WTFAW: Seven

Well, ladies and gentlemen, spring is in the air once again. The snow is melting, the sun is shining more and more, and it’s slowly getting warmer.

So of course, it seems Dave has decided this is the perfect time to bring down my mood with a crazy fan theory.

Dave: And I’ve got something really special for you today! You remember back when we talked about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and the theory about the Seven Deadly Sins?

Sure…?

Dave: And remember when we talked about Ghostbusters, and you said one of those theories would have been better if it had been about the Seven Deadly Sins?

Yes…and now I’m getting scared to ask, but… what about them?

Dave: You see, I thought I’d make up for both of those today!

Oh goody. And how do you plan to do that?

Dave: Simple! We’re gonna cover something else to do with the Seven Deadly Sins: the movie Seven!

Aha. So that’s the ”something really special” you promised?

Dave: No, it’s the fact that I have TWO theories today!

Oh really? Two theories! By golly, what a lucky boy I am… And what, pray tell, is the first theory?

Dave: The first theory is that this movie is actually a Batman-prequel!

OK, right away, we’re off the cliff of insanity. Explain.

Dave: Well, they never specify what town the movie is set in, right? So what if the city is actually supposed to be Gotham City, and this all takes place long before Bruce Wayne becomes Batman?

I see. Now, as much as I would just LOVE to have ”what if” be a justification, I think I’m gonna have to ask you to give me bit more information.

Dave: OK, so like I said, they never specify where the movie is supposed to take place. All we see is a rain-soaked city that’s, by all accounts, unsafe and crime-ridden, harsh and unforgiving. That sounds a lot like Gotham City to me.

Right.

Dave: And the killer, John Doe, carries out murders in an especially gruesome style, along with a very definite theme, all of which fits in well with the kinds of killers Batman deals with, like Victor Zsaz or Calendar Man.

I see.

Dave: Throughout the movie, Detective Mills tries to deal with the horror with a bit of humor and dry wit, until the ending of the movie, where he finds his wife has been murdered by John, who he then murders in retaliation. Now, you would agree that Mills is having a bad day, right?

Having his pregnant wife be the victim of a serial killer, and then being manipulated to kill said serial killer in revenge? Yes, I’d call that a bad day.

Dave: And this event leaves him utterly broken. In other words, it’s a bad day that reduced a sane man to madness. See where I’m going with this?

Oh, for the love of… You mean that-

Dave: That all of this drives Mills insane, to the point where he becomes the Joker! It all fits!

Not the word I would use, but let’s go over this, shall we?

Firstly, the fact that the city is never named doesn’t actually prove that it’s Gotham. All it means is that the name of the city isn’t actually important to the story. And just from an aesthetic point of view, the city in Seven blends aspects of east coast and west coast cities, deliberately keeping from being specific.

Meanwhile, Gotham City is ostensibly an east coast city, with most movies taking inspiration from New York. For example, I’ll just remind you that Seven takes place in 1995. That’s the same year as Batman Forever, a movie where Gotham is shown to not just have its own version of the Brooklyn Bridge, but also its own version of the Statue of Liberty.

And as for John Doe, yes he does feel a bit comic-book’y, but it’s a bit of a leap to say that this means this is a Batman-story because of it. After all, I don’t see anyone claiming that the SAW-movies take place in the same universe as Batman, despite Jigsaw’s penchant for mechanical traps being a bit similar to The Riddler. And given that we’ve already had a theory about Jigsaw that was even more idiotic than that, that’s saying something.

And lastly, there’s the idea that Mills becomes the Joker. But really, all that supports that idea is that Mills is occasionally making jokes, and then is left mentally broken at the end of the movie.

Dave: Well, yeah, that was the One Bad Day that drove him to madness.

OK, except nothing about that seems to connect to what we know about The Joker. After all, let’s consider the Joker, like we see him in most media. He’s a very skilled tactician, a decent hand-to-hand fighter, he’s good with chemistry, engineering, good at constructing explosives and lethal joke gadgets…

None of that seems to connect at all with Mills, who we’re told has worked homicide for five years before transferring to the city in Seven… and that’s it.

Dave: Well, his experience with police procedure would probably help him keep ahead of the cops and baffle the Caped Crusader.

I mean… maybe, though I still call it a stretch. In fact, going back to a point I made with another theory about The Joker, if Mills was supposed to be the Clown Prince of Crime… shouldn’t it be pretty easy to track who he is? The GCPD would have his records on file, so identifying him should be a piece of cake if he was a former cop.

And all this is ignoring the fact that when we last see Mills, he’s not exactly giggling in a deranged ”life-is-a-horrible-twisted-demented-gag” manner. Instead, he is pretty much as far from that as you can possibly get, in that he is completely catatonic from the mental breakdown he has suffered.

So how, exactly, does he get from the one to the other?

Dave: Uhm… well, we never do get an explanation for how he became the Joker, so maybe something happened in between to cause him to flip over?

Right, but you’re not able to give any evidence of this. It’s just another case of circular logic, where something like that HAD to have happened so he could become the Joker, which presupposes that he does actually become the Joker, which proves that something like that had to have happened. It just doesn’t make sense

Dave: Of course not! He’s crazy, so it doesn’t have to make sense!

That’s a cheap cop-out and you know it. It’s just a less convincing version of ”it was all a dream so it doesn’t have to make sense”. It’s a bullshit hand-wave to explain away contradictions.

Dave: Ah, but I’ve one more piece to bring to the table! Morgan Freeman!

What about him?

Dave: Well, he is in this movie, and he also plays Lucius Fox in the Christopher Nolan Batman movies!

Your point being…? Because I’m certain you’re not trying to argue that they’re the same person, just because they’re played by the same actor.

Dave: Uhm… I mean, they are kinda similar in their personalities…

What!? No, they’re not! Somerset is a surly, jaded close-to-retirement cop who is laconic and cynical. Lucius Fox is friendly, dedicated and well-meaning and quick with a quip.

Lucius Fox has also been working for Wayne Enterprises for years, to the point of being on the board of directors while Thomas Wayne was still alive, and that was almost two decades before Bruce Wayne donned the cape in Batman Begins. So how would he have time to also be a cop for long enough to be six days from retirement?

Dave: Uhm….

Of course, there’s also all the other things that would follow from that, like how the Joker in The Dark Knight, like I’ve said before, doesn’t seem to have either military or police training, and is much more anarchist cookbook urban guerrilla warfare with his methods and gear.

And in the end, all this theory has is conjecture. You have given supposition and ”what if’s”, but you still have not provided one single, solitary piece of evidence to support this idea. So, I’m just gonna say that for my money, this theory doesn’t hold up at all.

Now, I will hope that the next theory is slightly more rational, as low as that bar might be.

Dave: Alright, the second theory is that Somerset is the actual murderer!

I see. At a glance, it looks slightly more reasonable… Though given what I’m comparing it to, that means almost nothing. Anyway, please explain.

Dave: OK, so the idea is that Somerset is the actual mastermind behind the murders, with John Doe just being an easily manipulated, disturbed man, used as a pawn to take the blame. Somerset is reluctant right from the start to work with Mills, despite the latter’s experience. Maybe it’s because he’s thinks Mill’s might discover the truth?

Right. Silly question but… why would Somerset do this? John Doe has the excuse of having a deranged view of morality. Somerset, by contrast, doesn’t seem to have any reason to go on a serial killing spree.

Dave: Well, he’s about to retire. Maybe he wants to end his career with a huge case that would make headlines?

But… OK, two things. Firstly, that doesn’t really explain WHY he’d want that. What would be the goal? What does he have to gain by setting off a series of murders?

Dave: Well, it’s be a pretty high note to go out on, right?

Well, that conveniently brings me to my second point: Why, in that case, does he himself want nothing to do with the case?

Remember, right after they find the first body, Somerset tells the police captain that he’d like to be reassigned, saying that ”this can’t be my last duty”. He also makes it clear then and there that he doesn’t think Mills should be handling the case either.

Dave: Yeah, like I said, it’s because he’s worried Mill’s might work out the truth! It’s something we see right from the first murder!

What do you mean?

Dave: When they arrive at the Gluttony murder scene, Mills asks whether or not they took the pulse of the victim. Somerset later questions him about this, because he knows one of the coming victims, the Sloth murder, would still be alive despite appearing to be dead!

Right… but why would this concern him?

Dave: What?

Mills only asks about the victim because Somerset asks about the time of death, and the police just tells him they didn’t touch anything. Keep in mind, at that point they haven’t actually had any information about the victim. It’s only after Mills asked that the police tells him that the guy was face first in a plate of spaghetti and couldn’t breathe even if he wanted to.

This isn’t exactly a sign of astounding insight on behalf of Mills. And in the case of Somerset, there’s no real reason for him to care at all about Mills possibly finding out one of the victims is dead, unless that victim can identify Somerset as the killer. And as we find out, not only does the Sloth victim not identify Somerset as the killer… but neither does the person involved in the Lust murder.

The man was forced, at gunpoint, to use a bladed strap-on to kill a prostitute. He tells this TO SOMERSET during questioning.

If Somerset was the murderer, that doesn’t make a lick of sense whatsoever! They track John Doe to his apartment, leading to Mills almost getting shot in the head! We KNOW that it wasn’t Somerset holding the gun at him!

Dave: Well, maybe John Doe was working at the orders of Somerset, then?

Alright. What is the evidence to support that Somerset is giving him orders? Where is the trail from John Doe to Somerset?

If Somerset is giving John Doe orders, why is Somerset going to the Gluttony crime scene, on his own, to investigate the crime scene? We see him, on his own, working out that the plastic pieces found in the victims body were scratched off of the floor by the fridge, which led him to discovering the ”Gluttony” writing behind the fridge.

If John was working on Somerset’s orders then who is he doing the whole ”investigating the crime scene” theatrics for, since he should already know where it all is! He is, after all, supposed to be the Mastermind giving the orders, isn’t he?

Dave: But it would be really interesting if Somerset was the killer!

Would it, though? Even if we ignore all the problems I’ve just pointed out, please connect the dots for me. What exactly would be improved by Somerset being the real killer all along?

Dave: It’d make Mills’ story all the more tragic! The idea that Somerset used him from day one, and drove him to murder the man he thought responsible for killing his wife!

OK.. ignoring that, again, Somerset not only isn’t really using him, but is in fact very adamant from the start that Mills shouldn’t be on this case, why is this version better? Isn’t Mills’ story tragic enough, being trapped in an impossible situation of either killing the man who murdered his pregnant wife, thus fulfilling the deranged mission the killer had, or letting him live?

Dave: But what if Somerset was just lying about Tracy?

What?

Dave: What if this was just Somerset manipulating him, tricking him into murdering John Doe! It’d add another layer of horror to the story, with Mills’ killing John Doe for nothing!

…Really? You seriously need me to explain why that idea is stupid? Even if we disregard every other issue with this theory, this argument is stupid enough to sink the whole idea on its own!

Dave: Why’s that?

It’s very simple. What is the name of this movie?

Dave: Well, it’s Seven.

That’s right. Remind me. Why is it called Seven?

Dave: It’s… because of the Seven Deadly Sins?

That’s right! Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but the way the Seven Deadly Sins feature in the movie is through the murders John Doe commits, is it not? Would you care to count the murders for me?

Dave: Where are you going with this?

Just humour me.

Dave: Well, there’s the fat guy at the start of the movie for Gluttony, the lawyer for Greed, Theodore Allen for Sloth, the prostitute for lust, the model for pride, Tracy for envy- oh…

Yeah! ”Oh” is right, Dave! For this argument to work, the entire point of the movie goes up in smoke, you complete and utter dipstick!

So in the end, we have a theory that, no matter how you look at it, doesn’t make any sense, has no evidence supporting it, the one thing it sets out to do is redundant and unnecessary, and in the process, it kneecaps the theme of the movie!

I admit, those may not be seven reasons why the theory is stupid and doesn’t work, but I think we can both agree it’s more than enough to damn it, right?

And with that, I think it’s time to put an end to this little look at theories about Seven. It’s been a long, hard way out of hell, but I think we’ve emerged into the light at last.

Dave: Oh, that’s a… rather light-hearted way to end things, isn’t it? I was half expecting you to threaten to cut MY head off and put it in a box.

Don’t be silly, Dave. I would never do that.

Dave: Ah, that’s a relief.

After all, from how little you seem to use your head, there’s no point. You wouldn’t be able to tell the difference anyway…

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Harry Potter (Pt. 10)

Ladies and gents, due to circumstances beyond our control, it is time for the first fan theory article of the year.

As such, it appears Dave has decided to mark the occasion by returning us to the ever-present morass of madness that is Harry Potter fan theories.

Dave: Yes! I’d like to share a theory about Dumbledore.

I see. Now, you’ll forgive me for not being overwhelmed by enthusiasm about this. Your track record for theories about him has not exactly been stellar, with such nuggets of brilliance as Dumbledore secretly being Ron Weasley, or Death himself, or that time you tried to argue that he made a horcrux.

But hopefully, this one won’t be quite that stupid. So what is the theory?

Dave: The theory is that Dumbledore is secretely evil!

Well, it’s certainly an… evocative idea, to say the least. Care to elaborate?

Dave: As we find out over the course of the books, Dumbledore is secretely manipulative and uses the people around him for his own ends! He’s just like Slughorn, gathering people around him, except he uses people who are outcasts as his tools, Everyone admires him, but it’s because he’s actually taking advantage of their gratitude!

Is that so?

Dave: Yes! Hagrid was allowed to stay at Hogwarts after his expulsion thanks to him. Dumbledore aided Remus Lupin with his werewolf affliction, and he took in Snape, the repentant death eater! And when he’s reeled them in, he can order them around, drawing on their debts of gratitude for him! Even Harry fits into this, being mistreated by his aunt and uncle, forced to live in a closet under the stairs and given his cousins hand-me-downs. And then, he is bullied for being an outsider, having been raised with muggles. And Dumbledore is the one who placed him there!

I see. This seems less a theory and more of an interpretation, but I’ll allow it, since it’s just packed with problems.

Let’s start with Hagrid and Remus. In both cases, it’s very clear that this is borne from compassion and kindness, helping people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control, rather than manipulation. Hagrid was expelled because Tom Riddle framed him for the murder of Myrtle Warren. Dumbledore, convinced that Hagrid was innocent, arranged for him to remain at Hogwarts as a gamekeeper, since Hagrid had nowhere else to go after losing his father a few year prior.

And Remus, likewise, was bitten by a werewolf and afflicted with lycanthropy as a young child, making him a danger to those around him if he transformed. Dumbledore arranged for the construction of the Shrieking Shack and the planting of the Womping Willow to make sure that Remus could transform without becoming a threat to other students, which allowed him to study at Hogwarts despite his affliction.

And then there’s what you said about Harry, which… where do I even begin with that? Dumbledore placed Harry with the Dursleys specifically because they were his only living relatives, and explains that ”While you can still call home the place where your mother’s blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort”.

Dave: Yes, but didn’t he himself put that spell in place?

Yes, as protection. And he also left them a letter, explaining how Harry’s parents died and, as we’re told when he visited them in the sixth book, made it VERY clear that he hoped they would treat Harry with kindness.

You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known neglect and often cruelty at your hands.

And what’s that bullcrap about Harry being bullied for being an outsider? Almost everyone who meets him are awed by him as ”the Boy who Lived”.

You know who’s is bullied for being an “outsider”? Hermione Granger!

Harry, meanwhile faces no similar behavior. You know what’s is the most egregious example of him being bullied for being an outsider? His first meeting with Snape. And yes, like we’ve talked about before, even that was Snape bullying him because Snape has a grudge against Harry’s father!

And speaking of Snape, let’s be very clear about something. Snape wasn’t an outcast! We’re shown that he was being bullied by James Potter at school, but by the time he was a Death Eater, that wasn’t the case any longer.

Also, I think it’s kind of inaccurate to call him a ”repentant” Death Eater. He only turned away from Voldemort once Lily was threatened. Up until then, he was a willing, knowing and EAGER member! The reason he ever found out about the risk to Lily’s life was because he was the one who told Voldemort about the prophecy!

I’m just gonna go out on a limb and say that you don’t get to speak directly to Voldemort as a Death Eater unless you’re quite special. And this was when Snape was 21 years old, mind you! He talked about wanting to join Voldemort in his fifth year at Hogwarts, when he was 15!

With the exception of Lily Evans, Snape had no problem whatsoever calling muggleborns Mudblood. At school, he was a bit gloomy, but he was certainly not alone. Lily Evans was his friend, which became more and more controversial over the years, since he was also friends with aspiring Death Eaters. Other people in school were wary of him because of those friends, and he later BECAME a Death Eater and was one for years! This is the group that were murdering people long, long before Severus Snape joined them, and continued to do so until Voldemort was defeated. Snape was not only aware of this, but he was almost certainly actively involved in some of those murders after he joined

Dumbledore didn’t take Snape into his service because Snape was an outcast. In fact, this whole idea would rely on Snape owing Dumbledore a debt of gratitude, except Lily still died! So Dumbledore’s supposed ”manipulation of gratitude” doesn’t apply here at all!

Instead, what we see is Dumbledore first being chastising, then guiding towards Snape, admonishing him for his more selfish traits and encouraging his more noble ones.

Dave: Aaah, but that is also part of his manipulation! After all, there’s this exchange between the two after Lily and James died.

– I thought… you were going… to keep her… safe…
– She and James put their faith in the wrong person. Rather like you, Severus.

Ok. What about it?

Dave: Well, what is he actually saying there? He’s saying James, Lily and Severus all placed their faith in the wrong person, but the way he phrases it means he is referring to himself! They trusted Dumbledore to keep them safe, but Dumbledore knew that Lily and James had to die for the prophecy to come true! He sacrificed them for his grand plan, betraying them all!

It’s an imaginative take, don’t get me wrong, but also one that doesn’t hold up.

Dave: Why not?

Simple. Let’s look at the prophecy, shall we?

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies. and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives. The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies.

That, right there, is the totality of the prophecy.

Dave: Yes. And…?

And at no point does it mention anything about James and Lily dying! It doesn’t specify that Lily will give her life for Harry, and that this act of love will protect him, just that Voldemort ”will mark him as his equal” and that ”he will have power the Dark Lord knows not”.

In other words, Dumbledore would have no reason to sacrifice James and Lily to Voldemort!

As for who he IS referring to, I can’t help but notice you conveniently ignoring the literal next thing he says.

“Weren’t you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?“

That would suggest that maybe, just maybe, he might not be referring to himself.

And going back to James and Lily, there’s another question important question to consider; HOW exactly is he supposed to have betrayed or sacrificed Lily and James? He offered to become their secret-keeper, the one person on Earth who could possibly betray their confidence and reveal their location to Voldemort… and they declined that offer! By the very nature of the spell that hid them, he couldn’t have betrayed them even if he wanted to! It was Peter Pettigrew who betrayed them, not Dumbledore! THAT is the ”wrong person” they put their faith into!

He didn’t tell them who to make the secret-keeper, and in fact, everyone who knew about the spell that was used to hide them believed that Sirius Black was the one chosen!

Dave: Aah, that’s a point! Sirius Black!

What about him?

Dave: Dumbledore took Sirius Black in, hoping to make him join, but realized that he made a mistake! Sirius was a rebel, not an outcast, and he wasn’t going to just follow instructions blindly. His loyalties were with Harry, not Dumbledore, and because Dumbledore has no use for those who won’t obey him, he abandoned Sirius!

Wait, but… How would… What!?

What do you mean ”abandoned him”? When did Dumbledore ever abandon Sirius? Are we just completely ignoring that he was a member of the Order of the Phoenix, and was from the time it started?

And going back to the point about ”outcasts”, First of all, Dumbledore didn’t ”take Sirius in” or help him, or cultivate a debt of gratitude like you claim he did with Hagrid and Remus. James Potter did that! James befriended him and took him in when his family disowned him And James, likewise, wasn’t a member of the Order because he was an outcast! He was renowned as a very skilled quidditch-player, he was made Head Boy of Gryffindor, and by all accounts, he was popular and generally well-liked! Lily Evans was also remarked as a very talented witch by people who knew her! That didn’t stop either of them joining the Order of the Phoenix!

And the other members, apart from Sirius, Remus and Hagrid, James and Lily Potter included Alice and Frank Longbottom, Elphias Doge and Alastor Moody.

Following Voldemorts return and the reforming of the Order, it was joined by Molly and Arthur Weasley, their two oldest sons Charlie and Bill, Minerva McGonagall, Kingsley Shacklebolt and Nymphadora Tonks! These are not what you could call outcasts, with Kinsgley, Moody, McGonagall and Doge being very, VERY highly respected!

Dave: Yes, but after Voldemorts return, Sirius’ loyalties lay firmly with Harry, which is why Dumbledore abandoned him!

There you go again! How did Dumbledore abandon Sirius?

Dave: Well, he refused to let Sirius help out the Order of the Phoenix!

No, Sirius wasn’t able to help, because he was still a wanted man at the time, believed to be responsible for the death of more than a dozen people. The members of the Order could strategize and coordinate, and perform various tasks that needed doing in their capacities as free citizens. Sirius could not, which is something that frustrated him greatly.

He was only exonerated after his death, after Voldemort was shown to have truly returned, and Harry, Ron and Hermione’s testimonies were proven to be true. It’s not like Dumbledore arranged to keep Sirius under suspicion. He was in absolutely no position to do anything about it!

And again, like with Lily and James supposedly being betrayed, why would he want to!?

Let’s suppose Sirius is only truly loyal to Harry. But why couldn’t he also be loyal to Dumbledore and the Order, when serving the latter is protecting the former?

Dave: Well… Ah, because if his loyalties lay mainly with Harry, he wouldn’t blindly follow Dumbledore’s orders.

What orders!? What orders are we shown that Dumbledore gives to anyone, which he would need to wield peoples gratitude to him for?

Dave: Well, he sent Hagrid to bargain with giants.

Which he did on account of Hagrid being a half giant. And he didn’t send him alone, but with Olympe Maxime, another half-giant and who, need I remind you, was the headmaster of another school and, as such, was not in any single way even slightly an ”outcast”!

Dave: We’re told Remus is sent on missions by the Order…

But we’re never told exactly what those missions are, and have no reason to suppose that they are nefarious in nature. You’re painting him some kind of magical Vito Corleone, but you have no actual evidence to back that up!

Dave: There’s also Arthur Weasley, who is attacked by Nagini and almost dies!

Yes, but again, Arthur Weasley isn’t an outcast! The only people who consider him an outcast are people who think he’s a blood traitor. As in pure-blood supremacists, the people who are working with or sympathize with Voldemort and his views!

And when Harry is tricked by Voldemort that Sirius is in danger, and goes to the Department of Mystery to save him, he first relays a message to Snape that Sirius is in danger. When Sirius later shows up at the ministry, it is along with other members of the order, including Dumbledore himself, which to me would suggest that Sirius Black is not in any way, shape or form ”abandoned”! And why would he be? What would Dumbledore actually have to gain from that?

Dave: Well, maybe it’s part of his plan! After all, Sirius would never agree to Dumbledore’s plan to defeat Voldemort, because it involved Harry sacrificing his life! He’s too loyal to Harry!

OK, I will admit, that is a possible reason for Dumbledore to be dubious, but it doesn’t change the fact that Dumbledore isn’t actually involved in Sirius’ death.

Sirius didn’t die because he was abandoned, but because he got reckless and unlucky fighting his own cousin, who killed him in a duel!

Or are you arguing that Dumbledore purposefully orchestrated this? Because if so, that’s a hell of a lot of work, requiring outright precognitive powers of planning, all to solve a problem that he could probably solve by just explaining things to Sirius!

Remember, Dumbledore’s plan regarding the Horcruxes, specifically the one within Harry, is that if Voldemort kills him, it’ll destroy the horcrux. And if Harry also willingly goes to his death, then his sacrifice will repeat the magic created when Lily gave her life for his, protecting everyone else from Voldemort.

This part, I will concede, would be viewed as dubious and questionable, sacrificing an innocent person for the greater good.

Dave: Aha, you see!

However, that all changed the moment he learned Voldemort used Harry’s blood to restore his body, since that meant the protection that Lily gave him still protects him, since it survives in Voldemort! In other words, Harry would not die, and him not knowing that would help everyone else!

Dave: But even then, Sirius would never accept Harry willingly going to his death, even if it’s a lie!

Except he did! Harry meets him again, using the resurecction stone in the seventh book, along with Remus, James and Lily. He makes it clear what he is planning to do, and none of them try to dissuade him! They respect his decision and recognise that it is his choice to make, offering comfort and reassurance to him.

So even if Dumbledore could have arranged for Sirius’ death (which he didn’t) there would have been no need to. At worst, Sirius might have told Harry that he wouldn’t die, which wouldn’t stop Dumbledore’s plan to stop Voldemort anyway!

But him scheming to kill Sirius is even MORE of a bad idea, since that’d almost certainly alienate Harry from him and he’d never trust him again if it came to light, which is a FAR greater risk to the plan! It makes absolutely no sense that he’d do that, even in this interpretation of him as a manipulative, scheming villain!

So really, what is there that makes Dumbledore so supposedly evil? The people who follow him do so because of his wisdom, brilliance and kindness, and by all accounts, he helps people out of genuine empathy and compassion!

Here’s the thing about this idea, in my view. We find out, over the course of the books, especially the seventh, that Dumbledore isn’t really the spotless, perfectly idealized wizard we thought he was. We learned that he had a bit of nuance, and that his wisdom, compassion and patience came from experience, wanting to be better than the reckless, selfish man he once was.

But as a result, the pendulum has swung the other way in the eyes of some fans, and Dumbledore is now suddenly a secretly evil character. All his kindness becomes manipulation and scheming. He doesn’t help people because he’s compassionate, but because they may be useful to him later. It’s just another example of the Snape Effect. A heroic character turns out to be less-than-perfect, so he immediately is reimagined as a villain. It’s a ridiculous black and white, binary view of morality.

And what really bugs me with this… again, I hesitate to call it a ”theory” so much as ”an interpretation”, isn’t actually that it’s stupid and nonsensical. I can confess that this theory is not as stupid or insane as Dumbledore secretely being Ron Weasley.

Instead, it’s far, far worse, simple because it’s so BORING! I mean, ultimately, what is this theory actually saying? What is it really accomplishing, beyond ”What if [Good Guy] is actually EEEVIIILL”?

This is just the Qui-Gon Jinn theory or Darth Jar-Jar all over again, where they have this supposed scheming, hidden machiavellian agenda that for some reason involves rejecting power and influence, never capitalizing on their opportunities and comitting acts of self-sacrifice!

And for what? What is Dumbledore’s great goal, the sinister purpose he’s manipulating and scheming to accomplish? Remember, he was offered the post of Minister of Magic multiple times, and declined the offer, because he didn’t trust himself with that power. So what does he want to do?

Stop Voldemort and save the world from an evil wizard? Giving his own life to destroy a dangerously powerful magical artifact, and planning to ensure his death doesn’t scar an innocent young man? That selfish, nefarious monster, fighting and working for… The Common Good!? Understanding and Compassion?! Clearly, this is the TRUE villain of the franchise!

So either he is the least effective scheming hidden overlord in literary history, Dave, or this interpretation is just a big pile of cynical, nonsensical claptrap!

I’ll give you three guesses for which one it definitely is.

Dave: Oh, in that case, I-

Or rather, I would, except I’m pretty sure you’d somehow manage to get it wrong all three times anyway.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Skyrim

My dear readers, it is with great pride that I can tell you all that this week marks the 9 year anniversary of this humble little blog. 

Nine years of ranting, pedantry and nitpicking, dealing with issues ranging from the innocuous to the outright dreadful.

Unfortunately, it is with considerably less mirth and joy I have to reveal that Dave has seen fit to mark the occasion with a slew of fan theories.

Dave: That’s right! And I’ve found some theories on a video game!

Oh? Well, that’s a bit intriguing. We haven’t looked at many video game theories over the years. The only three times have been Majoras Mask, Portal 2 and Bioshock, and we really haven’t looked at any video game theories at all for over half a decade by now. So maybe it’s about time we looked at another one. 

Dave: I agree! That is why I have a bunch of theories about Skyrim for us to look at.

Oh… I see. Of course you do. Normally, I would get very angry right about now, with the assumption that you brought me a bunch of theories about a game I absolutely despise in the deliberate hope it’d annoy me… but on this occasion, I will not attribute to malice what can easily be explained by overly excited idiocy.

So with that in mind, I will indulge you, if for no other reason than to see if these theories might at least be less frustrating than the game itself. What’s the first theory?

Dave: The first theory is that the events of the game were a plot by the main character!

Alright, explain.

Dave: Well, maybe the return of the dragons, the civil war, the plot to assassinate the emperor… what if that was all part of a plot for the Dragonborn to take over Tamriel? There is a prophecy that speaks of the Dragonborn and the return of Alduin! The player character was aware of the prophecy and went to Skyrim at the outbreak of the civil war, in order to carry out a plan to take over the world!

I see… but at the start of the game, the player character doesn’t know that they’re the Dragonborn, do they?

Dave: Ah, but that’s the thing! They weren’t!

..And just like that, you’ve lost me.

Dave: The player character came to Skyrim to BECOME the Dragonborn! One of the first quests in the game has you collect the Dragonstone from the Bleak Falls Barrow. What if this stone has the power to grant the powers of the Dragonborn? He gets the powers, and now is able to carry out his plan! The previous Dragonborn was Tiber Septim, who became an emperor. Why couldn’t this Dragonborn do the same?

Alright. At the outset, this theory doesn’t seem all that insane. However, there are more than a few issues with it, which leads me to think it’s not actually true.

Firstly, you claim that the player character was aware of the prophecy beforehand. The problem with that is that the prophecy is written on Alduins Wall, inside the Sky Haven Temple. Nobody has been in there for centuries, possibly millennia. So how would the Dragonborn be aware of the prophecy?

It’s a plot point that the Blades need you, the Dragonborn, to help them enter the temple, so they can read the mural and find out a way to defeat Alduin. If the Dragonborn already knows about the prophecy and the mural and all that, then why would they need to enter the Sky Haven Temple with such urgency, when the Dragonborn could just tell them??

Dave: Well, maybe the Dragonborn doesn’t want to tip his hand and let people know what his plans are?

Except what difference does that make? The people he’s talking to are the Blades, who have already sworn loyalty to him. If anything, given that Tiber Septim became an emperor, you’d think they’d be pretty happy to restore a Dragonborn to the throne, right?

So really, we have no evidence at all that the Dragonborn knew anything about the prophecy before the events of the game.

Secondly, your claim about the Dragonstone… Ignoring the fact that there is no particular evidence at all that the Dragonstone is magic in any way, we already know what it does. It’s a map of all the dragon burial mounds.

After all, don’t you think it’d be extremely stupid to make a magical artifact that just grants the powers of the Dragonborn to anyone who touches it and just leave it lying around in an old grave?

We’re not talking just some magical enchantment here. We’re talking giving someone the blessings of a god. If the Dragonstone could do that, wouldn’t that be pretty widely known, especially to a high ranking scholar like Farengar, the guy who tells you to find it? After all, why write about where it is and not what it can do? And in that case, asking some random dipstick who just stumbled in to retrieve it would be pretty damn idiotic, right?

Dave: Well, the player character did have experience with dragons, so maybe he’s the best pick?

And that brings us to the biggest problem. Let’s look at thing as they occur, according to the theory. Some guy finds out about a prophecy they should have no way of learning about, and heads to Skyrim to become the Dragonborn. Am I right so far?

Dave: Yeah, that’s right.

They are captured by Imperials when crossing the border and sentenced to execution, on account of the ongoing civil war. They are saved at the last moment by the sudden arrival of Alduin, and they escape to Whiterun, where they are tasked with retrieving the Dragonstone. In so doing, they become the Dragonborn, yes?

Dave: Yes.

And now, they intend to use their status, as well as the fact that there just so happens to be an assassination contract on the emperor (which is not in any way part of the main story) to take power. Have I got all of this right?

Dave: I think so, yes.

OK, in that case, how did the Dragonborn plan any of this? How COULD he plan any of this? He survived execution because Alduin intervened. How could he have known that would happen? And Alduins interference was also the only reason he was tasked with bringing the Dragonstone which can grant the powers of the Dragonborn, something he is apparently the only person in the world who knows.

Really, this theory doesn’t paint the Dragonborn as a scheming, ambitious and clever opportunist, but instead as someone who is so astoundingly lucky, it borders on the hilarious. None of this comes across as planned at all, unless you are suggesting that the Dragonborn is somehow psychic and can see the future.

I’ve said it before that a good fan theory should ideally answer a question. But this theory really only raises more and more questions. How did the Dragonborn know of the prophecy? How did he know of the powers of the Dragonstone? Why did Alduin scream for the Dragonborn when he attacked Helgen, if there was no Dragonborn there at the time?

(That last one is particularly interesting, because I still have no clue why Alduin decided to attack Helgen, even after all these years)

And of course, there’s the little detail that this theory suggests the Dragonborn plans to use the fact that he’s the Dragonborn to become emperor when, as I’ve said before, there are barely any lasting consequences for your actions.

Nobody in the game actually seems to give a crap if you’re the Dragonborn or not. You don’t get much in the way of preferential treatment or respect, no matter what grand and glorious feat you accomplish. You save the world and you’re still getting the stink-eye from city guards and called a sneak thief!

All this is to say that even if this theory was true, it’s still pointless, since the Dragonborn clearly isn’t gonna become emperor with the way nobody cares about anything you do in the game.

What’s the next theory?

Dave: OK, the second theory is that Paarthurnax is an evil genius!

…So it’s the same theory again, just focused on someone else? Very well, Go ahead.

Dave: So, Paarthurnax turned on Alduin in ancient times. But maybe that was so he could rule the world! But since Alduin wasn’t defeated, only thrown forward in time, Paarthurnax decided to bide his time instead. And now he’s using the Dragonborn for his own ends, to ensure Alduin is destroyed. Then he can rule all of dragonkind in Alduins place.

OK, but everything we know about Paarthurnax suggests he aided humanity out of pity. The etchings along the route to High Hrothgar describes him as pitying humans and teaching them to use the Thu’um, alongside the goddess Kyne.

And if his goal was to rule humanity in Alduins place, why would he not have tried at any time during the millennia since Alduin was defeated?

Dave: I told you! Alduin wasn’t destroyed but thrown forward in time! Paarthurnax doesn’t want to claim power only to have it wrested from him when Alduin returns. So he waited and over time, the Greybeards gathered around him. You have to admit, there’s a bit of a parallel between the greybeards and the dragon priests who worshipped Alduin, right?

Yes, but it’s more that they are a thematic opposite of the Dragon Priests, if anything. They don’t follow Paarthurnax out of religious fervor, but consider him the leader of their order for his wisdom and mastery of the Way of the Voice. Their philosophy is centered around pacifism.

If Paarthurnax’s intention was to rule, it makes no sense that he’d hide away at the Throat of the World and await Alduins return. After all, you’d think Alduin would still be eager to avenge himself on Paarthurnax for betraying him. He’d have a much better chance of survival if he took more of an active role in aiding humanity throughout the centuries. He’d definitely have nothing to gain from pursuing a path of pacifism and pass those teachings along to his followers.

Dave: Yes, but maybe that is just a ruse, to make himself appear as less of a threat?

Except no one can access where he’s hiding without the Greybeards clearing the path first. If his goal was to rule the world, there are many easier ways for him to do so without having to present himself as a wise, pacifist philosopher.

In the end, I think the biggest issue with this theory is… there’s actually no evidence to support it.

Dave: Well, dragons are all ambitious and cruel by nature. Why should Paarthurnax be any different?

Because of that whole pacifist philosophy of the way of the voice. It’s a philosophy the dragon Odahviing describes with distrust, calling it “tyranny”, specifically because it is so counter to the nature of dragons. Paarthurnax himself admits to always be tempted to return to his old ways, but he’s never shown as anything other than determined to resist that urge.

And of course, there’s the clincher for me, that if this theory is true, it’d mean Paarthurnax is astoundingly stupid.

Dave: What do you mean?

Well, think if it like this. What happened to dragonkind after Alduin’s defeat, all those millennia ago?

Dave: Well, they were defeated?

Exactly. They were hunted to the point of extinction. For most of his life, Paarthurnax was the only dragon left. Because Alduin was defeated, dragons could no longer be revived. If Paarthurnax’s plan was to destroy Alduin, so he could usurp him, that’d mean he would be ensuring that his own species (which as we’ve established aren’t terribly clever when it comes to fighting) would soon be extinct again.

This fact actually gels very well with his declaration at the end of the game, where he says he intends to bring the Way of the Voice to the rest of Dragonkind. He WANTS dragons to become pacifists! He wants humanity and dragonkind to coexist!

We literally have no evidence at all to suggest that Paarthurnax was ever jealous of Alduin, or that he is scheming and manipulating the Dragonborn or has any ulterior motives whatsoever, apart from “He is a dragon”.

All this theory seems to exist to do is to take one of the very, very few genuinely good things about the game and ruin it.

Paarthurnax’s character, his motives, his history, is among the only things I really like about this game, to the point where the game requiring you to kill him and refusing to give another choice pissed me off so much, I quit playing it altogether.

So you bringing me a theory like this is interesting, Dave, since it would seem your goal is to take the one bright spot in this crap-heap of a game, this badly written, endlessly annoying, amazingly overrated pile of crap… and stamp it out.

Dave: Ah… well, I was actually hoping you wouldn’t mind these theories, given how much you dislike Skyrim?

Really? That was your plan? After nine years of rage and vitriol, founded on the fact that I despise this game specifically because of how inane and idiotic it is… after all that, you got it into your head that the best course of action was to bring me theories that are somehow more stupid than the game itself, requiring me to actually RESEARCH that same game, and hoped that I wouldn’t mind?

Turns out I was right about what I said at the start! There’s no need to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by plain, simple stupidity. And god knows both you and Skyrim have that in spades

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Batman (Pt. 4)

Spring has finally returned, and bringing with it sunshine, bird song and steadily warmer weather. However, it would seem we’re not quite out of the proverbial woods yet, since Dave has been in a worryingly good mood.

Dave: That’s right! You see, I have found some more theories about Batman for us to look at!

Well, I suppose it’s been quite some time since we looked at theories about the caped crusader. So if nothing else, after so much time has passed, we’re sure to have some really good ones to look at, won’t we?

Dave: Indeed we do! The first theory actually connects to two other things we haven’t covered in quite a while: Tim Burton and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!

I see. I’m a bit worried since… well, you don’t exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to either of those things. But fine, what’s the theory?

Dave: The theory is that Charlie’s dad worked for the Joker!

…What?

Dave: In the 2005 movie, we see Charlie’s dad working in a toothpaste factory. The factory in question produces Smilex toothpaste, which is the brand the Joker controls in the 1989 Batman movie!

Is that it?

Dave: Well… they’re both directed by the same person so…

So in other words, that’s all the evidence there is?

Dave:…Yes, pretty much.

OK, ignoring the fact that the Batman version was called Smylex with a ”Y”, and the toothpaste is called Smilex with an “I“, wouldn’t this mean that Willy Wonka’s factory, and indeed the entire movie, takes place in Gotham?

Dave: Well, yes, I suppose it would.

Except the town we see in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory looks nothing like Gotham city. No towering skyscrapers, no large river, no enormous bridges…

Dave: Well, maybe it’s on the outskirts? They don’t really say the name of the town in the movie, do they?

That’s true, but let’s also consider the simple fact that Smilex wasn’t a brand in Batman. It was that movies word for the Joker venom. The whole idea was that DIFFERENT cosmetics, soaps and other hygiene products had different components, and when put together, they become deadly.

The joker wants to, in his own words, ”run the city into the ground”. He wants chaos and panic. So him calling the poison by name, and then put the name of that poison on one of the products he supposedly poisoned… that doesn’t really help him in any way, does it?

Dave: Ah, but what if it’s a ruse to distract the police? Maybe he’s just creating a false lead so they won’t discover the truth?

OK, but think about it. If that was the case, this would require the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to not only take place in Gotham City, but also happening at the same time as the events of Batman, right?

Dave: Yes…?

But if that is the case, how do you explain that it’s the middle of winter in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, when it very clearly isn’t winter in Gotham City? If they’re supposed to take place at the same time, that doesn’t make sense, does it?

Dave: Well… maybe it ISN’T the same place, then? Maybe it’s a different city entirely, maybe further north, which could explain why there’s snow there and not in Gotham?

Right… but if your argument is true, and Smilex is just a false lead for the Gotham Police… why then would he put it in another city entirely, which would make sure that the police in Gotham City wouldn’t look into it, since they’re likely not the ones supplying poison to Gotham city?

Dave: They could still be involved, though? Or maybe the Joker isn’t just limiting his operation to Gotham?

Ok, there’s a major problem with that argument alone, but let’s deal with the smaller one first. See, if this factory is a deliberate false lead, wouldn’t it be shut down rather quickly, given that it’s possibly involved in the lethal poisoning of at least six people?

Dave: Uhm… yes, I suppose, but…

And yet, there’s no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact, we know that Charlie’s dad is laid off, not because the factory closes down, but because his job of screwing on toothpaste caps was taken over by a robot!

But there’s also the idea that the Joker’s operation is going on outside of Gotham… which we have no evidence for whatsoever. In fact, given the dialogue in the movie, the implication is that only Gotham is involved.

Safe products are flying in as Gotham City goes on a forced fast.

Dave: Yes, the Gotham News only talk about Gotham. That doesn’t prove that other areas aren’t also involved!

Maybe, but here’s where we run into the major issue with this argument. If there was an ongoing, possibly national outbreak of lethally poisonous cosmetics and healthcare products… that’d be pretty major news, yes?

Dave: Yes…?

It’d be pretty much guaranteed to be front page news nation-wide, would it not?

Dave: Yes, I guess it would.

So given the ongoing threat of sudden, unexplained lethal poisonings, why would anyone give a rats damn about chocolate bars!?

Dave: What?

You know, the golden tickets? A major plotpoint of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Not a peep in those news reports about the people supposedly dropping dead with terrifying rictus grins! Call me naïve, but ”people are being poisoned” is more important news than ”Competition about a lifetime supply of candy”.

So really, we come back to the one, single and solitary piece of evidence there is that these two movies are connected at all: that they both use one specific word.

Except, as I pointed out, it’s spelled differently in both versions.

Dave: OK, so that doesn’t really work, I guess.

Oh, what a surprise.

Dave: But I have another theory, and this one is about Batman v Superman.

Oh goody. The best Batman-movie…

Dave: Come on, give it a chance.

Fine. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, despite you never having earned it even slightly.

Dave: The theory is that The Joker in Batman v Superman is actually Robin!

…Wow. You’d think that after all this time, you would be unable to surprise me, and then you bring me stuff like this. Go on, explain yourself.

Dave: In Batman v Superman, we see Robins suit on display, riddled with bullet holes and spray paint reading ”HAHAHA JOKES ON YOU BATMAN”. The implication is that the Joker killed Robin, right?

Yes, I would say so.

Dave: Ah, except the Joker we see in the movie is quite a bit younger than Batman, right?

Well…

Dave: And as we see, The Joker in the Snyderverse has tattoos all over his upper body, with some of them possibly covering up the bullet holes!

OK…

Dave: So maybe what happened was, the Joker captured and tortured Jason Todd, like he did in the comics, and this drove the Boy Wonder mad, turning him into the new Clown Prince of Crime.

Right… I can’t help notice that your only real evidence to support this theory is the fact that the Joker has tattoos. But as we see, those tattoos don’t really cover up any bullet holes.

Dave: Aha, but there’s one scar on his left shoulder!

True… but none anywhere else. As we can see, the suit had several bullet holes, in both shoulders and in the abdomen.

There’s no scar on his other shoulder or on his stomach that corresponds with the holes seen on the suit. Even the wound on his shoulder doesn’t seem to be in the right place.

But more than that, your other argument is that this Joker is younger than Batman?

Dave: That’s right.

Well, there are two problems with that idea. Firstly, since we have no idea how old the Joker is supposed to be, it’s kind of tricky to say that this one is younger than he should be. We assume that the Joker is comparable in age to Batman, but we’ve no real proof to back that up.

The second issue is that… this Joker isn’t really younger than Batman.

Dave: Yes, he is!

Do we know how old the Joker is in this movie?

Dave: No, but… just look at him! Hes obviously younger than Batman!

Is he, though? All we really have to go on is the age of Jared Leto, the actor who portrays him, since no age is specified in the movie. Problem is… he’s one year older than Ben Affleck.

Dave: Oh…

So really… that’s your second argument gone, isn’t it? In fact, I don’t really see the point of this theory, seeing as it doesn’t exactly change anything about the movie. It’s not like we see Batman deeply conflicted about this version of the Joker, or trying to help him.

Dave: Well, it might explain why this Joker is so terrible.

Hm… Ok, I can kinda see the rationale there. The problem is… it doesn’t make him any less terrible! It doesn’t make us enjoy seeing him, does it? Hell, I’d argue that while this theory tries to answer one question which nobody was really asking, it raises a whole bunch of other questions in the process.

If the Joker captured and tortured Jason Todd to the point of madness, what happened to the original Joker, since we never see him and instead we have this cheap imitation?

Dave: Maybe Batman killed him?

But…why would Batman kill the Joker? For torturing Jason Todd? Because I remind you, the Joker has done far worse before, and Batman haven’t killed him. Going back to the comic, as well as my personal favorite Batman movie Under the Red Hood, the Joker beat Jason Todd half to death with a crowbar and then blew him up, and Batman STILL didn’t kill him!

Here, Jason is still very much alive, but for some reason he’s just… a new Joker? Why would he want to emulate someone he has every reason in the world to hate? Again, the entire reason he was angry with Batman was because Batman DIDN’T kill the Joker! There’s no way Jason Todd would want to be like the Joker!

Dave: Well, what if he was tortured to the point of insanity?

NO! I do not accept that as an explanation, just saying ”Yeah, it doesn’t make sense, but he’s crazy so he doesn’t have to make sense”! That’s just laziness! It’s one step removed from ”it was all a dream”, coupled with the exact same problem as we hit on with The Rock, Bioshock, The Grinch or that one theory about Shrek! So much of the character has changed, with his name and motivations and personality that it doesn’t really make any difference!

And again, the only evidence in support of this theory, the ONE THING that backs it up… is that the Joker has a scar on his shoulder!

So either A) Jason Todd was kidnapped and tortured by the Joker and, rather than rightly hating his green haired guts, decides to emulate him to the point where he becomes his replacement, which leaves important questions regarding where the original joker went completely unanswered… or B) the Joker murdered Jason Todd, like he did in the comic, which explains why the Joker is still around, explains why Jason Todd is gone and really only leaves the question of ”why is this joker so terrible” which I think can easily be explained by the movie itself being terrible.

I somehow suspect option B is slightly more likely.

And with that, I think it’s time we call it a day. I suppose it’s rather fitting that we’ve looked at two theories connected to the Joker, and it’s turned out to be a cavalcade of chaos and madness, though at the same time, in some strange, sick and demented way, it was entertaining.

Dave: Well, in that case, what if I told you I had more theories for you?

Well, that’s an interesting question. In that case, I think I would take you kindly and forgivingly by the hand, and together we could take a nice stroll in the moonlit night and then I’d set your head on fire.

Dave: Oh.

Yeah, there’d be a hot time in the old town tonight.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: The Silence of the Lambs

Dave: I have some exciting news!

Oh, I do wonder what it could be.

Dave: Do you remember way a few years back, when you talked about The Rocky Horror Picture Show?

Yes. Wait, you haven’t found a fan theory about that, have you? I mean, I have been feeling a bit down in the dumps, so it could be fun to look at something that has Tim Curry in it, even IF it’s a stupid theory.

Dave: Uhm… no, it’s just that you made a reference to The Silence of the Lambs there, and I’ve found a fan theory about that movie.

Oh… What joy… Please, don’t mind my despondent look. By all means, go ahead and share.

Dave: The theory is that Buffalo Bill was Hannibal Lecter’s backup plan!

Alright. Explain.

Dave: Well, we’re told repeatedly that Jame Gumb is not actually a transexual, that he doesn’t fit the profile and, as Lecter puts it, instead had a pathology “a thousand times more savage and more terrifying”. So if he’s not transgender, how then did he become obsessed with this idea of becoming a woman? What if that idea was instilled in him by Hannibal Lecter during a psychiatric session? Hannibal, who at the time had committed several gruesome murders, decided he needed an insurance policy in case he was ever captured. He saw the beginnings of a murderous nature in Jame Gumb and decided to feed those urges, and twist his mind, thereby turning him into the serial killer Buffalo Bill. He knew he would be asked to help catch Gumb, and he could use his knowledge as a bargaining chip to aid his own escape.

Right. I will admit, it’s quite an elaborate theory, and at a glance, it could even be believable, especially compared to what we usually deal with. Unfortunately, the theory doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. There’s plenty of problems, with one pretty massive one in particular… But let’s deal with the smaller things first, shall we?

First and foremost, Jame Gumb’s first murder wasn’t Federica Bimmel. According to the book, he murdered his grandparents when he was 12 years old in a fit of rage, after having spent 8 years in a foster home. Lecter mentions to Senator Martin that he met Gumb only once, with Gumb having been referred to him in 1980 by another patient of his. That patient, Benjamin Raspail, did so after Gumb had murdered a woman and “done things with her skin”. So it seems his murderous habits existed before he ever met Lecter.

Dave: Well, Lecter may have lied. He did lie about Gumbs name, after all.

True, but recall that in the context of these movies, Lecter was caught in 1980, the same year he met Gumb. We’re told Jame is driven by a deep self-loathing which, according to the book, was ALSO already present by the time he met Lecter.

Our Billy wasn’t born a criminal, Clarice. He was made one through years of systematic abuse. Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual.

Dave: But again, we’re only told that by Lecter himself. What if he’s lying about that too, to hide his own complicity. He could be an unreliable narrator!

I suppose one could make that argument, but that’s only one of a number problems with this theory.

See, you claim that Lecter turned Gumb into a serial killer as an insurance policy. The problem is that it assumes Lecter knew he would get caught.

Dave: Not necessarily. He did it in case he got caught.

OK, but… what if Gumb got caught before anyone caught Lecter? What if Gumb made a mistake or got unlucky and got caught without Lecter’s help? Lecter wasn’t exactly coaching him in how to carry out his murders, and even if he somehow was able to give instructions without getting caught himself… well, Buffalo Bill isn’t exactly what I’d call incredibly reliable or stable.

And also, how did he know he would be asked to help finding Gumb at all, over a decade before the fact?

Dave: Well, Gumb was his patient, so they would go to him for help, wouldn’t they?

Except they make it a point in the movie to explain that Lecter made sure to destroy his patient records before he got caught! They didn’t know the two were connected when Clarice went to talk to him! So how the hell would anyone link the two together for his plan to work!?

The only reason Clarice was sent to him was because Lecter had helped the FBI previously with catching Francis Dolaryde!

And the reason he was asked for help in THAT case was because of Will Graham deciding on his own to approach Lecter! I remind you, this is the same man who Lecter tried to murder when he was apprehended, and who went into an early retirement afterwards!

And let’s not forget Lecter took some convincing by Graham to help, and even then, he almost got Graham killed when he gave Dolaryde Grahams home address! For someone who you claim had a plan that hinged on his helping the FBI, how does ANY of that help that plan!? Why would he ever have assumed he’d STILL be approached by the FBI about Gumb!? There’s being clever, there’s being scheming and then there’s just being plain psychic!

Really, if this theory was true, it would still rely less on Lecter being a masterful manipulator and chessmaster, and more on him either having powers of precognition or, more likely, being INSANELY lucky! He got lucky that Graham approached him about Dolaryde. He got lucky they still wanted to talk to him about Buffalo Bill after what he did. He was lucky Gumb was clever enough never to get caught, he got lucky that he just happened to meet Gumb the same year he got locked up. and that despite almost a decade passing, Gumb STILL began killing people. And of course, there’s the biggest lucky break of all.

You see, Lecter didn’t actually need to know Jame Gumb or anything about him at all, since it wasn’t the information he gave to Clarice that helped him escape, but rather manipulating the ambitious hospital director Dr. Chilton!

Chilton learns of the fake deal offered by the FBI and sets up a plan of his own. When Lecter gave him a fake name, he set up a meeting between Lecter and Senator Martin in Tennessee.

While in Tennessee, Lecter is kept in a temporary cell and, using a makeshift key taken from Chiltons pen, carries out his escape. He didn’t need to actually know anything about Buffalo Bill to escape!

Lecter’s knowledge about Gumb is what led to Starling finally catching him. None of the information he gave her served his escape plan. In other words, even if we ignore the insane amount of luck or astounding foresight it’d require, Lecters supposed “insurance policy” wasn’t actually what helped him escape!

And once you realize that, the entire theory stops making sense, since the central argument of “Hannibal Lecter created Buffalo Bill to help him escape” no longer exists.

Dave: Wait, you can’t just discard that idea like that! The fact remains, he wouldn’t have been able to escape without Buffalo Bill! He knew enough for them to offer him the deal, didn’t he?

Fair enough… but you’re forgetting one thing.

Dave: What’s that?

Why did the FBI make the fake deal, which in turn is how Chilton could set up the meeting with Senator Ruth Martin? In other words, what was the ONLY REASON Hannibal was able to escape at all?

Dave: Uhm…

It was because Jame Gumb happened to kidnap Senator Martins daughter!

That is the one, only and singular reason why Hannibal Lecter had a chance to escape! Chance! Happenstance! Complete, random, blind, stupid, simple, dooh-dah clueless fucking LUCK!

And unless you claim that Hannibal somehow orchestrated THAT from inside a maximum security cell in a mental hospital with no contact with the outside world and no indication whatsoever that Jame “Buffalo Bill” Gumb was taking instructions from him… I think that pretty much sinks the theory.

Dave: Well… He could still have created Buffalo Bill as an insurance policy, but his plan never became necessary…

OK, so that’s your final argument, is it? He got a bit unlucky? Circumstances never aligned the way he planned?

Dave: Uhm… Yes?

Well, ignoring what a shite planner that makes Hannibal seem, I would just like to point out one final thing. That one massive gaping hole in the theory I mentioned earlier.

Dave: Which is?

It’s what Jack Crawford says when sending Clarice Starling to see Hannibal Lecter.

We’re interviewing all serial killers now in custody for a psycho-behavioural profile. Could be a real help in unsolved cases. Most of them have been happy to talk to us […] See, the one we want most refuses to cooperate. […] The psychiatrist, Hannibal Lecter. […]I don’t expect him to talk to you, but I have to be able to say we tried.

So in a way, I guess it wasn’t just blind luck the FBI decided to approach him about Buffalo Bill. In fact, the plan was never for the FBI to probe him in particular. But for a supposed insurance policy, it’s a bit weird that he’s apparantly unwilling to partake in his own damn plan until Clarice Starling gets involved, isn’t it?

It’s only after one of the other inmates throws semen at her that he decides to help her at all, and that is what kicks off the entire thing, ending with his escape. Just… why would he refuse to help until then, if the whole reason he made Buffalo Bill was for this exact purpose?! I mean, it’s not like it’s a plot point that’s easy to miss, seeing as it’s 8 minutes into the movie!

So either he’s playing some extreme five-dimensional quadruple reverse psychology, ON TOP of being phenomenally lucky… or this theory is a load of bullshit.

And with that, how about we can call it a day here?

Dave: Well, I thought-

I’m sorry, I’ll rephrase. It shuts its face and packs it in, or else it gets the hose again!

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Disney Triple Feature, Vol. VI

Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great regret that I have to inform you all that it’s time for the first fan theory article of the year.

Dave: That’s right, and I have produced another triptych of theoretical treats for your enjoyment, courtesy of Disney.

Or to put it another way, this is another Disney Triple Feature to add to the pile.

Dave: Yes.

Wonderful. And what dazzling collage of insipidity have you decided should cause a rock-splitting headache for me today, Dave?

Dave: Well, the first theory I have is about Winnie the Pooh.

Is that so? In that case, go ahead. Whatever it is, I doubt it’ll be as idiotic as the previous time we talked about this, which was all based on the fact that Eeyore was depressed.

Dave: Funny you should say that. What would you say if I were to tell you Eeyore has a very good reason to be depressed, because he is one of the children-turned-donkeys from Pinocchio?

Well, seeing as, instead of rehashing one idiotic theory we’ve looked at before, you’ve decided to rehash ANOTHER stupid theory… I’d say I want to slap you in the brain. Now explain.

Dave: Well, the idea is that Eeyore used to be one of the children in Pinocchio, who was turned into a donkey on Pleasure Island. Maybe he managed to escape, and made his way to the Hundred Acre Woods. But he’s still haunted by what happened, which is why he’s in such a constant state of melancholy.

I see… Now, I spot a few pretty glaring flaws with this idea. Firstly, it’s the idea that Eeyore somehow escaped from Pleasure Island. From what we see of him, he’s not terribly agile or strong or massively inventive. I don’t really see him escaping captivity, especially given that he’s presumably the only one who did, since he’s the only one we see.

Then there’s the fact that, with the exception of Pinocchio himself, the children on Pleasure Island were all badly behaved, violent delinquents. Eeyore doesn’t seem to have any of the characteristics we see from, for example, Lampwick.

Dave: Well, of course not! He’s been through a horrible experience!

True, but it’s not like those traits are subdued, so much as they’re completely absent. I would have expected there to be some bitterness, especially towards Christopher Robin.

Dave: Wait, why would he be bitter towards Christopher Robin?

Because Christopher Robin is a good kid. He’d be a constant reminder of Eeyore’s past and what he’s lost. To a kid like the ones we see on Pleasure Island, that would probably breed resentment. But Eeyore doesn’t come across as bitter, just gloomy.

Dave: Ah, but people respond to trauma differently.

That’s true, though I would also argue that if Eeyore had been human at some point, that’s probably something he would bring up once or twice or… you know… ever?

But in the end, this is all ultimately irrelevant, since there’s one pretty massive problem this theory seems to completely ignore. You see, it is actually not possible for Eeyore to have escaped Pleasure Island and made it to the Hundred Acre Woods.

Dave: Why’s that?

It’s very simple, really. The Hundred Acre Woods don’t exist. Even within the context of the story of Winnie the Pooh, it’s a fictional, imaginary place. And even if you were to argue against that, Eeyore isn’t a real donkey.

Dave: Wait. Hang on-

It is canonically confirmed that Eeyore is a toy. He’s a donkey toy stuffed with sawdust. It’s a recurring element that he loses his tail, requiring Christopher Robin to reattach it with a hammer and nail!

So Eeyore can’t be one of the kids from Pleasure Island.

Dave: Uhm… unless he was turned into a donkey, and then a toy?

An extraordinary claim, requiring equally extraordinary evidence. No other donkey is seen turning into a toy. The only way that argument works is if we apply circular logic and first assume Eeyore was one of the kids on Pleasure Island, which is what this argument is trying to prove.

That said, I will give this theory some credit.

Dave: Really?

Yes. At least unlike the previous two times we talked about Pinocchio crossing over with another Disney movie, this time you at least had the good sense to have the character travel FORWARD through time… Anyway, what’s next?

Dave: Well, I found another theory about Snow White.

Aha. Again, a subject we’ve covered before. Several times, in fact. So what is the theory this time?

Dave: The theory I found is that Snow White is dead!

Right. Explain.

Dave: OK, so isn’t it strange that the Queen, after trying to murder Snow White before, should decide to use a magical apple that just puts her to sleep, and which can be reversed by a kiss? Maybe everything we see for Snow White after she’s eaten the apple is a metaphor for death? Her ”awakening” is simply her arriving in the realm of the dead, where she’s escorted to a strange, heavenly abode by the prince… or rather, she’s being escorted to Heaven itself by Death! After all, the prince comes riding on a white horse, not unlike Death in the Book of Revelation.

Wow. I… don’t know what to say.

Dave: Aha, you’re awestruck, I see.

No, I’m dumbstruck, with an emphasis on the ”dumb” part. This is not just a stupid theory, but it’s somehow even WORSE than the previous one! So let’s go over why it doesn’t work, shall we?

Now, you are right it’s a bit of a strange move for the Queen to decide to put Snow White to sleep… But remember, the only reason we know the apple puts you to sleep, and that the spell can be broken by a kiss, is because the Queen herself says this out loud!

She reads it after she makes the apple, worrying about there being an antidote, and even though she finds one, she decided that she will use the method anyway!

‘The victim of the Sleeping Death can be revived only by Love’s First Kiss’. Love’s first kiss. BAH! No fear of that. The Dwarfs will think she’s dead. She’ll be BURIED ALIVE!

It’s something I’ve mentioned before as a fatal flaw of hers: her seeming inability to do anything the easy way.

But even ignoring this, from what we see in the movie, the idea that Snow White is dead just doesn’t work. If she was actually dead, surely we wouldn’t see her interract with the dwarfs before leaving? The dwarfs see the prince and are aware of him before he kisses her, and when he does, she wakes up. The dwarfs dance and celebrate and she kisses them all on the forehead before she and the prince depart. Really, there is NOTHING about this to imply that she’s dead! All we have seen has been in line with the information we have already been given.

And while I think that is all enough to disprove the theory, I feel it would be remiss of me to ignore that last argument you raised.

Dave: What argument?

That the prince is Death. Please, remind me of what you said?

Dave: Well, the prince escorts her to what seems to be a heavenly domain, much like the Grim Reaper guides souls. And he rides on a pale horse, just like Death is described in the Bible!

Ah, right. Now, this does raise the question of why he appeared earlier in the movie? Snow White wasn’t exactly dying there.

Dave: Well, obviously that wasn’t Death. It’s just that when Death does arrive, he takes the form of someone Snow White would trust.

Except he sings the exact same song as he did when they met earlier. He rides the same horse, he dresses the same, there’s nothing to suggest they’re NOT the same person! And in fact, the evidence you’re offering to suggest that the prince is Death ignores tons of arguments against the idea!

Firstly, the piece of the bible you’re referencing refer to the four horsemen. But that part also mentions that the fourth horseman, Death, is followed by Hades. Now, I don’t really see anything akin to that in the movie. So out of the two pieces of evidence to prove that the prince is Death, you’ve flat out ignored one of them.

And the irony is, the other evidence, the one you’ve decided to cling to in desperation, is ALSO wrong, since the prince does not, in fact, ride on a pale horse!

Dave: What? Yes, he does! He comes riding on a pale horse!

No, he comes riding on a WHITE horse.

Dave: Yeah, yeah, same difference.

Except the very scripture you quote to support the theory DOES differentiate, since while the fourth horseman rides a pale horse, the FIRST horseman rides a white horse! Granted, the exact meaning of the figure seems to be a matter of debate, be it as pestilence or conquest or the antichrist or whatever, but the point is that he is very clearly a different entity from Death, the fourth horseman.

And of course, there’s the final piece of the movie which, I’d argue, sinks the whole theory anyway. Snow White and the prince see the castle in the distance, the screen fades to black and then opens on the final page of the storybook.

And they lived happilly ever after.

Now, call me an bluff old pedant, but that third word… ”lived”… Doesn’t that kinda sorta becomes ever so slightly tricky if the people it’s referring to are no longer alive?

Dave: Uhm…

And this is what’s ultimately my biggest problem with this theory. It’s nothing but blatant, shameless cherry-picking! It requires you to focus on small details here and there, while ignoring everything around it for it to work, and as soon as you give it the slightest bit of thought, it completely falls apart!

Now, what’s the final theory?

Dave: The final theory is that Jafar was the hero all along in Aladdin.

…Right, this’ll be interesting.

Dave: OK, so we are shown the Sultan, who is this jovial, cuddly old man, playing around with his toys. Meanwhile, he has people in his city who are poor and starving. Aladdin was a street thief hoping to one day marry rich and Jasmine was a sheltered girl who didn’t understand the world.

Right…?

Dave: None of them were really fit to rule, so Jafar wanted to try and make Agrabah a better place by staging a coup d’etat!

So… you say Jafar is a misunderstood champion of the people?

Dave: Yeah! Aladdin got in the way of his coup with his friend the Genie, and as a result, Agrabah remained under the control of a selfish tyrant.

Ok. In that case, can I just ask one question?

Dave: What’s that?

Exactly in what universe is this all supposed to make even a little bit of sense? Because it sure as hell isn’t this one.

Dave: What do you mean?

Oh, I’m glad you asked. Let’s start with the smaller stuff. You say Aladdin’s goal was to marry rich?

Dave: Yeah?

Except when does he EVER make any such claim? When he met Jasmine, he had no idea who she really was! His whole reason for wishing to become a prince was because he thought Jasmine wouldn’t care about him otherwise. Before that, he wanted to become rich so people wouldn’t consider him worthless!

‘Riff-raff’. ‘Street rat’./
I don’t buy that./
If only they’d look closer!/
Would they see a poor boy? No siree./
They’d find out there’s so much more to me!

It’s going back to the theme of the movie of it not being the outside, but what’s inside that counts. When he later wishes to become a prince, he becomes respected, Jasmine loves him, the Sultan talks about making him his heir… and he’s still unhappy, because he knows he’s lying. They love Prince Ali, not Aladdin.

But that’s just a minor issue with this theory, how it’s just not getting the point of Aladdin at all. It is NOTHING compared to the major issue.

Dave: Which is?

You claim that Jafar is some kind of misunderstood hero. Now, show me a single, solitary scrap of evidence to support that!

Dave: Well, like I said, the sultan was corrupt and selfish…

And even if that was true (which is dubious given how much the Sultan is apparently loved by the people of Agrabah) that in no way makes Jafar a hero. At best, it makes him the lesser or two evils… Except he’s very clearly much worse than the Sultan is ever shown to be.

Dave: Oh yeah? How so?

Well, let’s look at the first scene with Jafar, when he finds the Cave of Wonders. Here, he plans to get the lamp and with it, take over Agrabah, right?

Dave: That’s right.

And to that end, he’s brought the thief Gazeem, whom he sends into the cave to retrieve the lamp, yes?

Dave: …Yes?

Now, if Jafar is supposed to be a hero, the champion of the downtrodden people of Agbrabah, then presumably Gazeem is one of those downtrodden people, needing to steal in order to survive, yes?

Dave: I suppose…?

In that case, doesn’t it seem rather strange for Jafar, champion of the people and defender of the downtrodden, to send one of those downtrodden into the cave, which then slam`s down and kills the person, whom this entire theory argues Jafar is seeking to help? Not only that, but Jafar doesn’t seem in any way conflicted or concerned or upset about sending a man to his death, only remarking that Gazeem was “less than worthy“.

Dave: Uh…

And later, when he finds Aladdin, he deliberately has him arrested, then pretends to be a beggar and offers him a pocket full of gems in exchange for help getting the lamp. And the moment he gets the lamp, he decides to try and murder Aladdin, ANOTHER poor and downtrodden citizen of Agrabah, who even helped him and risked his own life in the process!

Jafar uses magic to hypnotize the sultan, he steals, he manipulates people, attempts to murder Aladdin several times and he deliberately lies to Jasmine about Aladdin having been executed, with both him and Iago grinning glefully at her running off in tears.

And of course, you claim that Aladdin got in the way of his coup?

Dave: Yeah!

Except he didn’t, really. Jafar managed to take control of Agrabah! He got the lamp and wished himself to become Sultan. So surely, this is the moment Jafar, stalwart hero of the people, decides to improve the lives of the people of Agrabah, bringing about a social welfare revolution, right?

Dave: Uhm…

Oh, wait, that’s right! He decided instead he would have his newly acquired genie pick up the royal palace and place it on a mountaintop, as rocks and debris falls down on the gathered crowd below, all so he could, and I quote, ”rule on high”. And then, the instant he doesn’t get the respect he believes he’s due from Jasmine, he wishes to become the worlds greatest sorcerer.

THAT is what was important to Jafar! No wishes to help the people of Agrabah. No effort to improve anyone elses lives. Because to Jafar, that’s not what’s important! What’s important is HIS gain, HIS glory, HIS power.

Or maybe I’m just missing something here? Maybe I’ve got this whole ”hero” thing all wrong! Perhaps we should add Jafar to the long list of famous freedom fighters. Robin Hood had ”I take from the rich to give to the poor”. William Wallace had ”they can take our lives but they can never take our freedom”.

Maybe we should add Jafar’s contribution.

Where were we? Ah yes. ABJECT HUMILIATION!

I think I’ve made my point. Now, in light of this, would you care to explain how exactly the theory is supposed to make sense?

Dave: Revisionist history.

…What?

Dave: This entire movie is told in the form of a story. Maybe the merchant is an unreliable narrator. After all, the merchant is the genie, so maybe he’s painting himself and Aladdin in the best possible light?

…That is your counter-argument? Is that seriously what you’re gonna offer as an explanation for why this theory makes no damn sense whatsoever?

Then would you please tell me what alternate movie you’re going by, to support the claim that this is revisionist history?

Dave: Uhm…

Or is it perhaps just that it has to be revisionist history for this theory to make any sense at all? And correct me if I’m wrong, but your only real support for it is that the merchant is actually the genie, which is why he’d change details, yes?

Dave: Yes…?

…Amazing. That is simply incredible. In other words, you aren’t basing this fan theory on any actual PROOF, but on ANOTHER fan theory which we already debunked eight god damn years ago!

So congratulations, Dave. It’s a theory so absolutely idiotic, you needed another idiotic theory for it to even begin to make sense.

Here I thought the previous two theories were bad, but you sure managed to save the worst for last.

I guess it’s fitting, in a way, that the single dumbest disney villain would also be the source for one of the most idiotic theories I’ve seen in quite some time.

And given the stuff I deal with on a regular basis, that’s saying a lot.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Home Alone (Pt. 5)

Dave: Well, it’s the third and final part of this years festive Fan-Mas celebration. It’s a slightly bittersweet feeling, isn’t it?

You know, I cannot argue with that. ”Bittersweet” is very much the proper term here. It’s sweet because we’re almost done. But it’s bitter because there’s no doubt an insane fan theory between me and that holiday bliss.

Dave: Aha! You’d think so, cynical as you are. But actually, you’re wrong!

You mean you haven’t got a fan theory for me today, the last day of Fan-Mas?

Dave: That’s right. I have two theories!

…Aha. I see. How nice… And what, pray tell, might these theories be about?

Dave: As it happens, I have found some more theories about Home Alone!

Oh, of course you did. In that case, might I just ask one small thing, before we begin?

Dave: What is it?

Would you care to explain to me how in the name of Santa’s saggy sack we are still dealing with theories about this movie?!

How is there enough fodder for theories in this one movie for us to have done this five times by now? We’ve looked at Harry Potter theories 9 times, but that’s at least a franchise spanning 7 books and 8 movies! This is one single movie and we’ve run the gamut, from crooked uncles to serial killers and mafia bosses, all the way to the devil himself!! What more could you possibly bring about this movie at this point!??

Dave: Well, the first theory is that Old Man Marley is Kevin from the Future.

…Wow. Ok, I’ll be honest, I wasn’t expecting that. Explain this idea.

Dave: Right, so Old Man Marley is Kevin from an alternate timeline, where Kevin actually was helped by the police when he was discovered alone.

Right…?

Dave: This meant that the house was left unoccupied. As a result, the wet bandits robbed the place, which tore the McCallister family apart, with Kevin blaming himself not being there to protect the house. So, he travelled back in time to change that future, by scaring himself as a child enough so he wouldn’t answer the door when the police came knocking. As a result, the house was protected, the wet bandits didn’t rob it and the McCallister family wasn’t ripped apart!

Ok, so there are many issues with this theory, with one fairly crucial question in particular I feel demands an answer. But let’s start small, shall we?

Why exactly would the McCallisters being burgled rip their family apart? Don’t get me wrong, having your house burgled is a pisser, yes, but it’s hardly the kind of thing that tears apart families, especially if the stuff is insured. After all, Harry and Marv have no interest in any family memories or photo albums. They’re looking for cash, valuables and expensive stuff.

Sure, there’s also probably water damage from stuffing up the sink as part of their ”calling-card” but again… if that’s all it takes for the McCallisters to be torn apart completely, then I’m guessing there’s some deeper issues involved, and the split was gonna happen with or without the burglary.

Then there’s the problem of Old Kevin assuming that the house would be protected just because his younger self was there. After all, why would Kevin suppose that he, as a young child, would be in any way capable of keeping out the burglars?

Dave: Well, we see he’s very inventive and resourceful.

Yes, we do… but we also see that this is something he develops as a RESULT of Harry and Marv threatening his home. At the beginning of the movie, he’s shown as impulsive and needing others to take care of him. His own siblings all agree that he’s completely helpless. But over the course of the movie, he becomes more and more self-reliant, not only facing his fears of going into the basement, but also (very notably) befriending Old Man Marley. This is what ultimately makes him resourceful enough to defend the house against Harry and Marv.

Do you see the issue here?

Dave: Uhm…

The police going to the house happened BEFORE Kevin became aware of Harry and Marvs intentions, meaning that if Old Man Marley was Kevin from a future where he was helped by the police… then that Kevin NEVER LEARNED the self-reliance and resourcefulness he would need to protect the house. In other words, Old Kevin would naturally assume that Young Kevin would be HELPESS against the Wet Bandits! In fact, even after all that, Old Man Marley STILL had to intevene to save Kevin!

Which also brings up the very important question of how long, according to this theory, has Old Kevin been living in the past?

Dave: What do you mean?

I mean that, as we see in the movie, Old Man Marley has a granddaughter. This means that if this theory is to be believed, Old Kevin must have been living in the past for DECADES!

He has a grown son, from whom he is estranged. He’s lived an entire lifetime, all so he can intervene in these few days, in the HOPE that this will change the course of Kevins entire life!

After all, it’s not like he’s omnipotent. He can’t know what the effects of scaring Kevin that one time will be!

Dave: Unless he’s actually done this several times, and knows what’ll happen.

But if he can travel with such pinpoint accuracy, why the hell would he then decide to live an entire lifetime before that point?!

Also, the reason Kevin is scared of Old Man Marley is because of a rumor kids are spreading around, about him being a murderer. Are you suggesting he himself began it, just for the sake of frightening his younger self?

Dave: Well, he might have. We don’t know where the rumor began.

Ok, but let’s look at what he’s actually trying to accomplish, then. According to this theory, his goal isn’t to teach Kevin self-reliance, but to prevent the house from being burgled. If so, this method is overly complicated to the point of absolute idiocy!

By the very nature of this theory, Old Kevin has an advantage nobody else does: he’s from the future, which means he KNOWS the house will be burgled! This whole theory hinges on him being aware that this will happen!

Young Kevin being taken to safety by the police would not leave the house unprotected! Old Kevin could keep an eye out on the house and the moment something suspicious happens (such as a random plumbers van being parked nearby) he can call the police and tell them ”Hey, there’s something suspicious going on at this house”.

The wet bandits are caught and arrested, the house isn’t burgled, the McCallister family isn’t torn apart and Old Kevins mission is succesful!

Dave: Well… maybe he can’t actually get involved in events and-

He knocked Harry and Marv out with a shovel! That IS getting involved!

And actually, going back to the one definite thing that’s established about Marley, namely how much he loves his family, including wishing to reconcile with his estranged son… doesn’t that seem a bit at odds with his supposed goal here?

Dave: What do you mean?

I mean that by the very premise of the theory, Old Kevins goal is to change the future for himself. But that would mean that his new family, which I remind you he’s built over many decades, would effectively cease to exist! For someone who’s ENTIRE MOTIVE is supposedly undoing the destruction of his family, him having a new family and still going through with this plan is nonsensical to the point of insanity! He cannot save his old family and also keep his new one! They are mutually exclusive! They cannot coexist!

Not to mention the fundamental grandfather paradox involved here, since if he went back in time to prevent the future he grew up in, then there would have been no need for him to travel back in time which means he DIDN’T prevent that future so he’d have to go back to prevent it and on and on it goes, ad nauseum!

Dave: Well, maybe it’s multiverse theory. He’s changing it to help an alternate version of himself!

But… if he’s aware of multiverse theory, then he’d probably also know that there are infinite versions of him where his family DIDN’T split up, with or without his intervention, and equally infinite versions where things went far, far worse, with or without him intervening, young or old! In other words, going back in time has accomplished nothing if this is the case, except changing this one single earth, and doesn’t change his own in any way!

This idea makes Owlmans plan in Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths seem positively rational by comparison!

But really, all these counterarguments are just answering speculations. What I want to know is… what is there to actually to support this theory?

Dave: Uhm… well, Old Man Marley just arriving from nowhere to save Kevin from Harry and Marv seems a bit convenient, doesn’t it?

Wait… so your entire argument for this theory is that, because Old Man Marley saved Kevin, he’s a time-traveller?

Dave: …Yes?

Old Man Marley, who we see shovels and salts the sidewalks every so often, including at night, and who might therefore credibly notice the young kid running through the neighbourhood followed by two suspicious men? Old Man Marley, the only other person on the entire street who isn’t away for the holidays and might hear the commotion?

Dave: Uh…

You know, I’ve often said that most good fan theories exist to answer a question. But when the question is ”How did Marley save Kevin in time”, maybe ”time traveller” isn’t the best answer there is!

…Especially since him being a time traveller doesn’t actually answer that question, since he’d have no idea what Kevin would be doing.

However, all this is ignoring what is, to me, the biggest issue with the theory. It’s not that there is no evidence to support it. It’s not that there’s a ton of arguments against it… no, it’s that crucial question I alluded to earlier.

Dave: What question is that?

HOW THE FUCK DID KEVIN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME?!

That’s something you’ve conventiently left the hell out of this theory, methinks! I would have thought you would have learned from the first time we looked at time travel! If you’re going to insist on doing it time and time again, the least you can do is keeping it to franchises where time travel is actually a thing! But here, you’ve just decided to inject some science-fiction in a movie where none existed at all!

Did he build a time machine? Did he fall through a wormhole? Did he wish really, really hard?! Do you, in fact, have a single, solitary supposition for how in the holly-and-ivy hell he managed to fuck over the space-time-continuum like this!?

Dave: Well… Maybe it was a christmas miracle?

Right. See, I’m gonna pretend I didn’t hear that and instead let you move on to the next theory, rather than strangling you with a christmas wreath.

Dave: OK, so the second theory is that Kevin just imagined all of it.

…Really? You’re really doing this?

Dave: Yes. I mean, come on, after all the crap that happened in that house, it’s all cleared away without any issue? The house is completely spotless! It’s obvious that there never were any burglars, there were no booby traps, just the over-active imagination of a young child, accidentally left behind by his family!

OK, so the fact that Harry and Marv recognise him in the sequel isn’t an issue?

Dave: Ah, no, you can’t use the sequel!

Why the hell not?! It’s the same lead actors, same characters, same director, same writer and same producer!

THIS was your second attempt for a theory for Fan-Mas? You brought me a god-forsaken Dallas theory?!

Dave: A what?

A Dallas theory. AKA, ”it was all a dream”. It is, in my opinion, the laziest type of fan theory there is, simply because any argument you bring against it can be handwaved by ”it’s a dream, it doesn’t have to make sense”.

Except you have, amazingly enough, brought an example of one that was disproven two years after the original movie was made! The fact that the sequel exists is proof that this theory is wrong!

Dave: Ah.. unless that was ALSO just his imagination! After all, him managing to talk his way into a high class hotel and fooling the staff? Him outsmarting the same bumbling bandits from the first movie all over again? That’s clearly ridiculous, so it only makes sense that this is also just his imagination.

I see… You’re really doubling down on this?

Dave: Yes! This is my christmas present to myself! It’s a theory that you cannot prove is false! The fact that these movies are silly is the evidence that supports it!

Is that so? Well then, in the spirit of the holiday, I should probably let you have this victory, tiny though it is. I guess it would be the magnanimous thing to do, to admit that after all these years, you have actually managed to dig out a theory that I cannot argue against.

Dave: Yes! It’s a lovely way to cap off this years celebration! It’s truly a Fan-Mas miracle!

However… then I remember that you have, once again, polluted my holiday season with idiotic theories and just like that, all that magnanimity and generosity goes out the fucking window! Because you see, there is actually a problem with this theory. A massive gaping hole!

And it’s in Harry’s mouth!

Dave: What?

His gold tooth!

Dave: What about it?

When Harry is first seen in the movie, he is disguised as a police officer. This is where Kevin first sees him, and notices Harry’s gold tooth. Later, he’s almost run over by Harry and Marv in their van, and once again notices the gold tooth. This is what tips him off that something’s fishy.

Dave: Well, that could just be him imagining it, making up a face that he thinks looked suspicious.

Aah, but skip forward a bit, during the burglary attempt, and among the most memorable traps Kevin uses against Harry and Marv are the paintcans on ropes. When Harry is hit in the face with one, it knocks out his gold tooth.

Dave: Yes. And?

And right at the end of the movie, Kevins dad finds the tooth on the floor!

If this was all in Kevins head… where did the tooth come from?

Dave: Uhm…

And just like that, the theory collapses. If the tooth is real, and we can assume it’s real if other people than Kevin interract with it, this means the events of the movie were real. Ipso facto.

Dave:….Damnit. And here I thought I had you stumped. But I guess that in the end… the tooth shall set you free!

…Ok, I think it’s time we end Fan-Mas this year, ladies and gentlemen.

Dave: But I had some more theories we could look at!

Oh, alright.

Dave: Really?

Sure! But only if, my dear pudding-brained friend, I get to drown you in brandy and set you on fire.

Dave:…So anyway, Merry Christmas to all!

And to me, a good night.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Frosty the Snowman

You know, it’s kinda funny. The year is quickly drawing to a close, and December is finally here again. It’s the time for peace on earth and good will towards men.

So how is it that apparently, I’m not counted among those who’ll receive good will or peace?!

You see, good gentlereaders, my christmas season has once again been highjacked, courtesy of Dave.

Dave: Or to put it in happier terms, it’s time once again for

The Three Weeks of Fan-Mas

That’s right. To be brutally honest, I’m somewhat surprised this is happening again. I would have thought that we’d run out of christmas fan theories. Or I suppose ”hoped” is the more accurate term. And yet, Dave has somehow managed root out three theories for us all to look at.

Dave: It’s truly a christmas miracle!

Oh, I’ve no doubt some supernatural force is behind this… but in any case, let’s get on with this.

Dave: Actually, it just so happens that ”supernatural” is very much on theme for the first theory, since we’ll be looking at a theory about Frosty the Snowman!

Huh… OK, I’ll be honest, it’s a bit of a change of pace. It’s been a looong time since we looked at a fan theory about a song on this blog. And with as small a scope as this gives us, you can’t really go TOO crazy with it. So what’s the theory?

Dave: The theory is that Frosty is actually a demon!

Right… Looks like I spoke a bit too soon. Alright, what are the arguments to support this idea?

Dave: Well, let’s look at the lyrics. Frosty is described as having two eyes made out of coal, does he not?

Yes…?

Dave: Well, where would a bunch of kids just randomly get coal during wintertime? Clearly, they were given coal by Santa because they were naughty! This shows that they were up to no good when they made Frosty, and wouldn’t you know it? After they made Frosty, he magically comes to life! They’re evil children summoning a demon! And remember how the song says ”the sun was hot that day”?

Right?

Dave: That suggests that this may not have been a winters day, which only reinforces the idea that there’s something off about Frosty. It even describes him as ”alive as he could be”. The phrasing of that implies that he’s not actually fully alive. Maybe he’s simply a soulless monster that needs to feed on others to sustain himself?

Whoah, that took a very sudden dark turn. Let’s examine this, shall we?

You say that it’s strange for children to have coal, proving them being up to no good. Except it’s not exactly difficult to find coal during winter. In fact, it’s probably the time of year when it’s the most likely, given the necessity to keep houses warm. Remember, the song was written in the 1950’s, when heating homes using coal was much more common than it is today.

Not to mention that using coal when making a snowman isn’t exactly a novel concept. Like I said, it’s easy to acquire during winter time and since it’s black, it contrasts excellently against the white snow. With all that in mind, the idea that the children are up to no good on account of them having coal doesn’t really hold up.

Then there’s the idea of foul play based on the fact that the sun was hot. But to make a snowman, you actually need it to be somewhat warm and for the snow to be slightly moist for it to clump together. So again, rather than proving somewhing is afoot, it makes perfect sense for the weather to be rather warm, since that’d make it ideal for making a snowman.

Keep in mind, it never specifies when exactly the story takes place. All we know is that A) there was enough snow to build a snowman and B) the weather was warm enough for that snowman to melt. So it could be early winter, it could be late, late winter or it could just be a particularly warm day. In any case, nothing really points to something inherently supernatural.

Dave: Ah, but maybe that was part of the dark ritual of the children, to make snow appear out of season?

A bold claim, for which there is no actual evidence. And in fact, there is some evidence to counter that idea. After all, it’s not actually the snowman itself that’s magical.

Dave: What do you mean?

Just look at the lyrics.

There must have been some magic in that old silk hat they found/
For when they placed it on his head, he began to dance around

So it’s not the snow that’s magical. It’s the hat.

And just to point out, you can’t really call Frosty soulless.

Dave: Why not?

Well, because literally the first lyric of the song describes Frosty as a ”Jolly happy soul”.

Dave: Ah…

But that in turn brings me to what is, to me, the biggest problem with this theory. You see, if Frosty is supposedly this nefarious demon, summoned by evil children in a dark ritual, then shouldn’t he be more… you know… demonic?

If you read the lyrics, nothing Frosty does is demonic or even remotely malicious. He dances, he laughs and plays. He plays with the children. Again, quoting the song:

Down through the village with a broomstick in his hand/
running here and there, all around the square
saying ‘Catch me if you can!‘

That doesn’t sound like a demonic visitation. That sounds like a game of tag.

Nobody is harmed, nobody is threatened, no one is even scared of him!

Dave: Ah, but what about the traffic cop?

What about him?

Dave: He doesn’t listen to the police telling him to stop!

…And?

Dave: Uhm… well, it shows he doesn’t respect authority figures!

OK, but again, nothing about what Frosty is doing is suggesting he’s actually doing anything wrong. It’s just as likely to police told him to stop simply because he looked weird.

So really, when you get right down to it, there’s nothing at all suggesting Frosty is in some way evil, let alone being a demon. The children are clearly saddened at him having to ”hurry on his way”, presumably because he is melting. You can hardly blame them for this, since it’s reasonable for them to believe this means he’s dying. So what does this supposed demon do? He tells them not to cry, reassuring them that he’ll ”be back again someday”.

Dave: Uhm…

This is pretty much just another example of a theory taking something harmless and innocent and putting a dark spin on in. We’ve seen it too many times to count on this blog already, this idea that if something is sweet and simple, there must be a dark underside, a sinister twist on it for it to somehow be ”valid”.

I grant you that in the grand scheme of things, this isn’t the worst theory I’ve ever seen, but that’s hardly a high bar. But I think what bugs me about it is that inherent cynicism about it. It doesn’t improve anything, it doesn’t add anything of value. It’s just another ”add darkness for the sake of adding darkness” type of theory. And it’s especially idiotic for you, Dave, to bring this up around christmas time, when you’ve insisted on bringing back the Three Weeks of Fan-Mas!

Dave: Well…

And you know what is really funny to me? There is actually one spirit that is similar in many ways to how Frosty is described: The Ghost of Christmas Present, from A Christmas Carol! He lives his life to the fullest, because he only lives for a single day. Just like Frosty, he doesn’t fear death, but revels in his transitory life. And rather fittingly, both are associated with Christmas.

And instead of seeing that connection… you decided the dancing, laughing snowman was secretely a demon, Dave.

Joy to the world, indeed…

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Ghostbusters

Halloween is fast approaching yet again, guys and ghouls, which of course means Dave has taken the opportunity to dredge up some fan theories of a ghostly nature from the dark, fetid bowels of the internet to torment us all.

Dave: What I have found is some good fan theories about Ghostbusters, I’ll have you know!

I am doubtful, but very well. I was hoping to do this closer to Halloween, given the subject matter, but you can’t have everything. And besides, I might as well get this over with as soon as possible. So what is the first theory?

Dave: The first theory is that the Ghostbusters all died in the first movie!

Right… You’re gonna have to explain this one.

Dave: OK, so you know how Egon made it very clear that crossing the streams of the proton packs would be ”very bad”? As he put it:

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Right. Total protonic reversal. That’s bad.

Dave: Yes. Now, at the end of the first movie, the way they defeat Gozer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is to cross the streams. This results in a massive explosion, which they all miraculously survived…. but maybe they didn’t? Maybe they actually died, and the sequel takes place in a some weird afterlife, which is why all their deeds in the first movie seem to be forgotten, and the movie follows a similar narrative!

OK, it’s a creative theory, I’ll give you that… but that doesn’t mean it adds up.

For one thing, if what Egon posited was true, then we’re not just talking about these four people, are we? A full on explosion caused by ”every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light” in the middle of Manhattan would, I’m just guessing here, cause a bit more damage than just a blown out rooftop, which is all the damage we actually see.

If what you are suggesting happened actually DID happen, then wouldn’t all that’s left of New York be a massive glass crater?

Dave: Well… maybe it was! Maybe all of Manhattan was wiped out!

Oh, I see. So everyone we see in the movie is dead?

Dave: That’s right!

…OK, but let me ask you this. In this movie, we find out that ghosts are real. They’re a form of energy. They are quantifiable and measurable, correct?

Dave: Yes…?

And it stands to reason, then, that the same applies to souls, seeing as that is what ghosts are originally, yes?

Dave: Well, I suppose…

So if this explosion was capable of making everything explode, to the point where it blew up all of Manhattan, as you suggest it did, in a massive protonic reversal… shouldn’t the same apply to the souls of the main characters, seeing as they were literally the epicenter of said protonic reversal? So you would think there’d be no actual soul left, since everything about them was just actively exploded… which would mean they couldn’t appear in the sequel at all, right?

Dave: No, you can wiggle out of this that easy. Energy cannot be destroyed, after all. So whatever energy they were made of wouldn’t be wiped out in the explosion! So there!

…Did you actually just make a good point?

Dave: I… think I did. Has that ever happened before…?

I don’t think it has. I find that very worrying. What’s next? Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies? Rivers and seas boiling? 40 years of darkness, volcanoes and earthquakes! The dead rising from their graves, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together!? Mass hysteria!

Dave:…Does that mean you believe this theory, then?

No, not at all.

Dave: Oh… Why not?

Well, for one thing, you claim that nobody seems to remember the events from the first movie. Except they do! The entire reason the four were forbidden from being ghostbusters in the sequel is because of them being blamed for the property damage caused in the first movie! When Tully represents them in court, he makes mention of how they helped him, meaning he clearly remembers! Dana likewise knows all of them, which she shouldn’t if this theory was true!

Dave: But nobody else brings it up! Doesn’t that seem weird?

Not really. The human mind has an incredible ability to reconscile seemingly incompatible ideas. Honestly, when faced with two possible explanations, one being ”ghosts are real” and the other being ”mass hysteria”, is it really that surprising that many, even people who were there, would pick the comfortable lie over the disturbing truth? We even see that in the first movie, with the hotel manager, rather than being thankful about the Ghostbusters capturing the ghost haunting the hotel, instead seeming dubious about them, and even considers not paying their fee, and that’s just a few minutes after they caught it!

But there’s also the problem of… well, if the whole idea is that the Ghostbusters, along with the entirety of Manhattan just exploded and they’re now in the afterlife… how can there still be ghosts?

Dave: What? What do you mean?

I mean, throughout the entire second movie, we keep seeing ghosts. Hell, literally the last thing we see in the first movie is a ghost flying at the camera! But if everyone is already a ghost at that point, then what are these OTHER ghosts? And their tech still exists, but somehow still differentiates between them being ghosts and these other next-level ghosts?

Dave: Aah, but if they’re in the afterlife, maybe they’re being tormented,? Maybe it’s purgatory or hell, forcing them through a loop?

OK, but in that case, why does the movie end with them being celebrated and cheered? Shouldn’t they all just wake up in the afterlife, being tormented? If they’re trapped in a loop, why doesn’t the movie just start over? Why do things KINDA repeat, but not quite? How the hell does Dana have a SON, if she’s supposed to be just as dead as everyone else? Can you have kids in the afterlife!? Is that child real? Does that child have a soul? What is Vigo and why is he trying to return, if he’s not actually returning to life but just ascending from some deeper level death realm!?

I have no idea what point this theory is trying to make, but from where I’m sitting, it seems it really only raises more questions, rather than clearing anything up!

In a way, it’s kind of the opposite of what I said about the human mind. Rather than accepting a simple truth, this theory opts to go for a convoluted fantasy, with no real evidence to support it.

Dave: Ok, so that theory doesn’t quite hold up. But I have another theory I think you’re gonna like.

Oh, goody. Do tell.

Dave: The next theory is that the Ghostbusters all represent stages of grief.

…Really? You’re really gonna try this kind of theory again, after what happened last time? And the time before that?

Dave: Well, I am an incurable optimist.

Oh, you’re incurable, alright, though I don’t think your problem is optimism… Anyway, explain this theory.

Dave: OK, so you first have Peter for Denial. He doesn’t generally accept others views on things. Tully is Anger, as shown when he becomes a hell hound, and he becomes a rabid monster. Egon is Bargaining, because his mind goes beyond acceptance of our universe. Ray is Depression, because he’s a bit sad and oblivious, and Winston is Acceptance, because he’s the most down to Earth member of the group.

Wow… I really don’t have the words to explain how bad this theory is. This makes the other two times we looked at a ”stages of grief” theory seem practically rational by comparison!

Dave: What? How so?

Well, let’s go through them in order, shall we?

Peter is not in denial. He’s sarcastic and skeptical to begin with, but once he has evidence? He’s all in! In fact, the entire idea of starting the Ghostbusters business was HIS idea! So how on earth can you see that and read ”Denial”?

Tully as Anger doesn’t make any sense at all, since he’s meek and mild mannered during the movie. In fact… even when he’s acting out of character, being possessed by the Key Master, he’s not actually displaying any signs of anger or rage at all!

Dave: Alright, alright, I get it.

Oh no, I’m not finished! Egon isn’t ”bargaining” in any way, shape or form. He’s not making some offer to the universe to change his life. He’s just studying and experimenting about paranormal activity, designing tech that can contain it. If anything, even by your own boneheaded logic, he’d be a better fit for Acceptance than Winston, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

As for Ray, he’s never shown as sad, or pessimistic, let alone depressed. He’s shown as excitable and enthusiastic about ghost hunting and the ghostbusters business, so much so that he mortgaged his home to fund the business because he believed in it!

And finally, Winston being acceptance… Well, acceptance of what, exactly? Sure, he’s down to earth, but is he really that much more laid back than Peter?

Dave: Well, he’s willing to believe the existence of ghosts, sight unseen!

You say that, but let’s not forget he does qualify this belief in various paranormal phenomena. How did he put it again…?

If there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.

So really, he doesn’t encapsulate ”Acceptance” any more than, say, Egon, who made wearable , unregistered nuclear devices based on nothing but UNTESTED THEORIES of how to capture ghosts!

And even if we ignore all of that, we actually run into the EXACT SAME PROBLEM as the last two times we looked on theories about the Five Stages of Grief. Not a SINGLE ONE of these have anything to do with grief! They barely even fit as generalizations!

In fact, the theory fits so badly, it had to crowbar Tully into the arguments so that there could be five examples!

I mean, can you really list Tully as one of the ghostbusters, when the closest he gets is in the second film, when all he does is take on Egons jumpsuit and fires a proton pack uselessly at a building? He worked for the Ghostbusters in the sequel, yes, but as an accountant and as a one time attorney! By that reasoning, Janine should be more of a ghostbuster, since she’s worked for them longer!

And given that this theory only seems to touch on the first movie, then there is no particular reason why Dana shouldn’t also be listed, seeing as she went through the exact same ordeal as Tully, by being possessed by the Gatekeeper. The only reason she’s not counted is because then, there would be too many for the theory, which suggests to me the entire theory is fundamentally fucking broken!

Dave: Enough! I get the picture!

Do you, now? Then do you also know what I find most enraging about this theory?

Dave: Uhm… no?

It’s that out of all the clicheéd dumbass theories you could have dredged up, it was the five stages of grief, when the movie served up an obvious, stupid theory on a damn platter!

Dave: What do you mean?

You have the four ghostbusters and then you have Dana, Tully and Janine.

Dave: Yes… and?

And this means you have enough people for a theory about the Seven Deadly Sins! Peter as Pride, Egon as Gluttony, Ray as Envy, Winston for Greed… Yes, it would still be stupid, don’t get me wrong, but at least it’d be a much easier sell and I would be able to KINDA follow the twisted logic! But no, instead you bring me this!

This has got to be a new low for you, Dave. Not only is the theory bad, but on this occasion you managed to be too stupid to see the OBVIOUS STUPID IDEA!

Dave:…So you don’t want another theory then?

Sorry, Dave. I am infuriated beyond the capacity of rational thought. I’m gonna go lie down for a while, and if you even mumble another theory at me, I swear there is no paranormal force in existence that will bring you back from what I will do to you.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: The Incredibles

Dave: I have good news and I have bad news.

I get a feeling I’ll regret asking, but… what’s the bad news?

Dave: The bad news is that, despite us not having done it for some time, I decided to cancel my plans to bring you a bunch of fan theories about various Disney movies.

…And that’s bad news? You’re sparing me having to suffer through a pile of fan theories? Is the good news that we’ll instead spend the time relaxing?

Dave: No, the good news is that I cancelled it because I found a bunch of fan theories about a SINGLE Disney movie! And there’s more good news!

Oh, god damnit…

Dave: The theories I found are about something we’ve never covered before: The Incredibles! Aren’t you happy?

You’re bringing me a pile of idiotic theories I haven’t asked for. What part of that did you imagine I’d be happy about, exactly? But since it’s something new, a change might be as good as a rest, so I’m cautiously optimistic. What’s the first theory?

Dave: The first theory is that Mr. Incredible beat the first Omnidroid because it wasn’t designed with him in mind.

I see. Care to elaborate?

Dave: As we see in the movie, Robert Parr, AKA Mr. Incredible, wasn’t the original target by Syndrome and Mirage. They were targeting Frozone, only changing their plans once they discovered Mr. Incredible. When Mr. Incredible fights the Omnidroid, the fight eventually leads to a volcano, an area that’s perfect for taking out Frozone, since we see he needs moisture to produce ice. It lost because it fought the wrong superhero.

OK, I’ll be honest, this isn’t actually a terrible theory. It’s not really harmful, it’s not idiotic or overtly insane and you can actually tell there’s a degree of care put into it. I dare say it may be one of the better ones you’ve brought, as low as that bar is… But I still don’t think it really holds up.

Dave: Aw, why not?

Well, the first issue I see is that the Omnidroid didn’t really direct Mr. Incredible to the magma flow. From what we see of how the fight progresses, it wasn’t really the inevitable end destination. In addition, even IF you were to argue the robot directed him there, it did so by chasing after him.

Dave: Yeah. What’s your point?

My point is that this strategy wouldn’t work on Frozone.

Dave: Wait, why not?

Frozone’s powers are based on creating ice. And among those powers is the ability to travel at high speed high above the ground, skating on an ice track he creates. In other words, he has much more mobility than Mr. Incredible, and would be able to maneuver much more effectively. As a result, I think it’s very unlikely that he’d be driven anywhere near the magma flow, since he’d be aware of how detrimental that’d be to him.

However, there is another, bigger reason why this theory doesn’t really work for me.

Dave: Which is…?

Well, I think this theory, though not harmful, is kind of misinterpreting the goal of the Omnidroid, believing its purpose is to kill superheroes.

Dave: But… isn’t that what it does?

Yes, it is. But that’s not really what it is FOR. The killing of heroes is a means, not an end. As we find out, Syndrome is using the heroes to improve the Omnidroid, with the intention of releasing the final version onto an unsuspecting city to wreak havoc. He can then “defeat” the robotic menace, and become a hero in the eyes of the people.

And as part of that big reveal, we discover that Syndrome has killed at least 15 superheroes by now. And crucially, the Omnidroid isn’t changed between battles, only being upgraded AFTER it has been defeated.

In other words, the robot wasn’t “intended” to fight Frozone. He just happened to be the next in line, until Mr. Incredible came along. So really, the big fault with this theory isn’t that it’s insane or idiotic. It simply doesn’t appreciate how callously evil Syndrome’s plan is.

What’s next?

Dave: OK, so the next theory is that Violet is the daughter of Edna Mode.

Right… explain.

Dave: Well, you don’t need to be a genius to see that Violet doesn’t exactly look like the rest of her family. Her parents have blonde and red hair, respectively, and both they and her brothers have pointed noses.

Uh-huh.

Dave: Violet meanwhile has black hair and a rounded nose, much like Edna Mode. After the super hero ban 15 years earlier, Edna went into retirement. Maybe she became pregnant soon after? And when the child was born, it began displaying superpowers, so Edna turned to Bob and Helen Parr for help, and they adopted the girl.

Whoa, whoa, hang on. They adopted her, just like that? Doesn’t that strike you as a bit of a drastic leap? I think it’s a well known fact by now that your understanding of adoption is iffy at best, so I’m sorry if I fail to see the reasoning here. Why would Edna just give up her child like that?

Dave: Well, perhaps she found it difficult to deal with the superpowers, and felt the Parrs would be better suited to raise the girl?

OK, so we’re just gonna suppose Edna gave up her child for adoption because the kid developed powers she struggled with? Call me optimistic, but Violet’s powers don’t exactly scream “overwhelming problems” to me, especially compared to other supers.

Dave: What do you mean?

Well, if Mr. Incredible developed powers a young child, you’re looking at a child with super strength. A angry tantrum could be devastating. Dash has super-speed, and you can only imagine how chaotic a super speedster toddler would be.

Violet, meanwhile, can turn invisible and create force fields. In terms of child rearing, that’s relatively low-maintenance by comparison, isn’t it? Certainly not an issue that could only be solved by putting her up for adoption, at any rate.

Dave: Well, I suppose…

Also, handing her over to the Parrs doesn’t make that much sense either, since by all accounts, they’d actually know LESS about this than Edna does!

Dave: Wait, what?

Edna made a entire career out of making outfits for super-heroes! Her whole JOB is dealing with problems related to heroes and their powers! Not only that, but that job has gone up in smoke, with super heroes being outlawed! And now suddenly she has a genuine superhuman child, allowing her to continue her work, a work she herself makes it clear she misses, wistfully recalling how she used to “design for gods“!

We see her needing basically no prodding at all to make a suit for Mr. Incredible, and she proceeds to make matching suits for his entire family! In the sequel, we see her filled with excitement at the idea of making a suit for Jack Jack and his various powers! And in fact, in that same movie, she tells Bob how parenting, done properly, can be an heroic act.

Immediately followed by:

I am fortunate that it has never afflicted me.

Now, I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds like her saying she’s never had kids, which would kind of scupper this whole theory, right?

Dave: Ah, but maybe she just means she’s never been a parent! Because she gave up Violet!

Alright, but you still haven’t given any particular reason WHY she would have done that.

Dave: Maybe she just didn’t want the kid?

OK, but then, what exactly is the point of this theory? Because all it seems to accomplish is making Edna out to be a pretty unlikeable person, doesn’t it?

Dave: What? How so?

Well, it actually goes back to a fairly big problem with this theory, namely that Edna, at no point, refers to Violet as her daughter.

Dave: Of course not. Bob and Helen raised her, so Edna considers them to be Violets parents as a mark of respect and-

No, no, it goes further than that. She never, at any point, refers to Violet, supposedly her biological daughter, by name! She just refers to her, while talking to Helen, as “your daughter”. ZERO affection, no recognition that the two have any connection whatsoever!

So you make Edna seem like a frankly awful person, denying her own daughter even EXISTS… and for what? To explain Violets hair-colour and nose shape?!

Dave: OK, do you have a better explanation?

Well, as far as her nose shape goes, I’d actually argue that it’s not dissimilar to Jack Jack’s nose. It sure as hell isn’t that similar to Edna’s nose.

And as for her hair colour, I remind you that this is a child who can turn invisible and create force fields from nothing. Is her being born with dark hair really that far out of the realm of possibility?

Dave: Well, it’s really unlikely, don’t you think? You’re really going to claim it’s just some random genetic fluke at play?

Given that it’s literally the same explanation the director of the movie gave? Yeah, I think I will.

Because frankly, the alternative doesn’t actually change anything, beyond making Edna into an awful person. Edna and Violet never meet or have anything to do with each other, so it’s not like their dynamic would change if the theory was true. The fact that Violet has powers would likely make Edna want to keep her around, rather than give her up for adoption, even if there was no deeper affection (and that’s a pretty big if).

I honestly cannot see why anyone would WANT this theory to be true.

Now, what’s the next one?

Dave: The next theory I have is that Syndrome is actually the son of a superhero himself!

Oh, I…see. Care to elaborate?

Dave: OK, so in some behind the scenes stuff, there’s information about various super heroes, and among them you have the super heroine Psycwave. As her name suggests, her powers were psychic in nature and allowed her to, among other things, control peoples thoughts, use telekinesis and paralyze people.

I see.

Dave: Now, if she had a child, it’s likely her genius-level intellect would pass onto that child, which would explain how Buddy Pine was so smart! And when Mr. Incredible hands Buddy over to the police, he puts emphasis on them telling Buddy’s mom what happened, which might suggest he knew her. This in turn would explain why he was so patient with Buddy, if he was dealing with the child of a friend.

OK, that’s quite a lot of detail. But unsurprisingly, the theory doesn’t really hold up, for a number of reasons.

See, if Syndrome was the son of a super hero, doesn’t it seem a bit strange that he’s so resentful of superheroes?

Dave: Ah, but that was after Mr. Incredible dismissed him!

No, it wasn’t. During the confrontation with Bomb Voyage, Buddy makes his insecurities very clear.

This is because I don’t have powers, isn’t it?

Dave: Ah, but if his mother was a superhero, and he didn’t have powers, wouldn’t it make sense he’d be resentful?

Maybe, but you suggested that Psycwave passed on her intellect to her son. In other words, you yourself claimed that he DOES have powers. It’s just that they’re not quite as flashy and overtly fantastic as other superpowers.

This is of course ignoring that we actually have no evidence that Psycwave actually was a super-genius.

Dave: Aah, so then she couldn’t have passed her intellect to Buddy, so he’d still not have powers, which explains his resentment!

…OK, yes. The problem is, now you’ve managed to destroy your own argument that the two are related!

Dave: Oh… Uhm…

Also, you claim that Mr. Incredible seemed to know Buddy’s mother. But given the way he talks to Buddy when they meet, it’s clear that he’s already familiar with Buddy, having met him several times. Isn’t it likely that by now he’d likewise be not just aware, but likely at speaking terms with Buddy’s mother? By his own admission, he’s stood for photos and signed tons of autographs, so it’s reasonable to assume that Buddy’s mother would have accompanied her son more than once.

Dave: Well, I guess...

But all that speculation is kind of irrelevant, honestly.

Dave: What? Why?

Because we know that Mr. Incredible does not know Buddy because his mother is a super hero. And we learned that literally at the same time we learned Buddy’s name!

You’re that kid from the fan club! Brophy… Brody… Buddy!

I feel this fact, coupled with the whole destroyed-the-one-argument-to-suggest-Psycwave-is-his-mother thing, pretty much settles this issue. Syndrome is not the son of a superhero.

Dave: Aw, but that would have been really nice.

…OK, why’s that? How would that actually make anything better?

Dave: Because it’d make Syndrome all the more tragic! Psycwave was one of the first ones subjected to Project Kronos, being killed by the first version of the Omnidroid. So on top of everything else, Syndrome even killed his own mother to attain his goal!

…That’s it? That’s the whole reason this theory exists? To make Syndrome seem more evil?

Dave: Uhm… Yes?

Oh, of course. That makes perfect sense. I mean, all we see him do in the movie is cause the death of at least 15 super heroes as part of a cold-hearted plan to improve a robot, and then unleash it on a civilian populace, endangering hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people, all so he can pretend to be a hero and be showered in praise and adoration.

Oh, and willingly firing a missile at a civilian passenger plane with the intention of killing the passengers, fully aware that some of the passengers were children, all to make a sadistic point, and once he believed he’d succeeded, not only didn’t show remorse, but actively mocked the man who, as far as anyone there knew, just watched his family die!

Thank god that this theory exists to show us that yes, Syndrome is actually a heartless, murderous, narcissistic monster!

Do you have any more theories, or are we done?

Dave: I have one more, and actually, this one’s also about Violet!

Oh. Well, at least I can take comfort in that it’s unlikely to be as stupid as the one we covered earlier. What is it?

Dave: The theory is that Violet is actually Boo from Monsters Inc.

…Right. It’s sad that I expect so little of you, Dave, and you still manage to disappoint me. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t you brought me a theory very similar to this before.

Dave: Well… yes, I did.

And as ever, you’re not discouraged by the fact that theory didn’t work?

Dave: Well, as a wise woman once said, ‘I never look back, darling. It distracts from the now’.

Guess we’re just ignoring this is the same woman you made out to be a horrible person earlier… Anyway, explain this theory.

Dave: OK, so both Violet and Boo have dark hair…

…And?

Dave: Uhm… And Boo is good at hide and seek…?

OK, you’re gonna have to do better than this.

Dave: Uh… Oh, and her designated monster, Randall, can turn invisible, just like she can and-

Right. You can stop now. I think I see where this is going. Tell me… do you have ANY actual evidence to support this theory? Anything even remotely close to proof?

Dave: Well, uhm…

…You know, this would almost be funny if it wasn’t so pitiful. I mean, let’s just look at the stuff that argues against this theory.

Firstly, at no point in the movie, no matter how scared or in danger she is, does Boo ever display any kind of powers. Certainly no invisibility or force fields.

Secondly, this theory has the same problem as not one, but two other theories, namely that these two characters have different eye colours, with Boo having brown eyes and Violet with blue eyes.

Thirdly, the end of Monsters Inc. saw Sully reunited with Boo, and yet Sully is nowhere to be seen, mentioned or ever referenced by Violet, which is something the theory completely fails to address… which is hardly surprising given it’s complete failure to provide any evidence whatsoever.

And finally, this theory relies on the idea that Monsters Inc. takes place BEFORE the main bulk of The Incredibles. In fact, given that Boo is two years old, Monsters Inc. must take place three years after the start of The Incredibles for this theory to work. And yet, the world we see in The Incredibles around that point is very much inspired by the 1950’s and 60’s in its aesthetics, whereas Monsters Inc. took place in a decidedly modern day setting.

This in turn means that we now have had two characters, both involving Boo from Monsters Inc., which requires us to assume time travel was involved for any of this to make sense, and even then, it still doesn’t hold up.

I can’t help but feel that, in some weird twisted way, you’ve outdone yourself, Dave.

Dave: How so?

Well, the first theory was… alright. Like I said, it was by all accounts harmless and it came from a good, if somewhat misguided, place.

But after that? Just… holy crap, things went downhill fast! It’s almost like you were trying to make up for there being such a lack of stupidity and insanity in the first theory, finishing off with something that you’d barely call a theory at all!

Dave: Well, how about I find one more to make up for it?

I have just dealt with four stupid theories, and I have a headache. I suggest you do what Buddy didn’t, and fly home, Dave.

Dave: Ah, because you work alone?

No, because if you don’t, I’ll make you follow his example by throwing you through a jet engine.

Back to Main Page