Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
10 
Report this post
This make no sense. He wants Oswald to suffer, but he straight tried to kill him the first time. He failed, then he wants Oswald to suffer, but then he straight tries to kill Oswald again while Oswald is trying to escape, but then he doesn't want to kill when mom is around, but then he tries again, but then he doesn't when...
This radical erratic behavior looks like a hole in the character lore based on when the game want us to go forward or to die. Since the main mechanic and genre of the game is the "cat and mouse" style (chasing and stopping you from doing your objectives, like Hello Neighbor) every time it's convenient to the player to properly play the game, Spring Bonnie won't kill us, but during any chasing sequence he will, but during cutscenes he won't, but during chasing sequences he will.
This, to me, is a failure to deliver the real purpose of the character in the game and in the book. It's a fact that Spring Bonnie is a person wearing a costume, this means it's William Afton because there's no one who wore the Golden Bonnie suit in FNAF history who wanted to kill multiple kids.
So... Why does Spring Bonnie "disguised" as Oswald's dad? Why does he keep living like Oswald's dad? Why only Oswald and the cat can see him as Spring Bonnie? Why to bring Oswald back to his house instead of killing him, or bringing him back to 1985 after knocking out Oswald's dad?
You see how this is convenient to make the game and the book properly advance? There are a bunch of holes that don't make sense... I don't know if we the fans are suppose to fill the holes with theories based on other books, games, movies, and real-life content, or if they just wanted to make secrets and "lost their hand" in the process. Weird.
"♥♥♥♥'s haunted".
In my interpretation of the game, sure dad's trapped in 1984 but that's now a mechanism for possession. Instead of "agony-created demon in the shape of Spring Bonnie living out Afton's evil casually drinks beer in front of the TV, bangs Oswald's mom, tries to kill him at night", it's "dad's capture means he's now possessed. He acts like a duller version of himself in his more lucid moments, but at night the possession has more control and actively roams the house to hunt the child as if it's still in its pizzeria".
It might not be Scott's intent in the original story idea given to his ghost writer, but once the story is published and out in the world their jobs are done and the readers'/players' interpretations hold as much weight as their intention.
It chocked to death, which means it breathes, which mean there IS someone inside the suit.
Those theorists are already factually wrong.
And how can it be chocked to death?
By the way, neither the book or the game explains this, what you are both saying is your personal interpretation or assumption, there's no evidence backing you up on that.
Especially if it's something that's not explained. Then you have nothing but your interpretation to run with.
No, you only have your personal interpretation and assumptions when the game or book doesn't explain it. The game and book explained who are Oswald, his mother and father, who Jeff and Mike are. The book says Mike is black so you don't have to think if this Mike is Mike Afton or any other Mike, while the game shows to you he's black. You know how Oswald was able to teleport to the past because the game and book explained to you how he did it.
When something is explained, you don't need your interpretation to try to understand how that something happen, because the source explained it to you. So, do you know how the ball pit is able to teleport you to the past? No, because neither the book or game explained, so you need to think out of the box and interpreter in your own way based on your life experience, because of that every single person will come up with a different reason, assuming, they are right. Some will say "magic", some will say "portal", some will say it's an under-world, or mirrored world, or any BS like that, why? Because the neither the game or book explained to you how the ball pit is able to send you back in time.
This is the same with the Yellow Bonnie. There's no name of it, Oswald only calls it generic names like Yellow Bonnie and "the thing" but we see nowhere saying "Spring Bonnie", you don't know if it's a costume or an animatronic, IT LOOKS LIKE a costume, but it acts like an animatronic. NONE of that is explained, thus what people do? People do their personal interpretation and assumptions based on other things.
What William Afton did? He used a yellow Bonnie costume to lure kids to the back room and kill them there... This "Yellow Bonnie" did exactly the same. So, it's completely normal to think this "Yellow Bonnie" is Spring Bonnie. Do we have any evidence of that? No, but we assume that based on what we know about the books, games, movies, and everything else the FNAF universe released.
So, you said it's the suit itself, because it's a beast made out of agony, but you have 0 evidence of that, neither the game or the book talks about agony, this is your assumption, your interpretation... But then you ignored the fact that the "suit" simply chocked to death, this is the same as saying it's breathing, which means it isn't just "the suit" because the suit has no lungs.
Where am I wrong?
The Stitchwraith Stingers confirm that the ball pit allows for "time travel" (you're actually going inside the memories of past victims) because it was charged with agony/remnant thanks to Eleanor. The Yellow Rabbit being created by the ball pit would have to mean it's the same way. It's just the suit because the children murdered by Afton didn't know it was a man in a suit, they would have just assumed it was a big yellow rabbit (which makes sense when you consider the animatronics can free roam). The Yellow Rabbit being a weird flesh monster that has the suit as "skin" is an extension of this, the outside is defined but the inside is vague, because the victims have no memory of the inside, resulting in it looking like a twisted monster (think the FNaF4 animatronics, which look that way because the protagonist was scared of them). It can choke and "bleed" (it's confirmed to not actually be blood) because it's still an organic being, and when it "dies" in the book it actually turns back into a harmless, completely empty suit afterwards (If someone was inside where did they go? Hint: There was never anyone inside the suit).
I still stick by my interpretation of the Yellow Rabbit's behavior, it makes sense for a monster who's appearance and behavior is shaped by the memories and nightmares of children to behave in a sadistic, playful manner instead of outright killing whenever it's easiest.
You're not a copying machine, you read with an analytical and critical eye. All you're missing is acknowledgement of the importance of the reader's interpretation in the story, which outweighs author intent.