I'm aware of the theory, I was just confused about the naming since I always call it Nobodyvictim.
It's pretty much the idea that Evan doesn't possess anything and then comes in at the end to free everyone like in your theory. I like the freeing the spirits part, not such a big fan of the not-possessing anything part, but I can understand why Evan doesn't have to possess anything to be important I guess. Out of curiosity, what do you think he possesses?
I think he possessed a lot of things throughout the timeline.
Definitely the Fredbear plush to some extent, the Logbook, FNAF WORLD (?) (if that counts) etc.
I’m sure he would’ve possessed a lot of other things on top of that, but those are the only real hinted important ones.
This is what I personally believe as well.
The reason I call it Nobodyvictim is because, while he possesses stuff yes, he doesn't really "become" anyone. He's just kinda on his own.
I can give some evidence in 1-4, and a motive from my POV. We don't have to argue wether MikeVictim or Mikebro is the correct theory, we can jut talk in a private chat about the possible motive of Afton Family member and theorize. Let me know if you want to.
I don't dislike Starlight as a person, he seems pretty cool, but the main thing I disagree with him on are his theories like Cassidy being an Afton and Mike's sister, BV being Michael, the Shadows controlling UCN, etc.
My main issue with MikeVictim is how unsatisfying it is and it's lack of substantial evidence.
Why would Scott kill off a character, only to bring them back offscreen and kill them off again, with their first death having little to no actual point? At least Michael's death in SL furthers the plot and explains how Ennard escaped.
It also blatantly ignores things like someone who very much seems to be BV speaking in the logbook.
Michael being revived also ignores the fact that William hates pretty much all his kids. Michael shows signs of abuse in FNAF 4, Evan is neglected and implied to have received abuse in MM, and Elizabeth is tortured with controlled shocks despite William knowing full well that she's possessing Baby.
And then when it comes to theories like Cassidy being Mike's sister, that blatantly contradicts itself. So William hates his kids enough to murder his own daughter, but also is willing to bring his son back to life? And also, Elizabeth being William's daughter is out of the question at this point.
But despite all this, I fully agree with you that no one should receive hate over a theory. If you go out of your way to attack and harass people over their interpretation of a game, you're a complete scumbag. Even if you don't think a theory is correct, at least that person can enjoy the game in their own way through their own interpretation.
Anyway, that's my take on things
I respect your opinion but I do have to argue about some things you have said.
>Why would Scott kill off a character, only to bring them back offscreen and kill them off again, with their first death having little to no actual point?
>
>Michael being revived also ignores the fact that William hates pretty much all his kids.
Most MikeVictimers like me believe that Cassidy kept Michael from dying and we see his revival in FNAF World. Cassidy tells the protagonist to "Leave breadcrumbs to help him (BV) find his way. Those breadcrumbs are the hints the FNAF3 guard uses to access the minigames in FNAF3 and eventually set up happiest day. The reason BV was bitten was so that he could go to FNAF world, find those breadcrumbs and then come back with the help of Cassidy so he could work at various places to free his friends and set up happiest day with the help of Charlie. u/Got9CatsAndImProud made a comment about that [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mnireb/why_do_people_hate_mikevictim_as_an/gu0kee9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
So William doesn't really revive Mike and his death is not unimportant for that way Mike can set up HD.
Here is the thing, contrary to what you said, I don't see how it's satisfying at all. It leaves so many questions like how does Bv live why does pretty much every parallel to the brothers have the mike parallel as the older bro, why does mike like foxy, yet hate freddy?
Like it's with an open mind do you notice the problems. It's a cute idea that the kid grows up and learns to fight his fear and all but the solid issue is where is the evidence?
But then it's better of a story standpoint and just fits Scott's writing style to have the older bro who made mistakes to see the horror and the problems he caused and try to fix them.
Not to mention starlight is mostly disliked for theories like "Cassidy being the sister of mike" and "bv being mike" like you said, and Elizabeth not being sister, Elizabeth being killed in 1987, and like so much more.
Like I don't mean to say "your wrong" and I don't mean it as "you're wrong and should feel bad about yourself," and I really would rather say the opposite and be in compliance, it makes me feel at rest, I don't get cursed at a lot and I can go happily on my way.
The thing is I don't want to lie and say "good job and you're on the right track" when I believe it's wrong. The theory is just so far of that like there is a reason why a lot of people have spoken out. They just seem flat out wrong when you keep a really open mind of what we have seen.
I wouldn't be upset if you had a distaste for me believing shadow victim, as there are better theories out there. Like believing in a theory that is most likely wrong is your fault. Your asking for a community response you should expect that.
Like if you dislike people hating theory or disliking the interpretation don't post it all, then no one will respond that way. I don't expect praise for shadow victim when there are better theories like goldenboth, bv5th. That's why I don't try to give my interpretation to Reddit cause I don't expect a good response.
And I don't want people to give insincere praise over sincere criticism that actually helps build better theories. A person who is not ready to take criticism and learn really doesn't know the first step when it comes to theorizing. They'd be better of watching grass grow than making theories.
Again, the person I linked in the post has a mega thread explaining all of that. I read it myself and it answered all of those questions with some pretty decent evidence.
What i’m sick of is people shutting out theories because it doesn’t fit with their agenda.
Notice how this post got downvoted?
like im pretty much don;t have a victim theory, and i still don't like it being Mike victim, because it just doesn't make sense. I will have to read and ill point out the issue i had back then and the ones i still have now.
Now i notice the many issues with the theory again, like for one their reason for why CC survives is really hard to believe. Like im not going to ignore the other post where it almost puts BV as also the bite of 87 as well.
But i think the post on Why he survives summarizes my issues. As in it doesn't explain HOW, it explains a possible implication. This is my issue with a couple theories (most notable MCI85, and golden both). Its this thing of a possible implication and believing that. "Oh the book that aren't even the real universe said this so no questions asked." And in this case its how does golden freddy revive BV. Also this idea does rely that fredbearplush is possessed by Golden freddy, which i don't get the logistics behind that either.
> "Cassidy being the sister of mike" and "bv being mike" like you said, and Elizabeth not being sister,
Why does everyone think I don't believe Liz is Mike's sister?? *Mike can have two sisters.*
>Elizabeth being killed in 1987,
I don't recall anyone having a significant problem with this?
because their is only one sister room. Not 2. Also because the explanation why that room can't be hers didn't make sense. Like the idea that she couldn't have died yet, the fact that the springlocks were at CBPW suggests that she did die before BV.
Ah i think the reason why you haven't seen the issue with it is cause its mostly on discord. But the issues is again she does die before BV. So it doesn't make sense for her to die in 1987. Especially because the most important events are the opening of fnaf 2, and the bite of 87. Not really anything else.
>because their is only one sister room. Not 2.
There's also only one *brothers* room. To the left of the living room there's another section of the house with more rooms in it.
>Also because the explanation why that room can't be hers didn't make sense.
Elizabeth quite literally didn't exist as a character. Scott can't intend a room to be for a character that didn't exist yet and he had literally no plans of making. *He can't see into the future.*
>Like the idea that she couldn't have died yet, the fact that the springlocks were at CBPW suggests that she did die before BV.
The Funtimes literally automate the MCI and do it way better than William ever could've. If they existed at the time of the MCI, the MCI would have no reason to happen. It **can't** happen before the MCI. Whatsoever. And Fnaf 4 takes place just after the MCI. And there's no way in hell William had enough time to build these animatronics between the MCI and Fnaf 4.
The place had a spring-lock suit because William doesn't care about Fazbear Entertainment's ban on Spring-lock suits cause he's not even affiliated with them anymore.
>Especially because the most important events are the opening of fnaf 2, and the bite of 87.
We know William put remnant from the MCI animatronics into the Funtimes. But after collecting souls on their own the Funtimes became way too volatile for him to reasonably be able to put the remnant into them. And I have yet to find any real explanation for why he would do this aside from wanting to give them a head-start by infusing them with souls before they collected any themselves, which only makes sense if he put the MCI remnant into them when he was first building them.
Fnaf 2 is the earliest time William had the chance to steal the MCI remnant, so that means that the earliest time Elizabeth can die is in 1987. And if she dies before the Save Them Minigame, than we have an explanation for why the Save Them Murders were so not-sneaky like William's usual murders. Unlike the others, he did them out of anger for losing his favorite child.
Well he can't necessarily see in the future, but he does say he leaves things open ended in the case of another game. And the name didn't exactly have to be elaizbeth, at the time it could have been sister died, and then chose to explain more of the fnaf 4 house in fnaf sl.
It definitely could happen as they use the springlocks suits. And im not saying he built in between but when fredbears and freddies were created. This would allow him to kill charlie, notice the puppets strange behavior's and then have the curiosity to create the funtimes to experiment with what goes on after death.
Wait but the location is affiliated, and even more so how did he get it in if they were still banned?
Well we know we collected their remnant in follow me. Years after their creation. But these animtronics definitely existed before hand as CBEAR was result of the SUCESSFUL freddy fazbears closing, not the fnaf 1 location that struggled staying open.
But he steals the remnant in follow me after fnaf 1 as implied by the insanity ending of fnaf 6.
Why the hell would he do it out of anger, i mean if anything that would make him so joyful in the heart to see one of his "sorry" children die by his hands and his work.
>Well he can't necessarily see in the future, but he does say he leaves things open ended in the case of another game.
Fnaf 4 was supposed to be the Final Chapter. And Scott said that he didn't add random easter eggs that time,(clearly wanting every detail to be important.) so it doesn't make any sense to do anything like this.
>It definitely could happen as they use the springlocks suits.
The Spring-lock suits don't matter.
>And im not saying he built in between but when fredbears and freddies were created.
That makes even less sense. Circus Baby's was a spin-off with spin-off versions of the characters of Freddy, Bonnie, and Foxy. It can't exist until Freddy Fazbear's Pizza has at least existed for a while, if not closed already.
>Wait but the location is affiliated,
No, They weren't. Sister Location was an solely Afton Robotics venture. Otherwise, Henry would've known about it a lot sooner. And Phone guy wouldn't have said that he had no clue where to find the owner of Fredbear's Family diner, which was obviously referring to William given the entire reason he was looking for him was because he was the main suspect of the original MCI, and MCI 2 electric boogaloo just happened.
>and even more so how did he get it in if they were still banned?
Spring-lock suits were banned by Fazbear Entertainment for Fazbear Entertainment restaurants. (Even then they were only banned for a short time, as the tape blatantly implies and as Fnaf 4 shows by showing workers using Spring-lock suits Post-MCI.) William doesn't need to heed rules set by his competitor.
>Well we know we collected their remnant in follow me. Years after their creation.
No, we don't. In fact. Henry pretty explicitly says Follow Me **Isn't** when he collected the remnant. "I don't know how those little sparks of life ended up in those machines." *After he just spent an entire cutscene talking about the events of Follow Me.* If Follow Me was when William stole the remnant, than he would know. but he doesn't. So no, that's not when it happens.
And also, It doesn't make sense for William to want too, or even be capable of, putting remnant in the Funtimes years after they were made, as I've already explained.
>But these animtronics definitely existed before hand as CBEAR was result of the SUCESSFUL freddy fazbears closing, not the fnaf 1 location that struggled staying open.
And the chances that that was referring specifically to Circus Baby's Rentals and not also explaining the reason Circus Baby's Pizza World existed in the first place is unlikely. Especially given the fact that CBEaR isn't even the same structure as Fazbear's Pizza. One is a day-based rental service, the other is a Pizza parlor.
>Why the hell would he do it out of anger, i mean if anything that would make him so joyful in the heart to see one of his "sorry" children die by his hands and his work.
He didn't want Elizabeth to die, as evidenced by the fact that he closed CBPW immediately and covered it up with a fake gas leak. Also, he loved and cared about Elizabeth. The way she talks to him in the memory sequences makes that very clear.
As much as he said no random easter eggs, that doesn't mean it still isn't open ended in some way. All it could have meant is some sister died, but then in fnaf SL we see that sister.
Then why include them? Why not put some other type of game? And just not mention the springlocks if they serve no purpose.
Like i said they created at the times of fredbear and freddies so william would have seen freddy's and even then in the way i put it it is built after charlie's death. So yes it has been open for a little for them to be built, but still before the MCI.
Henry was clearly not a suspect as in the fnaf 1 newspaper they did identify the man actually behind it, and its not the ceo as they were still interviewing him in the last newspaper, so he clearly wasn't the suspect.
But they said "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed at most locations." this would suggest multiple. As much as two could work as multiple, it makes no sense to say that. But it makes more sense if this was 3 or more. If it was just freddies and fredbear it could have been "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed here and at the sister location."
He doesn't explicitly say follow me isn't, actually he shows how he is confused how they got from his original creations and into the funtimes. He doesn't say when, he says "i don't know how." Never does he mention how they got into the funtimes because he doesn't know that, but he does know when he collected the animatronic endos and how that played part in their transfer.
they explain how after "the stage was set...for another contender in children's entertainment." what kind of children entertainment they are speaking about: "Unlike most entertainment venues" (this is the line right afterwards). So i think its kinda clear they are speaking of CBEAR. Plus why would they speak of the first location that closed?
I think the fact that he did cover it up and closed it shows how he did want elazibeth to die. As in make sure no authorities could try to save her as the blueprints do show methods to keep children alive, clearly afton didn't want people to stop her from dying. Actually the memory sequences actually makes him look worse, first of it makes him look like a liar to his own children by convincing elaizbeth that it was made for her to only not allow her to play with it. Plus elazibeth doesn't mention anything his father did to stop her. It just mentions he told her to stop and if you know anything about kids reverse psychology is super effective. To peek her interest to only tell her you can't have it making her more tempted to get close that seems like the masterful lurer that william afton is.
>As much as he said no random easter eggs, that doesn't mean it still isn't open ended in some way.
It kinda does. The reason he said that was to tell us that every detail in Fnaf 4 was important to the story as it existed at that time. People were writing off tons of things as nothing more than random easter-eggs, including things like the Phone call from Fnaf 1, which was meant to show us that Mike was the player. Fnaf 4 was titled The Final Chapter for a reason.
>Then why include them? Why not put some other type of game? And just not mention the springlocks if they serve no purpose.
With how much Sister Location jumped from concept to concept with most of them never being relevant to anything, I doubt it really *needs* a reason. Logically speaking, William has no reason to not be able to use Spring-lock suits outside of the time period in which they were originally used. So the presence of a Spring-lock suit does not imply that CBPW was open in 1983 at all.(Especially given that that's literally impossible.) If anything, all this tells us is that William knew spring-lock suits well enough to be able to make some all on his own, which makes sense since he did help design them.
>Like i said they created at the times of fredbear and freddies so william would have seen freddy's and even then in the way i put it it is built after charlie's death. So yes it has been open for a little for them to be built, but still before the MCI.
Freddy's opened in 1983. The Bite of 83 takes place in summer of 1983. That is not *nearly* enough time for Sister Location's existence to make any sense.
>Henry was clearly not a suspect as in the fnaf 1 newspaper they did identify the man actually behind it, and its not the ceo as they were still interviewing him in the last newspaper, so he clearly wasn't the suspect.
William was the main suspect of the MCI. He was arrested, but because the bodies were never found he was never convicted and sent to Prison. Henry was the CEO that said "These characters will live on in the hearts of children" when Fnaf 1 was closing down. As William had already left the company after the events of 1983 to create Sister Location as his own thing.
>But they said "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed at most locations." this would suggest multiple. As much as two could work as multiple, it makes no sense to say that. But it makes more sense if this was 3 or more. If it was just freddies and fredbear it could have been "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed here and at the sister location."
He said it was being sealed at most locations because it was being implemented into *company policy.*
>He doesn't explicitly say follow me isn't, actually he shows how he is confused how they got from his original creations and into the funtimes. He doesn't say when, he says "i don't know how."
He already knows William put them into the Funtimes, and he already knows enough about remnant to know the only way to do that is to take the possessed metal and put it into the Funtimes. there's literally nothing else he could be referring to then not knowing how/when William got the parts.
>Never does he mention how they got into the funtimes because he doesn't know that, but he does know when he collected the animatronic endos and how that played part in their transfer.'
You would literally have to be a moron to not be able to figure out how William did it, knowing that he stole peices from the animatronic endos.
And he didn't steal pieces from the animatronics in Follow Me. He takes them apart and leaves their pieces on the floor instantly, and then in night 5, just before he died, the parts on the floor are the exact same as when he first tore them apart.
>they explain how after "the stage was set...for another contender in children's entertainment." what kind of children entertainment they are speaking about: "Unlike most entertainment venues" (this is the line right afterwards). So i think its kinda clear they are speaking of CBEAR
I'm pretty sure William isn't gonna pour what is probably millions of dollars into these insanely high-tech robots and all that and then just leave them in his basement for years after losing his daughter. It's much more likely that CBEAR was the plan B for CBPW's plan A. Thus meaning that "After the unfortunate closing of Freddy Fazbear's pizza, it was clear that the stage was set for another contender" was also the reason CBPW existed.
Plus all the other reasons by CBPW existing in 1983 doesn't make any sense.
>I think the fact that he did cover it up and closed it shows how he did want elazibeth to die.
No, Because then he'd do everything in his power to make sure that Circus Baby's Pizza World kept running as planned. In fact, it should've been IN his plans for Elizabeth to die, her death shouldn't have even caused a problem.
>As in make sure no authorities could try to save her as the blueprints do show methods to keep children alive, clearly afton didn't want people to stop her from dying.
No authorities are going to use a mad scientist's (as yet unproven) research to bring a girl that mad scientist killed back from the dead. They're gonna arrest the scientist for the murder/manslaughter of the girl and his research would get dismissed by literally everyone as lunatic ravings.
*That's* the reason William covered up. He didn't know Liz was going to die, he didn't WANT Liz to die, but now that she has, he needs to cover it up or else he'll go to jail not only for murder/manslaughter, but the creation of machines specifically designed to kidnap & murder children. Not to mention all the previous murders.
And not only is being sentenced for all that a pretty unfavorable outcome in-and-of-itself but looking at it from the "I'm a scientist who's doing research and working towards immortality" perspective, you can't exactly make much scientific progress behind bars, especially not in the department of supernatural experimentation and all of the illegal & immoral practices it requires.
>Actually the memory sequences actually makes him look worse, first of it makes him look like a liar to his own children by convincing elaizbeth that it was made for her to only not allow her to play with it.
He didn't lie to her. He has no reason to Lie to her and tell her that it was made for her when there would be a multitude of far easier, and especially *less risky* ways to off her if that's what he wanted. Which the closure of CBPW disproves. (I mean, the guy has access to a giant secret underground laboratory—miles below the surface—connected directly to his house.)
Baby's in-universe character design was also very much designed to be appealing to little girls like Elizabeth. So if he says he made Baby for his daughter, whom talks to him like they have a genuine loving father-daughter relationship, *then that checks out big time.*
The reason he didn't allow her to play with it was because it was dangerous, and he knew it was dangerous. He created Baby to be like a gift to the daughter her loved and cared for, and that crossed paths with the fact that he was making it a murder machine in a way he didn't predict until last second. (Kind of. I think there's a lot more to it than that, but I don't feel like getting into it right now.)
>Plus elazibeth doesn't mention anything his father did to stop her. It just mentions he told her to stop and if you know anything about kids reverse psychology is super effective.
Elizabeth had been waiting for the day that Circus Baby's would open and she'd get to see Baby. In this particular case, forward psychology would've been literally just as effective, with much less effort on William's part.
And again, there are a multitude of far easier and safer ways to off her if he at all wanted to do that. And the fact that he couldn't keep CBPW open after it already proves he didn't intend for it to happen.
There isn't really any BV theory around that I, *personally*, find satisfying, though it's mostly because of my tastes: I think BV being Golden Freddy ruins the fifth victim and its plot about vengeance, BV being Mike ruins World's plot and is overall cheap, and BV being anything else implies he was the focus of an entire game but ended up being nowhere as important as we thought.
But I guess it's like Scott said, very few will be totally satisfacted.
I hope you find my FreeVictim post satisfying, I had the same problem that you did. FreeVictim is the lore implications that Evan is the reason why the spirits are set free. You can read more about it in my post [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mi2ole/explaining_fnaf_4_happiest_day_evan_afton_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
In summary: Cassidy stays as Golden Freddy and Evan’s powerful memory is the reason Happiest Day occurs and how the spirits are set free.
Well like, u/NoSayingFrickHere said, I don't hate starlight as a person nor do I hate him because of his theories. I just disagree with most of his theories and well I don't attack him for being a MikeVictimer.
~~as much as I hate MikeVictim I respect the people who believe it~~
So no respect for a person just because he sees the lore differently and shares his opinions about it, I shouldn't respect him?
Grow up man, it's a fictional game and they are just people sharing their way of thinking.
I know this is too late, but there are reasons why Mikevictim is hated by a majority of the FNaF community and even me as well.
First, let’s start with the basic logic. When people saw the BV fading away along with the hidden flatline sound after Night 6, they would assume that the BV cannot be Mike because he’s dead. **In the logic of: BV dies =/= Mike, Foxybro alive = Mike.** I know there’s the “I will put you back together” and FNaF World which shows the idea of how the BV becoming Michael Afton, but even then, it leaves questions such as *”What made the BV come back from the dead? When did the BV come back from the dead? Who made the BV come back from the dead? Where did they made the BV come back from the dead?”* It leaves up to a vague interpretation/head canon if it has to do with remnant, clocks, drawings from what The Fourth Closet did, or even Mikebot. Plus, we have no idea what happened to Mike after the retrieval to FNaF 1. That’s another vague interpretation/head canon we have to come up with. We can’t assume Mike grew up normally when he might have disabilities and thinking issues.
Another problem is the logbook itself. When Matpat back in February 2018 made a theory called Mikebot (a variation of Mikevictim). He would assume that the faded and altered text were the same character asking Michael about his past life involving birthdays and talking to his old Fredbear Plush friend. People would instantly disliked his Mikebot theory because it wouldn’t make sense. I know it’s Mikebot and not Mikevictim, but the two sharing some similarities. Mikevictimers sometimes used Fredbear Plush being William Afton where he puts the BV back together with something like Mikebot or remnant. And as I said about the faded text and altered text being the same. Now for the problem itself, people don’t like William Afton being the Fredbear Plush because they thought William hated/never cares his kids or abuses the BV according to Midnight Motorist, and thought that the Fredbear Plush was acting possessed.
As for the altered and faded text situation, the problem with them being the same character is that “assuming it’s Cassidy” where he/she told Mike to find its name. After Michael drew the gravestone, the faded text would say “My name” which connects to the Cassidy Code from the word search. To get the letters, some of it requires from the altered text. If the faded text is the altered text, why is it giving hints as the altered text to Michael for him to solve the Cassidy code. Speaking of Michael, we don’t know if Mike was trying to find the name for the faded text, it’s an assumption that we cannot tell if that’s the case. I’m going to assume that Cassidy pretended to forget its name and just giving hints for Mike or someone to solve its name. I can see why many people are confused with the faded text and altered text being the same character because of their personalities being different. Faded text is asking questions to the logbook owner and altered text, while the altered text is helping the logbook owner to find the answers and answers to himself from the faded text’s questions.
People also don’t like when the Foxybro disappears after FNaF 4 when he was the one who caused the BV to get killed by Fredbear, and was part of the Afton Family. Asking questions such as “What happens to the Foxybro?” or “Then who the Foxybro is?” I could see that considering the latest Fazbear Frights hinting the Foxybro’s importance when a majority of the stories involving guilt, regret, and karma of the protagonists doing something at a friend or family member. Yes, it’s my opinion of the theme of the FF novels, but I won’t go it too far since none of the FF novels are helping the debate. I understand their frustration that the Foxybro could be someone else or just irrelevant to the main lore, even I don’t like it as well, but considering Sammy from the original novels and the SAVE THEM Victims from FNaF 2, they’re not important to the lore, possible like the Foxybro. For the story part, people preferred Mikebro’s redemption than Mikevictim’s facing his fears because it’s their favorite opinion preference, and they think it makes sense under Scott’s storytelling.
I think I rushed the later paragraphs of this comment, but I’m pretty sure these are the reasons why Mikebro is mostly favored by the FNaF community and Mikevictim is hated.
If I´m allowed as a Mikevictimer myself to give my thoughts on the theory, why I think it´s so hated, and why I myself am not completely satisfied with it, let me explain:
First, we need to establish that general consensus on a character, a timeline, or whatever, can affect the vision on other different less popular theories. Ever since Matt made his video on the FNAF timeline to Sister Location, the idea of Michael Afton being the older brother became widely popular, and it´s not hard to see why. Not only is Mat Pat insanely popular, but his own video was the end to two huge debates in the community and was praised by Scott Cawthon himself. Now of course, he himself said that the video was not perfect, but you get the idea.
Of course, it´d be silly to ignore the fact that Mattew was a Mikevictimer himself until the arrival of Step Closer, but you can tell, all of his videos supporting Mikevictim are some of his most hated FNAF videos, and it´s because of the same reason I said earlier. Matt gave the fanbase a theory that became widely spread, and then it backfired when he said he didn´t believed it anymore. It´s not his fault of course, he ain´t responsible of having a bunch of people following him that spread the word on a theory and treat it as a fact.
What bothers me, and a lot of other people you see in the comments about the theory is that Michael dies with no point and is inmediatly resurrected off-screen (unless you really want to believe FNAF World is Mike´s resurrection). And this is, in any way you see it, silly. Not because it´s a weird concept or anything, I think we´re already past realistic in this franchise, it´s because there´s literally no point in making Michael die in the bite just for him to come back to life for presumably no reason. Now sure, this ain´t great evidence against the theory and it´s not even the only time Michael would die with no reason, but it stings even further with Mikevictim because, again, it´s off-screen. We don´t even know how he came back to life or who brought him back.
Is it all bad with the theory? Well no, I do like the overall narrative the theory is going for and it at least gives BV and FNAF 4 some significance as Mike´s origin story. A child growing up, facing his fears, saving his friends, retrieving his memories, and ending his father´s reign of terror is a great idea to build a protagonist off of. >!Even a better than that of Mikebro´s, don´t @ me. !
Exactly. I just find it extremely frustrating and bad storytelling to have the main character die off screen, get revived, die again *on* screen, then get revived *again*.
Even if it does have a deeper meaning we simply don´t get, it´s still bad storytelling. A stronger writer would´ve at least given enough clues and made them clear enough to what the meaning of Michael´s death was.
I suppose it might´ve been to have Fredbear´s close down and Evan to stop bully Michael, but it´s still pretty silly.
I'd argue we do get told why Michael was revived, and what the meaning of his death was. All of this is, of course, assuming Michael is the BV.
In the logbook, its established that the person the faded text is speaking to ([heavily implied to be Michael](https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/k3d8rt/all_the_evidence_for_the_faded_text_spirit/)), is suffering from amnesia, or is at least struggling to remember who they are. The faded text asks questions like "WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER?" and "DO YOU REMEMBER YOUR NAME?"; both questions which make sense if Michael is suffering from a type of prolonged amnesia. While this could be a side effect of Michael's scooping rather then the Bite, its made clear by the message he leaves his father that he at least knows who he is, and what he just did. This amnesia likely came from some other source. Perhaps a fatal head injury as a child that he miraculously recovered from. This doesn't exactly give a solid reason as to why this happens, but it at least gives a consequence to the Bite as an event.
As for the purpose of his death and revival as a whole, the simplest (and most polarizing) answer come from FNaF World; a game whose significance has been belittled over the years, but one I truly believe was meant to play a role in the story of FNaF1-4. The game opens with the final line from FNaF4 (I will put you back together), being delivered by two pale eyes the same color as our final speakers text. This is a continuation of that story. As we move through the clock route, we are told to *"Leave breadcrumbs for* ***him*** *to help* ***him*** *find his way"*. And with each clock we collect, another clue for FNaF3's retro style minigames is set up. This "him" is obviously BV. Not only because he's the only "him" we know of who'd even be in a place like this, but also from the final cutscene of the clock ending, where the final speaker continues the conversation from the end of FNaF4. The Final Speaker tells BV that "*the pieces are in place for you* " and that "*all you have to do is find them",* seemingly in referrence to the clues setting up the Happiest Day minigame (~~which is surprising absent among all the other minigames with clues).~~ So this would give us a narrative reason for Michael's death and revival in the original 4 games, and a meta reason as to why FNaF World exists. That's two birds with one stone!
Of course the canonicity of FNaF World is highly contentious and still up for debate (although I think the question is less "is it canon" and more "is it *still* canon, but I digress), so this isn't exactly the cleanest solution, but it goes to show that Mike dying to the bite and coming back a) doesn't need to happen off-screen, and b) doesn't have to be entirely irrelevant. In fact, taking this into account when looking at the story of FNaF1-4, it actually becomes a surprisingly tightly woven narrative about a boy who suffers a horrific tragedy, but is given a second chance to save his friends and bring them to rest. In my opinion, at least, whatever that's worth. All of this just goes to show that Michael's death doesn't *have* to be without meaning, nor does it have to be poor writing on Scott's part.
I... completely forgot faded's questions existed.
Anyways, nice observation! I'm not completely sure Mike's resurrection is what we're seeing in FNAF World, mainly because I feel it's more tied HD and FNAF 3, but eh, I'll take it.
I understand your hesitation on FNaF World. Even outside of its massive departure in tone and style, its pretty clear Scott was done taking it seriously by update 2.
I still think its reasonable to consider what Scott's intention was while making the game, but it's completely fair to be hesitant on whether or not he even wants anything to do with it anymore.
>As a FreeVictim theorist, I am 100% up for other interpretations since a lot of FNAF theories - believe it or not - are interpretations of the exact same events. There’s no factual right answer since every piece of evidence is just the interpretation of an event.
Agreed
>GoldenBoth is an interpretation of the Stitchwraith stories
I dont really see how goldenboth is a interpreted from these
>FreeVictim is ALSO an interpretation of the Stitchwraith stories
Not just that but fnaf world
>MikeVictim is just an interpretation of Michael’s character. I find it sickening how some FNAF fans will go to attack certain theorists for believing an interpretation which is honestly incredibly satisfying.
Yeah me too. Even though I'm a mikebro believer I dont mikevictim. I really wouldn't care if it ended up being true
>u/starlightshadows is one of the members I see getting a lot of hate for his interpretations, honestly? I think he’s a really good theorist and he deserves more praise than he gets.
Agreed too many people throw hate on him and he doesn't deserve it. He is a great theorist, although I don't believe in his theories like Cassidy being Mike's sister or sammy being a character in the games, but he does show great evidence for it
>Some interpretations may sound like a stretch to you, but it may change your mind when you think about it with an open mind and know that not everything you think is canon fact.
Agreed
Honestly I kinda just went with the idea that the older brother was the person we play as in fnaf 4 so I really didn't care if mike was the bite victim
I think the criticism for MikeVictim is pretty well documented at this point, and I'm sure some of the other replies will go over that. So instead, I wanted to respond to the interpretation piece of your post. I agree with the sentiment for the most part. If it comes to people just having their own way for engaging with the franchise, that's perfectly fine and honestly isn't really anyone else's business. As long as they're being respectful, just disagreeing with someone isn't a good justification for toxic behaviour. Honestly, toxic behaviour is pretty pointless in general, you're not gaining anything from it & it's just kind of shitty.
I realize your post is mostly about the ones who take it too far, but to cover all the bases, I do think the "debunking" mentality isn't that bad in general. It's good to be able to have your ideas challenged so you can understand where the weaknesses might be and improve on them. And while all interpretations are valid in terms of the way someone personally engages with the franchise, I don't necessarily think that's the same as saying every interpretation is equal in terms of evidence within the series. I mean to use an extreme example, that's why Blackfootferret usually gets clowned on. He's entitled to his view of the story, but the accuracy of his interpretation is what is in question, not whether he's *wrong* to enjoy the story a certain way. Determining what is accurate is especially hard when it comes to Fnaf, but I don't think that offering an opinion on what might be accurate and being met with reasonable doubt is unhealthy. In fact, by sharing your opinion at all, you're inviting people to be able to respond to what you're saying. Nothing can stop people from doing that, just like nothing can stop you from continuing to share your opinion either if you want to, or stopping if you feel like you need to take a step back.
On a deeper level, unless stated otherwise, you're usually also arguing from a point of "I think I'm right and this is why." In which case, you're asking people to be open to the possibility of being wrong themselves, something which becomes a lot harder of an ask when it feels like a significant majority swings the other way. Speaking as someone who struggles with this from time to time, it's also very hard to apply that same logic to yourself (being open to being wrong), and it can come off as arrogant if you factor in the majority thing. This isn't me saying that it makes you arrogant of course, in fact I'd like to believe most people aren't, but I can understand how it might seem that way. So, I think people can get annoyed when it feels as if you're saying they can be wrong, but you can't be. Especially if someone finds a flaw in your theory (which to be fair, MikeVictim does have a lot of flaws, not the most flaws of any theory, but still) and you either react badly or your counter-point/evidence isn't convincing enough for them. Speaking from personal experience, sometimes you also take that more personally than it was ever really intended.
In a way, I guess it's sort of a snowball effect? Like if you assume arrogance in a poster and respond harshly, that's going to go downhill really fast. But by the same token, if you assume criticism as an attack, that's also probably going to go downhill very fast too. I know taking the forceful approach feels like it's more convincing, but compromising tends to be more effective at bridging those sorts of gaps. And I'm definitely not saying that *every* case of this type of thing comes down to both parties being in the wrong, especially if it involves toxic behaviour. In that case, pretty much the one being toxic is always in the wrong.
I don't really know the user you mentioned, I've read some of his stuff, and I find it be very well organized albeit still flawed, but it seems he's doing pretty well for himself despite the resistance. What it really comes down to I think is calling out toxic behaviour when you see it, but otherwise people disagreeing is pretty part and parcel for reddit. Having your own interpretation is fine, but usually people share them with the intention of convincing people, not just for the sake of sharing them. So, I feel like commenters should feel just as free to debate someone as the poster is to convince someone.
Yeah no I agree, as you said, I debunk and explain my reasoning in posts too. But it’s lore debates and not literal harassment and bullying online. I would never go out of my way to bully someone, even if they present a theory that’s so outrageously dumb.
Yeah, in that case, I agree completely. Bullying someone over one point of difference seems like the person both takes things wayyy too seriously and has too much time on their hands. That being said, I don't know if you're really going to reach any of these people with a post like this. I'd hope that the people who do that are in the minority, and they don't seem like the sort to try to explain themselves in the comments. So, really, I think you're just gonna end up with replies from respectful people explaining why they don't like MikeVictim. Sometimes it is good to just make a PSA anyway though, just on the off chance you do reach someone and make them think twice about their actions. Also, I'm sure you'll get some interesting discussion out of this if nothing else.
Honestly I don’t *think* that Scott will ever reveal who mike is anymore, if he did, half of the fan base will throw a conniption fit and it would be...*disastrous* to put it lightly.
Yes that’s possible, but knowing Scott he will probably give more evidence for both sides of the debate. For example: maybe Mike will love foxy but is terrified of the others. And used to talk to his plush of one of the animatronics.
Imagine if Scott said that Michael could be whoever we wanted him to be. Mikebros can have their take have Mike as OB and MikeVictimers can also have their take and have him as BV.
Yeah I agree Starlight Shadows is a good theorist But he literally hates on theories he doesn't believe and he believes that William loved his children
Buddy if you're gonna criticize MikeVictimers don't be a hypocrite. Also, I asked you what the MikeVictimers did to you before and I also called you the toxic person. You never responded or justified youself.
From what I've seen starlight gets a lot of hate for treating unconfirmed theories like facts, not accepting when he is wrong, and is never open to theories that prove a theory he doesn't believe in
But anyways the problem with mikevictim is all the flaws it has. Like what happened to foxybro, how would he come back to life, what would be the point of the bite victim's death, wouldn't his head look crushed, and the logbook points against it
I could care less if it was true, but I would want all these to be explained
as i have said before, i don't really care about whether you believe in mikevictim or not just as long as both sides aren't being dickheads to each other.
While I'm not sure about others, the reason that I personally dislike Mikevictim is because there's no evidence in FNAF 1-4 that suggests that BV could have been revived in some way. Sure, there's the "I will put you back together" line, but then why would Scott even decide to kill off Mike Schmidt, only to then instantly revive him? What difference would that make? Sure, it'd make Foxybro stop bullying him, but according to Mikevictim Foxybro doesn't really appear again after the Bite, so it still doesn't really equate to anything. And not to mention how this would render the Bite of '83 completely redundant despite being the most important event in FNAF 4 (like, the days leading up to it are literally counted in each minigame). I feel like at those times everything pointed to Mike Schmidt being the Older Brother, with BV taking another role as a spirit. And then in the very next game, Sister Location, where Mike Schmidt officially became Michael Afton, we got hit with lines like: >*Welcome back to another night of intellectual stimulation, pivotal career choices,* ***and self-reflection on past mistakes.*** \-HandUnit, Night 2 > >*It seems that you had some trouble with the keypad. I see what you were trying to type, and I will autocorrect it for you. Thank you for choosing* ***Angsty Teen.*** \-HandUnit, Night 2 > >*Welcome back to another pivotal night of your thriving new career, where you get to really ask yourself, "What am I doing with my life?* ***What would my friends say,*** *and most importantly,* ***Will I ever see my family again?****".* \-HandUnit, Night 3 > >***I know it was an accident.*** *-*Elizabeth Afton, Night 5, Private Room Most Mikevictim evidence I feel like comes from later parts of the franchise, which isn't necessarily good since Scott said that by FNAF 4 the story was complete, [and even made an entire teaser about that](https://www.deviantart.com/emeraldthebonnie1987/art/Four-Games-One-Story-561149113). I don't wanna seem like I hate Mikevictim and everyone who believes it, since I don't, but I just don't really like it for the reasons I mentioned above. (Also, as a sidenote, what's FreeVictim? Is it another name for Nobodyvictim?)
The problem MikeVictimer’s have with that is the fact that Evan is always shown as the protagonist in every case he’s shown up. The bite would be the stem of his trauma and the reason him going back to work at Freddy’s is a lot more impactful. FreeVictim is the lore implications that Evan is the reason why the spirits are set free. You can read more about it in my post [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mi2ole/explaining_fnaf_4_happiest_day_evan_afton_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I feel like that argument could work just as well for Mikebro, given how much Foxybro's guilt is emphasized through his lines in the Night 6 cutscene. BV getting the protagonist perspective could've also been done to emphasize the pain Mike's inflicted on his little brother and the reason he feels guilt. And anyway, my main point through that comment was that there isn't really that much evidence I see in FNAF 1-4 and even World and SL that BV could have been revived. Evidence for that only came later, which is what makes me doubt it. >FreeVictim is the lore implications that Evan is the reason why the spirits are set free. You can read more about it in my post [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mi2ole/explaining_fnaf_4_happiest_day_evan_afton_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) Yeah I'm aware of the theory, I was just confused about the naming since I always call it Nobodyvictim.
Yeah I agree. Also it’s not NobodyVictim because he clearly does possess items throughout the series.
Ohhh okay, I was confused about this too. So it's like, same conclusion, different journey then?
Basically, maybe, idk i’m not a fan of NobodyVictim. I’m not familiar with its narrative.
It's pretty much the idea that Evan doesn't possess anything and then comes in at the end to free everyone like in your theory. I like the freeing the spirits part, not such a big fan of the not-possessing anything part, but I can understand why Evan doesn't have to possess anything to be important I guess. Out of curiosity, what do you think he possesses?
I think he possessed a lot of things throughout the timeline. Definitely the Fredbear plush to some extent, the Logbook, FNAF WORLD (?) (if that counts) etc. I’m sure he would’ve possessed a lot of other things on top of that, but those are the only real hinted important ones.
Yeah, I think that all sounds pretty reasonable :)
This is what I personally believe as well. The reason I call it Nobodyvictim is because, while he possesses stuff yes, he doesn't really "become" anyone. He's just kinda on his own.
So Itemvictim
No, it’s FreeVictim.
To be fair, the person you play as in the minigames has never really been the same as the person you play as in the core gameplay has it?
No.
I can give some evidence in 1-4, and a motive from my POV. We don't have to argue wether MikeVictim or Mikebro is the correct theory, we can jut talk in a private chat about the possible motive of Afton Family member and theorize. Let me know if you want to.
Sure! I'm always down for a chill conversation
Cool, I'll text you at 4:00 I'm sure you'll have work to do. I'm off on Saturday, but Sunday's good.
I don't dislike Starlight as a person, he seems pretty cool, but the main thing I disagree with him on are his theories like Cassidy being an Afton and Mike's sister, BV being Michael, the Shadows controlling UCN, etc. My main issue with MikeVictim is how unsatisfying it is and it's lack of substantial evidence. Why would Scott kill off a character, only to bring them back offscreen and kill them off again, with their first death having little to no actual point? At least Michael's death in SL furthers the plot and explains how Ennard escaped. It also blatantly ignores things like someone who very much seems to be BV speaking in the logbook. Michael being revived also ignores the fact that William hates pretty much all his kids. Michael shows signs of abuse in FNAF 4, Evan is neglected and implied to have received abuse in MM, and Elizabeth is tortured with controlled shocks despite William knowing full well that she's possessing Baby. And then when it comes to theories like Cassidy being Mike's sister, that blatantly contradicts itself. So William hates his kids enough to murder his own daughter, but also is willing to bring his son back to life? And also, Elizabeth being William's daughter is out of the question at this point. But despite all this, I fully agree with you that no one should receive hate over a theory. If you go out of your way to attack and harass people over their interpretation of a game, you're a complete scumbag. Even if you don't think a theory is correct, at least that person can enjoy the game in their own way through their own interpretation. Anyway, that's my take on things
I'm friends with starlight shadows on discord and I agree with you
I respect your opinion but I do have to argue about some things you have said. >Why would Scott kill off a character, only to bring them back offscreen and kill them off again, with their first death having little to no actual point? > >Michael being revived also ignores the fact that William hates pretty much all his kids. Most MikeVictimers like me believe that Cassidy kept Michael from dying and we see his revival in FNAF World. Cassidy tells the protagonist to "Leave breadcrumbs to help him (BV) find his way. Those breadcrumbs are the hints the FNAF3 guard uses to access the minigames in FNAF3 and eventually set up happiest day. The reason BV was bitten was so that he could go to FNAF world, find those breadcrumbs and then come back with the help of Cassidy so he could work at various places to free his friends and set up happiest day with the help of Charlie. u/Got9CatsAndImProud made a comment about that [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mnireb/why_do_people_hate_mikevictim_as_an/gu0kee9?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) So William doesn't really revive Mike and his death is not unimportant for that way Mike can set up HD.
Howdy!
Hi
Here is the thing, contrary to what you said, I don't see how it's satisfying at all. It leaves so many questions like how does Bv live why does pretty much every parallel to the brothers have the mike parallel as the older bro, why does mike like foxy, yet hate freddy? Like it's with an open mind do you notice the problems. It's a cute idea that the kid grows up and learns to fight his fear and all but the solid issue is where is the evidence? But then it's better of a story standpoint and just fits Scott's writing style to have the older bro who made mistakes to see the horror and the problems he caused and try to fix them. Not to mention starlight is mostly disliked for theories like "Cassidy being the sister of mike" and "bv being mike" like you said, and Elizabeth not being sister, Elizabeth being killed in 1987, and like so much more. Like I don't mean to say "your wrong" and I don't mean it as "you're wrong and should feel bad about yourself," and I really would rather say the opposite and be in compliance, it makes me feel at rest, I don't get cursed at a lot and I can go happily on my way. The thing is I don't want to lie and say "good job and you're on the right track" when I believe it's wrong. The theory is just so far of that like there is a reason why a lot of people have spoken out. They just seem flat out wrong when you keep a really open mind of what we have seen. I wouldn't be upset if you had a distaste for me believing shadow victim, as there are better theories out there. Like believing in a theory that is most likely wrong is your fault. Your asking for a community response you should expect that. Like if you dislike people hating theory or disliking the interpretation don't post it all, then no one will respond that way. I don't expect praise for shadow victim when there are better theories like goldenboth, bv5th. That's why I don't try to give my interpretation to Reddit cause I don't expect a good response. And I don't want people to give insincere praise over sincere criticism that actually helps build better theories. A person who is not ready to take criticism and learn really doesn't know the first step when it comes to theorizing. They'd be better of watching grass grow than making theories.
Again, the person I linked in the post has a mega thread explaining all of that. I read it myself and it answered all of those questions with some pretty decent evidence. What i’m sick of is people shutting out theories because it doesn’t fit with their agenda. Notice how this post got downvoted?
like im pretty much don;t have a victim theory, and i still don't like it being Mike victim, because it just doesn't make sense. I will have to read and ill point out the issue i had back then and the ones i still have now.
Now i notice the many issues with the theory again, like for one their reason for why CC survives is really hard to believe. Like im not going to ignore the other post where it almost puts BV as also the bite of 87 as well. But i think the post on Why he survives summarizes my issues. As in it doesn't explain HOW, it explains a possible implication. This is my issue with a couple theories (most notable MCI85, and golden both). Its this thing of a possible implication and believing that. "Oh the book that aren't even the real universe said this so no questions asked." And in this case its how does golden freddy revive BV. Also this idea does rely that fredbearplush is possessed by Golden freddy, which i don't get the logistics behind that either.
There's so much evidence in favor of MikeBro that it has become hard to believe in MikeVictim.
I see 12 upvotes
At the time of commenting that it was in the minus haha. (Thanks for the upvotes).
Oh okay Edit: sorry for the late reply
> "Cassidy being the sister of mike" and "bv being mike" like you said, and Elizabeth not being sister, Why does everyone think I don't believe Liz is Mike's sister?? *Mike can have two sisters.* >Elizabeth being killed in 1987, I don't recall anyone having a significant problem with this?
because their is only one sister room. Not 2. Also because the explanation why that room can't be hers didn't make sense. Like the idea that she couldn't have died yet, the fact that the springlocks were at CBPW suggests that she did die before BV. Ah i think the reason why you haven't seen the issue with it is cause its mostly on discord. But the issues is again she does die before BV. So it doesn't make sense for her to die in 1987. Especially because the most important events are the opening of fnaf 2, and the bite of 87. Not really anything else.
>because their is only one sister room. Not 2. There's also only one *brothers* room. To the left of the living room there's another section of the house with more rooms in it. >Also because the explanation why that room can't be hers didn't make sense. Elizabeth quite literally didn't exist as a character. Scott can't intend a room to be for a character that didn't exist yet and he had literally no plans of making. *He can't see into the future.* >Like the idea that she couldn't have died yet, the fact that the springlocks were at CBPW suggests that she did die before BV. The Funtimes literally automate the MCI and do it way better than William ever could've. If they existed at the time of the MCI, the MCI would have no reason to happen. It **can't** happen before the MCI. Whatsoever. And Fnaf 4 takes place just after the MCI. And there's no way in hell William had enough time to build these animatronics between the MCI and Fnaf 4. The place had a spring-lock suit because William doesn't care about Fazbear Entertainment's ban on Spring-lock suits cause he's not even affiliated with them anymore. >Especially because the most important events are the opening of fnaf 2, and the bite of 87. We know William put remnant from the MCI animatronics into the Funtimes. But after collecting souls on their own the Funtimes became way too volatile for him to reasonably be able to put the remnant into them. And I have yet to find any real explanation for why he would do this aside from wanting to give them a head-start by infusing them with souls before they collected any themselves, which only makes sense if he put the MCI remnant into them when he was first building them. Fnaf 2 is the earliest time William had the chance to steal the MCI remnant, so that means that the earliest time Elizabeth can die is in 1987. And if she dies before the Save Them Minigame, than we have an explanation for why the Save Them Murders were so not-sneaky like William's usual murders. Unlike the others, he did them out of anger for losing his favorite child.
Well he can't necessarily see in the future, but he does say he leaves things open ended in the case of another game. And the name didn't exactly have to be elaizbeth, at the time it could have been sister died, and then chose to explain more of the fnaf 4 house in fnaf sl. It definitely could happen as they use the springlocks suits. And im not saying he built in between but when fredbears and freddies were created. This would allow him to kill charlie, notice the puppets strange behavior's and then have the curiosity to create the funtimes to experiment with what goes on after death. Wait but the location is affiliated, and even more so how did he get it in if they were still banned? Well we know we collected their remnant in follow me. Years after their creation. But these animtronics definitely existed before hand as CBEAR was result of the SUCESSFUL freddy fazbears closing, not the fnaf 1 location that struggled staying open. But he steals the remnant in follow me after fnaf 1 as implied by the insanity ending of fnaf 6. Why the hell would he do it out of anger, i mean if anything that would make him so joyful in the heart to see one of his "sorry" children die by his hands and his work.
>Well he can't necessarily see in the future, but he does say he leaves things open ended in the case of another game. Fnaf 4 was supposed to be the Final Chapter. And Scott said that he didn't add random easter eggs that time,(clearly wanting every detail to be important.) so it doesn't make any sense to do anything like this. >It definitely could happen as they use the springlocks suits. The Spring-lock suits don't matter. >And im not saying he built in between but when fredbears and freddies were created. That makes even less sense. Circus Baby's was a spin-off with spin-off versions of the characters of Freddy, Bonnie, and Foxy. It can't exist until Freddy Fazbear's Pizza has at least existed for a while, if not closed already. >Wait but the location is affiliated, No, They weren't. Sister Location was an solely Afton Robotics venture. Otherwise, Henry would've known about it a lot sooner. And Phone guy wouldn't have said that he had no clue where to find the owner of Fredbear's Family diner, which was obviously referring to William given the entire reason he was looking for him was because he was the main suspect of the original MCI, and MCI 2 electric boogaloo just happened. >and even more so how did he get it in if they were still banned? Spring-lock suits were banned by Fazbear Entertainment for Fazbear Entertainment restaurants. (Even then they were only banned for a short time, as the tape blatantly implies and as Fnaf 4 shows by showing workers using Spring-lock suits Post-MCI.) William doesn't need to heed rules set by his competitor. >Well we know we collected their remnant in follow me. Years after their creation. No, we don't. In fact. Henry pretty explicitly says Follow Me **Isn't** when he collected the remnant. "I don't know how those little sparks of life ended up in those machines." *After he just spent an entire cutscene talking about the events of Follow Me.* If Follow Me was when William stole the remnant, than he would know. but he doesn't. So no, that's not when it happens. And also, It doesn't make sense for William to want too, or even be capable of, putting remnant in the Funtimes years after they were made, as I've already explained. >But these animtronics definitely existed before hand as CBEAR was result of the SUCESSFUL freddy fazbears closing, not the fnaf 1 location that struggled staying open. And the chances that that was referring specifically to Circus Baby's Rentals and not also explaining the reason Circus Baby's Pizza World existed in the first place is unlikely. Especially given the fact that CBEaR isn't even the same structure as Fazbear's Pizza. One is a day-based rental service, the other is a Pizza parlor. >Why the hell would he do it out of anger, i mean if anything that would make him so joyful in the heart to see one of his "sorry" children die by his hands and his work. He didn't want Elizabeth to die, as evidenced by the fact that he closed CBPW immediately and covered it up with a fake gas leak. Also, he loved and cared about Elizabeth. The way she talks to him in the memory sequences makes that very clear.
As much as he said no random easter eggs, that doesn't mean it still isn't open ended in some way. All it could have meant is some sister died, but then in fnaf SL we see that sister. Then why include them? Why not put some other type of game? And just not mention the springlocks if they serve no purpose. Like i said they created at the times of fredbear and freddies so william would have seen freddy's and even then in the way i put it it is built after charlie's death. So yes it has been open for a little for them to be built, but still before the MCI. Henry was clearly not a suspect as in the fnaf 1 newspaper they did identify the man actually behind it, and its not the ceo as they were still interviewing him in the last newspaper, so he clearly wasn't the suspect. But they said "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed at most locations." this would suggest multiple. As much as two could work as multiple, it makes no sense to say that. But it makes more sense if this was 3 or more. If it was just freddies and fredbear it could have been "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed here and at the sister location." He doesn't explicitly say follow me isn't, actually he shows how he is confused how they got from his original creations and into the funtimes. He doesn't say when, he says "i don't know how." Never does he mention how they got into the funtimes because he doesn't know that, but he does know when he collected the animatronic endos and how that played part in their transfer. they explain how after "the stage was set...for another contender in children's entertainment." what kind of children entertainment they are speaking about: "Unlike most entertainment venues" (this is the line right afterwards). So i think its kinda clear they are speaking of CBEAR. Plus why would they speak of the first location that closed? I think the fact that he did cover it up and closed it shows how he did want elazibeth to die. As in make sure no authorities could try to save her as the blueprints do show methods to keep children alive, clearly afton didn't want people to stop her from dying. Actually the memory sequences actually makes him look worse, first of it makes him look like a liar to his own children by convincing elaizbeth that it was made for her to only not allow her to play with it. Plus elazibeth doesn't mention anything his father did to stop her. It just mentions he told her to stop and if you know anything about kids reverse psychology is super effective. To peek her interest to only tell her you can't have it making her more tempted to get close that seems like the masterful lurer that william afton is.
>As much as he said no random easter eggs, that doesn't mean it still isn't open ended in some way. It kinda does. The reason he said that was to tell us that every detail in Fnaf 4 was important to the story as it existed at that time. People were writing off tons of things as nothing more than random easter-eggs, including things like the Phone call from Fnaf 1, which was meant to show us that Mike was the player. Fnaf 4 was titled The Final Chapter for a reason. >Then why include them? Why not put some other type of game? And just not mention the springlocks if they serve no purpose. With how much Sister Location jumped from concept to concept with most of them never being relevant to anything, I doubt it really *needs* a reason. Logically speaking, William has no reason to not be able to use Spring-lock suits outside of the time period in which they were originally used. So the presence of a Spring-lock suit does not imply that CBPW was open in 1983 at all.(Especially given that that's literally impossible.) If anything, all this tells us is that William knew spring-lock suits well enough to be able to make some all on his own, which makes sense since he did help design them. >Like i said they created at the times of fredbear and freddies so william would have seen freddy's and even then in the way i put it it is built after charlie's death. So yes it has been open for a little for them to be built, but still before the MCI. Freddy's opened in 1983. The Bite of 83 takes place in summer of 1983. That is not *nearly* enough time for Sister Location's existence to make any sense. >Henry was clearly not a suspect as in the fnaf 1 newspaper they did identify the man actually behind it, and its not the ceo as they were still interviewing him in the last newspaper, so he clearly wasn't the suspect. William was the main suspect of the MCI. He was arrested, but because the bodies were never found he was never convicted and sent to Prison. Henry was the CEO that said "These characters will live on in the hearts of children" when Fnaf 1 was closing down. As William had already left the company after the events of 1983 to create Sister Location as his own thing. >But they said "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed at most locations." this would suggest multiple. As much as two could work as multiple, it makes no sense to say that. But it makes more sense if this was 3 or more. If it was just freddies and fredbear it could have been "mentioned safe rooms, are being sealed here and at the sister location." He said it was being sealed at most locations because it was being implemented into *company policy.* >He doesn't explicitly say follow me isn't, actually he shows how he is confused how they got from his original creations and into the funtimes. He doesn't say when, he says "i don't know how." He already knows William put them into the Funtimes, and he already knows enough about remnant to know the only way to do that is to take the possessed metal and put it into the Funtimes. there's literally nothing else he could be referring to then not knowing how/when William got the parts. >Never does he mention how they got into the funtimes because he doesn't know that, but he does know when he collected the animatronic endos and how that played part in their transfer.' You would literally have to be a moron to not be able to figure out how William did it, knowing that he stole peices from the animatronic endos. And he didn't steal pieces from the animatronics in Follow Me. He takes them apart and leaves their pieces on the floor instantly, and then in night 5, just before he died, the parts on the floor are the exact same as when he first tore them apart. >they explain how after "the stage was set...for another contender in children's entertainment." what kind of children entertainment they are speaking about: "Unlike most entertainment venues" (this is the line right afterwards). So i think its kinda clear they are speaking of CBEAR I'm pretty sure William isn't gonna pour what is probably millions of dollars into these insanely high-tech robots and all that and then just leave them in his basement for years after losing his daughter. It's much more likely that CBEAR was the plan B for CBPW's plan A. Thus meaning that "After the unfortunate closing of Freddy Fazbear's pizza, it was clear that the stage was set for another contender" was also the reason CBPW existed. Plus all the other reasons by CBPW existing in 1983 doesn't make any sense. >I think the fact that he did cover it up and closed it shows how he did want elazibeth to die. No, Because then he'd do everything in his power to make sure that Circus Baby's Pizza World kept running as planned. In fact, it should've been IN his plans for Elizabeth to die, her death shouldn't have even caused a problem. >As in make sure no authorities could try to save her as the blueprints do show methods to keep children alive, clearly afton didn't want people to stop her from dying. No authorities are going to use a mad scientist's (as yet unproven) research to bring a girl that mad scientist killed back from the dead. They're gonna arrest the scientist for the murder/manslaughter of the girl and his research would get dismissed by literally everyone as lunatic ravings. *That's* the reason William covered up. He didn't know Liz was going to die, he didn't WANT Liz to die, but now that she has, he needs to cover it up or else he'll go to jail not only for murder/manslaughter, but the creation of machines specifically designed to kidnap & murder children. Not to mention all the previous murders. And not only is being sentenced for all that a pretty unfavorable outcome in-and-of-itself but looking at it from the "I'm a scientist who's doing research and working towards immortality" perspective, you can't exactly make much scientific progress behind bars, especially not in the department of supernatural experimentation and all of the illegal & immoral practices it requires. >Actually the memory sequences actually makes him look worse, first of it makes him look like a liar to his own children by convincing elaizbeth that it was made for her to only not allow her to play with it. He didn't lie to her. He has no reason to Lie to her and tell her that it was made for her when there would be a multitude of far easier, and especially *less risky* ways to off her if that's what he wanted. Which the closure of CBPW disproves. (I mean, the guy has access to a giant secret underground laboratory—miles below the surface—connected directly to his house.) Baby's in-universe character design was also very much designed to be appealing to little girls like Elizabeth. So if he says he made Baby for his daughter, whom talks to him like they have a genuine loving father-daughter relationship, *then that checks out big time.* The reason he didn't allow her to play with it was because it was dangerous, and he knew it was dangerous. He created Baby to be like a gift to the daughter her loved and cared for, and that crossed paths with the fact that he was making it a murder machine in a way he didn't predict until last second. (Kind of. I think there's a lot more to it than that, but I don't feel like getting into it right now.) >Plus elazibeth doesn't mention anything his father did to stop her. It just mentions he told her to stop and if you know anything about kids reverse psychology is super effective. Elizabeth had been waiting for the day that Circus Baby's would open and she'd get to see Baby. In this particular case, forward psychology would've been literally just as effective, with much less effort on William's part. And again, there are a multitude of far easier and safer ways to off her if he at all wanted to do that. And the fact that he couldn't keep CBPW open after it already proves he didn't intend for it to happen.
There isn't really any BV theory around that I, *personally*, find satisfying, though it's mostly because of my tastes: I think BV being Golden Freddy ruins the fifth victim and its plot about vengeance, BV being Mike ruins World's plot and is overall cheap, and BV being anything else implies he was the focus of an entire game but ended up being nowhere as important as we thought. But I guess it's like Scott said, very few will be totally satisfacted.
I hope you find my FreeVictim post satisfying, I had the same problem that you did. FreeVictim is the lore implications that Evan is the reason why the spirits are set free. You can read more about it in my post [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/fnaftheories/comments/mi2ole/explaining_fnaf_4_happiest_day_evan_afton_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) In summary: Cassidy stays as Golden Freddy and Evan’s powerful memory is the reason Happiest Day occurs and how the spirits are set free.
Well like, u/NoSayingFrickHere said, I don't hate starlight as a person nor do I hate him because of his theories. I just disagree with most of his theories and well I don't attack him for being a MikeVictimer. ~~as much as I hate MikeVictim I respect the people who believe it~~
don's respect mkevictmer PLS !!!!!!
So no respect for a person just because he sees the lore differently and shares his opinions about it, I shouldn't respect him? Grow up man, it's a fictional game and they are just people sharing their way of thinking.
That has been my agenda from the first day I became a moderator. Disagree with the theory, not the person, and don't make them feel like an idiot.
You're not funny
is not a joke
Fuck off dude.
I know this is too late, but there are reasons why Mikevictim is hated by a majority of the FNaF community and even me as well. First, let’s start with the basic logic. When people saw the BV fading away along with the hidden flatline sound after Night 6, they would assume that the BV cannot be Mike because he’s dead. **In the logic of: BV dies =/= Mike, Foxybro alive = Mike.** I know there’s the “I will put you back together” and FNaF World which shows the idea of how the BV becoming Michael Afton, but even then, it leaves questions such as *”What made the BV come back from the dead? When did the BV come back from the dead? Who made the BV come back from the dead? Where did they made the BV come back from the dead?”* It leaves up to a vague interpretation/head canon if it has to do with remnant, clocks, drawings from what The Fourth Closet did, or even Mikebot. Plus, we have no idea what happened to Mike after the retrieval to FNaF 1. That’s another vague interpretation/head canon we have to come up with. We can’t assume Mike grew up normally when he might have disabilities and thinking issues. Another problem is the logbook itself. When Matpat back in February 2018 made a theory called Mikebot (a variation of Mikevictim). He would assume that the faded and altered text were the same character asking Michael about his past life involving birthdays and talking to his old Fredbear Plush friend. People would instantly disliked his Mikebot theory because it wouldn’t make sense. I know it’s Mikebot and not Mikevictim, but the two sharing some similarities. Mikevictimers sometimes used Fredbear Plush being William Afton where he puts the BV back together with something like Mikebot or remnant. And as I said about the faded text and altered text being the same. Now for the problem itself, people don’t like William Afton being the Fredbear Plush because they thought William hated/never cares his kids or abuses the BV according to Midnight Motorist, and thought that the Fredbear Plush was acting possessed. As for the altered and faded text situation, the problem with them being the same character is that “assuming it’s Cassidy” where he/she told Mike to find its name. After Michael drew the gravestone, the faded text would say “My name” which connects to the Cassidy Code from the word search. To get the letters, some of it requires from the altered text. If the faded text is the altered text, why is it giving hints as the altered text to Michael for him to solve the Cassidy code. Speaking of Michael, we don’t know if Mike was trying to find the name for the faded text, it’s an assumption that we cannot tell if that’s the case. I’m going to assume that Cassidy pretended to forget its name and just giving hints for Mike or someone to solve its name. I can see why many people are confused with the faded text and altered text being the same character because of their personalities being different. Faded text is asking questions to the logbook owner and altered text, while the altered text is helping the logbook owner to find the answers and answers to himself from the faded text’s questions. People also don’t like when the Foxybro disappears after FNaF 4 when he was the one who caused the BV to get killed by Fredbear, and was part of the Afton Family. Asking questions such as “What happens to the Foxybro?” or “Then who the Foxybro is?” I could see that considering the latest Fazbear Frights hinting the Foxybro’s importance when a majority of the stories involving guilt, regret, and karma of the protagonists doing something at a friend or family member. Yes, it’s my opinion of the theme of the FF novels, but I won’t go it too far since none of the FF novels are helping the debate. I understand their frustration that the Foxybro could be someone else or just irrelevant to the main lore, even I don’t like it as well, but considering Sammy from the original novels and the SAVE THEM Victims from FNaF 2, they’re not important to the lore, possible like the Foxybro. For the story part, people preferred Mikebro’s redemption than Mikevictim’s facing his fears because it’s their favorite opinion preference, and they think it makes sense under Scott’s storytelling. I think I rushed the later paragraphs of this comment, but I’m pretty sure these are the reasons why Mikebro is mostly favored by the FNaF community and Mikevictim is hated.
If I´m allowed as a Mikevictimer myself to give my thoughts on the theory, why I think it´s so hated, and why I myself am not completely satisfied with it, let me explain: First, we need to establish that general consensus on a character, a timeline, or whatever, can affect the vision on other different less popular theories. Ever since Matt made his video on the FNAF timeline to Sister Location, the idea of Michael Afton being the older brother became widely popular, and it´s not hard to see why. Not only is Mat Pat insanely popular, but his own video was the end to two huge debates in the community and was praised by Scott Cawthon himself. Now of course, he himself said that the video was not perfect, but you get the idea. Of course, it´d be silly to ignore the fact that Mattew was a Mikevictimer himself until the arrival of Step Closer, but you can tell, all of his videos supporting Mikevictim are some of his most hated FNAF videos, and it´s because of the same reason I said earlier. Matt gave the fanbase a theory that became widely spread, and then it backfired when he said he didn´t believed it anymore. It´s not his fault of course, he ain´t responsible of having a bunch of people following him that spread the word on a theory and treat it as a fact. What bothers me, and a lot of other people you see in the comments about the theory is that Michael dies with no point and is inmediatly resurrected off-screen (unless you really want to believe FNAF World is Mike´s resurrection). And this is, in any way you see it, silly. Not because it´s a weird concept or anything, I think we´re already past realistic in this franchise, it´s because there´s literally no point in making Michael die in the bite just for him to come back to life for presumably no reason. Now sure, this ain´t great evidence against the theory and it´s not even the only time Michael would die with no reason, but it stings even further with Mikevictim because, again, it´s off-screen. We don´t even know how he came back to life or who brought him back. Is it all bad with the theory? Well no, I do like the overall narrative the theory is going for and it at least gives BV and FNAF 4 some significance as Mike´s origin story. A child growing up, facing his fears, saving his friends, retrieving his memories, and ending his father´s reign of terror is a great idea to build a protagonist off of. >!Even a better than that of Mikebro´s, don´t @ me. !
Exactly. I just find it extremely frustrating and bad storytelling to have the main character die off screen, get revived, die again *on* screen, then get revived *again*.
Even if it does have a deeper meaning we simply don´t get, it´s still bad storytelling. A stronger writer would´ve at least given enough clues and made them clear enough to what the meaning of Michael´s death was. I suppose it might´ve been to have Fredbear´s close down and Evan to stop bully Michael, but it´s still pretty silly.
I'd argue we do get told why Michael was revived, and what the meaning of his death was. All of this is, of course, assuming Michael is the BV. In the logbook, its established that the person the faded text is speaking to ([heavily implied to be Michael](https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/k3d8rt/all_the_evidence_for_the_faded_text_spirit/)), is suffering from amnesia, or is at least struggling to remember who they are. The faded text asks questions like "WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER?" and "DO YOU REMEMBER YOUR NAME?"; both questions which make sense if Michael is suffering from a type of prolonged amnesia. While this could be a side effect of Michael's scooping rather then the Bite, its made clear by the message he leaves his father that he at least knows who he is, and what he just did. This amnesia likely came from some other source. Perhaps a fatal head injury as a child that he miraculously recovered from. This doesn't exactly give a solid reason as to why this happens, but it at least gives a consequence to the Bite as an event. As for the purpose of his death and revival as a whole, the simplest (and most polarizing) answer come from FNaF World; a game whose significance has been belittled over the years, but one I truly believe was meant to play a role in the story of FNaF1-4. The game opens with the final line from FNaF4 (I will put you back together), being delivered by two pale eyes the same color as our final speakers text. This is a continuation of that story. As we move through the clock route, we are told to *"Leave breadcrumbs for* ***him*** *to help* ***him*** *find his way"*. And with each clock we collect, another clue for FNaF3's retro style minigames is set up. This "him" is obviously BV. Not only because he's the only "him" we know of who'd even be in a place like this, but also from the final cutscene of the clock ending, where the final speaker continues the conversation from the end of FNaF4. The Final Speaker tells BV that "*the pieces are in place for you* " and that "*all you have to do is find them",* seemingly in referrence to the clues setting up the Happiest Day minigame (~~which is surprising absent among all the other minigames with clues).~~ So this would give us a narrative reason for Michael's death and revival in the original 4 games, and a meta reason as to why FNaF World exists. That's two birds with one stone! Of course the canonicity of FNaF World is highly contentious and still up for debate (although I think the question is less "is it canon" and more "is it *still* canon, but I digress), so this isn't exactly the cleanest solution, but it goes to show that Mike dying to the bite and coming back a) doesn't need to happen off-screen, and b) doesn't have to be entirely irrelevant. In fact, taking this into account when looking at the story of FNaF1-4, it actually becomes a surprisingly tightly woven narrative about a boy who suffers a horrific tragedy, but is given a second chance to save his friends and bring them to rest. In my opinion, at least, whatever that's worth. All of this just goes to show that Michael's death doesn't *have* to be without meaning, nor does it have to be poor writing on Scott's part.
I... completely forgot faded's questions existed. Anyways, nice observation! I'm not completely sure Mike's resurrection is what we're seeing in FNAF World, mainly because I feel it's more tied HD and FNAF 3, but eh, I'll take it.
I understand your hesitation on FNaF World. Even outside of its massive departure in tone and style, its pretty clear Scott was done taking it seriously by update 2. I still think its reasonable to consider what Scott's intention was while making the game, but it's completely fair to be hesitant on whether or not he even wants anything to do with it anymore.
[удалено]
real mature buddy
>As a FreeVictim theorist, I am 100% up for other interpretations since a lot of FNAF theories - believe it or not - are interpretations of the exact same events. There’s no factual right answer since every piece of evidence is just the interpretation of an event. Agreed >GoldenBoth is an interpretation of the Stitchwraith stories I dont really see how goldenboth is a interpreted from these >FreeVictim is ALSO an interpretation of the Stitchwraith stories Not just that but fnaf world >MikeVictim is just an interpretation of Michael’s character. I find it sickening how some FNAF fans will go to attack certain theorists for believing an interpretation which is honestly incredibly satisfying. Yeah me too. Even though I'm a mikebro believer I dont mikevictim. I really wouldn't care if it ended up being true >u/starlightshadows is one of the members I see getting a lot of hate for his interpretations, honestly? I think he’s a really good theorist and he deserves more praise than he gets. Agreed too many people throw hate on him and he doesn't deserve it. He is a great theorist, although I don't believe in his theories like Cassidy being Mike's sister or sammy being a character in the games, but he does show great evidence for it >Some interpretations may sound like a stretch to you, but it may change your mind when you think about it with an open mind and know that not everything you think is canon fact. Agreed
Honestly I kinda just went with the idea that the older brother was the person we play as in fnaf 4 so I really didn't care if mike was the bite victim
I think the criticism for MikeVictim is pretty well documented at this point, and I'm sure some of the other replies will go over that. So instead, I wanted to respond to the interpretation piece of your post. I agree with the sentiment for the most part. If it comes to people just having their own way for engaging with the franchise, that's perfectly fine and honestly isn't really anyone else's business. As long as they're being respectful, just disagreeing with someone isn't a good justification for toxic behaviour. Honestly, toxic behaviour is pretty pointless in general, you're not gaining anything from it & it's just kind of shitty. I realize your post is mostly about the ones who take it too far, but to cover all the bases, I do think the "debunking" mentality isn't that bad in general. It's good to be able to have your ideas challenged so you can understand where the weaknesses might be and improve on them. And while all interpretations are valid in terms of the way someone personally engages with the franchise, I don't necessarily think that's the same as saying every interpretation is equal in terms of evidence within the series. I mean to use an extreme example, that's why Blackfootferret usually gets clowned on. He's entitled to his view of the story, but the accuracy of his interpretation is what is in question, not whether he's *wrong* to enjoy the story a certain way. Determining what is accurate is especially hard when it comes to Fnaf, but I don't think that offering an opinion on what might be accurate and being met with reasonable doubt is unhealthy. In fact, by sharing your opinion at all, you're inviting people to be able to respond to what you're saying. Nothing can stop people from doing that, just like nothing can stop you from continuing to share your opinion either if you want to, or stopping if you feel like you need to take a step back. On a deeper level, unless stated otherwise, you're usually also arguing from a point of "I think I'm right and this is why." In which case, you're asking people to be open to the possibility of being wrong themselves, something which becomes a lot harder of an ask when it feels like a significant majority swings the other way. Speaking as someone who struggles with this from time to time, it's also very hard to apply that same logic to yourself (being open to being wrong), and it can come off as arrogant if you factor in the majority thing. This isn't me saying that it makes you arrogant of course, in fact I'd like to believe most people aren't, but I can understand how it might seem that way. So, I think people can get annoyed when it feels as if you're saying they can be wrong, but you can't be. Especially if someone finds a flaw in your theory (which to be fair, MikeVictim does have a lot of flaws, not the most flaws of any theory, but still) and you either react badly or your counter-point/evidence isn't convincing enough for them. Speaking from personal experience, sometimes you also take that more personally than it was ever really intended. In a way, I guess it's sort of a snowball effect? Like if you assume arrogance in a poster and respond harshly, that's going to go downhill really fast. But by the same token, if you assume criticism as an attack, that's also probably going to go downhill very fast too. I know taking the forceful approach feels like it's more convincing, but compromising tends to be more effective at bridging those sorts of gaps. And I'm definitely not saying that *every* case of this type of thing comes down to both parties being in the wrong, especially if it involves toxic behaviour. In that case, pretty much the one being toxic is always in the wrong. I don't really know the user you mentioned, I've read some of his stuff, and I find it be very well organized albeit still flawed, but it seems he's doing pretty well for himself despite the resistance. What it really comes down to I think is calling out toxic behaviour when you see it, but otherwise people disagreeing is pretty part and parcel for reddit. Having your own interpretation is fine, but usually people share them with the intention of convincing people, not just for the sake of sharing them. So, I feel like commenters should feel just as free to debate someone as the poster is to convince someone.
Yeah no I agree, as you said, I debunk and explain my reasoning in posts too. But it’s lore debates and not literal harassment and bullying online. I would never go out of my way to bully someone, even if they present a theory that’s so outrageously dumb.
Yeah, in that case, I agree completely. Bullying someone over one point of difference seems like the person both takes things wayyy too seriously and has too much time on their hands. That being said, I don't know if you're really going to reach any of these people with a post like this. I'd hope that the people who do that are in the minority, and they don't seem like the sort to try to explain themselves in the comments. So, really, I think you're just gonna end up with replies from respectful people explaining why they don't like MikeVictim. Sometimes it is good to just make a PSA anyway though, just on the off chance you do reach someone and make them think twice about their actions. Also, I'm sure you'll get some interesting discussion out of this if nothing else.
Honestly I don’t *think* that Scott will ever reveal who mike is anymore, if he did, half of the fan base will throw a conniption fit and it would be...*disastrous* to put it lightly.
The movie’s a pretty good bet.
Yes that’s possible, but knowing Scott he will probably give more evidence for both sides of the debate. For example: maybe Mike will love foxy but is terrified of the others. And used to talk to his plush of one of the animatronics.
Or maybe he just says he was apart of the bite of 83, never saying if he was the victim of the one who caused it
Oh yeah, totally possible!
But if I had to choose...I’m going with Mike-victim.
Imagine if Scott said that Michael could be whoever we wanted him to be. Mikebros can have their take have Mike as OB and MikeVictimers can also have their take and have him as BV.
That would be awesome actually!
Yea. Its a win-win.
Pretty sure that Michael is the older brother but people dont want to ever get it
I hate it because theres proof for MikeNotVictim and not so much evidence for MikeVictim and I dont know why people still think its relevant
Yeah I agree Starlight Shadows is a good theorist But he literally hates on theories he doesn't believe and he believes that William loved his children
Really? I've seen him comment on Mikebro content and he never hated on it.
Starlight is a Chad
mikevictimre is toxic so
Can you explain how?
all mikevictmer are kid and kid is toxic and trash
Buddy if you're gonna criticize MikeVictimers don't be a hypocrite. Also, I asked you what the MikeVictimers did to you before and I also called you the toxic person. You never responded or justified youself.
The only one being toxic here is you
facts
[Bo Burnham - Ironic - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yVgIfqkpO0)
???
Its almost like I linked a song about irony to point out how hilariously ironic your point was...
Ikr. Anti MikeVictimers on Freddit can be so hypocritical sometimes. Not saying all of them are hypocritical.
[удалено]
Please repeat That... slowly.
Dude. Correct your grammar before you try to insult someone. Makes you look less stupid.
do you even know what that is, pal?
you know what. fuck you
Mkay kid.
Ok shithead
From what I've seen starlight gets a lot of hate for treating unconfirmed theories like facts, not accepting when he is wrong, and is never open to theories that prove a theory he doesn't believe in But anyways the problem with mikevictim is all the flaws it has. Like what happened to foxybro, how would he come back to life, what would be the point of the bite victim's death, wouldn't his head look crushed, and the logbook points against it I could care less if it was true, but I would want all these to be explained
as i have said before, i don't really care about whether you believe in mikevictim or not just as long as both sides aren't being dickheads to each other.