WTFAW: Bioshock

Todays article concerns the Bioshock franchise, in the form of a fan theory about the series. I would add a spoiler warning, but if you haven’t played these games and still decided to read this, you have no excuse, and only yourself to blame.

Not much to add to that, I feel, so let’s not waste any time and just get to it. Dave?

Dave: The theory is that Andrew Ryan and Booker Dewitt are the same person.

I see. And what do you offer as evidence supporting the theory?

Dave: A few things. In the ending to Infinite, Elizabeth explains the existence of the myriad of parallel worlds, and you visit a few over the course of the game, right?

Yes?

Dave: And one of those places you visit is Rapture. The city from the first game! This, coupled with Elizabeth saying ”there’s always a lighthouse, always a man, always a city” suggests that Andrew Ryan is a parallel version of Comstock!

Is that it?

Dave: Pretty much.

Good. In that case, don’t you find it a bit strange that Andrew Ryan somehow is still alive and looking pretty good in the first game, considering he’s supposed to be 86 years old?

Dave: What do you mean?

Well, Booker Dewitt was born in 1874, and Andrew Ryan died in 1960. That means he should have been an octogenarian by the time of his death, not a man in his late 40’s or early 50’s.

This is also ignoring the fact that a simple google search would tell you that Andrew Ryan was born in 1911. Doesn’t that burst the theory, right there?

Dave: As a matter of fact, smartass, no it doesn’t. We’re dealing with a mutlitude of parallel worlds, all different in various ways. Perhaps in one of those, Booker Dewitt was born later, and became Andrew Ryan instead of Zachary Hale Comstock.

But… we know Andrew Ryans backstory! We know he wasn’t born as Booker Dewitt. Comstock came to be, because in one reality, Booker accepted his baptism, taking Comstock as his new name.

Andrew Ryan was born in the Russian Empire as Andrei Rayanovsky, and anglicanized his name when he moved to the US.

Dave: See? That’s a similarity between them! No matter the reality, he changes his name!

And that would maybe mean something, if the circumstances surrounding the change were similar, but they’re not! Booker changed his name to wash away his guilt over his actions as a soldier. Andrew changed his name to fit in better in his new country.

And that brings me to the crucial flaw with this theory. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that it IS true. That in this reality, the person that would otherwise be born in 1874 in the US as Booker Dewitt is instead born in Russia as Andrei Rayanovsky in 1911. Instead of being a soldier, he became a businessman. Instead of changing his name to wash away his shame, he did it to further his business interests.

Instead of being a super right wing christian fanatic, he becomes an atheistic embodiment of objectivist capitalism. Instead of creating a theocratic confederacy in the sky, he made a city where the creative and brilliant would be free of ”parasites” who’d try to mooch off their success or hold them back in the name of social morals or religion.

Instead of wanting to eradicate the sinners of the world, he wants to be left alone at the bottom of the sea.

Let’s suppose that’s all true. At that point, what fucking difference does it make?!

Dave: Uhm…

Even if this theory was true, Ryan is so different to Comstock that calling them the same person is still idiotic! His backstory, personality, political stance, religious views, age and end goal are all radically different! They’re not the same person! They have nothing but the most barebone details in common!

Dave: Well, and their DNA.

What?

Dave: Booker at one point uses a bathysphere. They are outright mentioned as being keyed to a specific genetic code, which is why Jack could use one in the first game. Booker can use one, because his DNA is identical to Andrew Ryan, because they’re the same person.

Ah, right. Only Andrew Ryan and his family could use the bathyspheres. I would say that’s a very good argument.

Dave: I knew it!

At least I would, if not for the fact that other people than Booker and Jack use the bathyspheres. The lockdown on the bathyspheres was only allowing Ryan and his closest allies to use them. Unfortunatly, the locks are mentioned as being so unreliable, they will accept anyone ”in the genetic ballpark” of the valid user. Siblings, parents, cousins, uncles… We’re just talking about a time difference of 70 or so years, with people mostly from the US. He could have had some nephew in this reality who was close friends with Ryan. It’s not impossible.

Dave: No, but very unlikely. It makes more sense if this theory is true.

Ok, that would mean the only real function of this theory is to explain why Booker could use a bathysphere. That is literally the only thing this theory would contribute. And the thing is, even without the possibility that one of his descendants was in Rapture (seeing as Booker Dewitt and Andrew Ryan have different colored eyes and hair, meaning they CANNOT HAVE THE SAME DNA) there’s another, pretty good explanation for why he can use them.

Dave: And that is?

I’ll give you a hint.

Liz

Or did you forget about Elizabeth, the girl who can take the space time continuum and twist it into a fucking balloon animal?!

Somehow, I can imagine a DNA lock is a fucking cakewalk for someone who can transfer people through time and space at a fucking whim!

So congratulations, Dave. The theory is stupid, the arguments don’t work, it wouldn’t affect anything of any importance even if it was true, and the only problem it might solve is a complete non-issue anyway.

You’ve somehow managed to be stupid on four different levels. That’s a new record, isn’t it?

Now, go away, would you kindly?

Dave: That’s not gonna work on me.

Alright, I’ll rephrase it: Fuck off or I’ll set you on fire.

Dave: That works.

 

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: The Dark Knight

I suppose returning to the subject of Batman sooner or later was inevitable. I shouldn’t really be surprised that there are more theories about the caped crusader to annoy me. On the bright side, there’s just one theory to cover today.

Dave: And this fan theory is about The Dark Knight. 

Hooray… What have you found for me today, then?

Dave: I think you’re gonna like this. In The Dark Knight, The Joker is actually the hero!

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I heard you correctly. For a moment, I could have sworn you said that The Joker was the hero in The Dark Knight.

Dave: That’s what I said.

Ok… I’m going to be honest, you’ve piqued my interest. I know I should probably be angry, but I genuinely cannot wait to hear the arguments here.

Dave: Well, before the Joker entered the picture, Gotham was shock full of corrupt politicians, organized crime was out of control, and there was active vigilantism. Thanks to the Joker, that all changed.

But… he doesn’t actually do anything heroic in the movie.

Dave: No? Doesn’t he steal money from a mob controlled bank?

Yes, but that’s not exactly heroic. Especially not when he used part of that money to buy his purple suit!

Dave: But that robbery was part of his plan to force Lau out of hiding.

Oh yeah,  because Lau was so hard to find, right? That’s why he was in a business meeting with Wayne Enterprises…

In fact, Lau wasn’t hiding until AFTER the Joker robbed the bank. And the reason for that wasn’t just the Joker, but the Gotham Police rapidly closing in on the mob, taking down money laundering operations. To ensure his own safety and prevent the money from being captured, Lau hid the money and disappeared.

Which is another very important point. You say that before the Joker, organized crime was rampant? The leaders of the mob were getting desperate, with Batman, the GCPD and District Attorney Harvey Dent cutting down their operations!

And when they found that not only had Lau been captured, but also about to betray them all? THAT is when they hired the Joker, who went on a killing spree!

Dave: I told you. He killed corrupt officials.

Were we watching the same movie? He kidnaps a Batman-copycat, whom he then tortures and murders on camera, before vowing that every day Batman fails to unmask himself ”People will die”. He then kills commissioner Loeb and Judge Surillo. Loeb was head of the GCPD and Surillo was the judge presiding over the trials against the mobsters brought in by Dent and Gordon.

And the third target? Harvey Dent.

NONE of these were portrayed as corrupt! The Joker only targeted them because they were big names that would get attention!

When he failed to kill Dent, he killed two innocent people, Patrick Harvey and Richard Dent, and then attempted to murder the mayor by posing as an honor guard.

Where exactly is the heroism here? So far, his targets have been one vigilante, three officials with no signs of corruption, two innocent people who just happened to share a name with an official, and the mayor. Seems to me he is pretty indiscriminate about who he targets.

Because the point isn’t to root out corruption. It’s to force Batman to surrender himself! That’s the only reason!

He then arranges for the kidnapping of an innocent woman, has her tied to a chair in a room full of gasoline and proceeds to BLOW HER TO KINGDOM COME!

Dave: I can explain that, if you’ll give me the chance.

Alright, I’ll play along. But I suggest you make your explanation amazingly good.

Dave: The Joker wanted to stop Batman, because vigilante justice is wrong. But if he simply KILLS Batman, he just creates a martyr, a symbol that inspires copycats. That’s not gonna work. However, if Batman kills Dent, he becomes a criminal and Dent becomes a martyr and inspiring symbol. So the Joker sends Batman to the wrong address, because he wants Harvey to go insane, forcing Batman to eventually kill him.

Oh dear god… That is the most insane gibberish I’ve heard in a long time! Firstly, if he wanted Batman destroyed and his symbol demolished, Batman being unmasked and revealed as just a man would be much easier.

Dave: I suppose…

So when Coleman Reese is about to reveal who Batman is, effectively destroying the vigilante and reducing his symbol to nothing, what does the Joker do?

He says that unless Reese dies in 60 minutes, he’ll BLOW UP A HOSPITAL! Because Gotham without Batman is BORING!

Secondly, you say that he wants Batman gone because “vigilante justice is wrong“? Then, if we assume (wrongly) that this theory was true, what does that make the Joker? Isn’t what he does also vigilante justice, the thing he supposedly believes is wrong?

And isn’t it funny that the Joker, this supposed ”hero”, kills several police officers in his escape from the station, then takes Lau and BURNS HIM ALIVE?

Not only that, but as a direct result of his actions, Harvey goes out and kills several people!

Dave: Harvey killed the corrupt officers that kidnapped him and Rachel.

But those officers were taking orders from the Joker! The Joker set that up! If he just wanted them dead, why didn’t he just kill them!?

You know why the Joker wanted Harvey to go insane?

It’s because, when Lau was in custody, he turned over the names of all his clients. This meant they could prosecute and incarcerate the 549 men making up the entire mob.

This, coupled with the ”Dent Act”, passed after Dents death, meant that none of them could be granted parole. THIS is what wiped out organized crime in Gotham, not the Joker.

What the Joker wanted was to UNDO all that! And you know why?

To break Gotham. To show them that even someone as noble as Harvey Dent is really no better than the criminals he prosecutes. Harvey’s killing spree was meant to render all his efforts to wipe out organized crime pointless. All the people he’d put behind bars would be released! The Joker didn’t want to make a martyr. He wanted for the one glimmer of hope in Gotham to be extinguished!

The Joker is not a fucking hero! He’s a homicidal maniac who wants to kill, maim, torture and destroy, for its own sake! He even explains it to the Chechen, right before he feeds him to his own dogs.

All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class of criminal, and I’m gonna give it to ’em.

What that means, is that he’s a criminal who doesn’t bother with money. He doesn’t NEED money, and he doesn’t do things for monetary gain. He just wants to kill, for the hell of it.

See, I have been ignoring this up until now because I was curious about your reasoning, but I think now is as good a time as any to mention it. There’s this nagging issue with this theory, on a basic level.

Dave: And that is…?

You’re saying the Joker is the hero.

I’m just astonished that you can say that sentence seriously.

I am dumbfounded that apparently, I have to explain to you that the Joker isn’t, and almost by definition CAN NOT be a hero, except possibly by accident. And really, if him sticking bombs on a pair of ferries as part of a ”social experiment” didn’t tip you off, I don’t know what chance I have!

Dave: Ah, but that was his way of showing the people of Gotham that there were good people among them! He proved even the worst of them wouldn’t turn on each other when it mattered.

Oh for the love of… So you’re saying that was the point?

Dave: Yes.

To uplift their spirit?

Dave: Yes!

To show them how good they were when it truly mattered and how they are good people?

Dave: Exactly!

…And then blow them up anyway?

Dave: Wait what?

Did you seriously just forget that he had a detonator of his own, and if not for Batman, he would have blown both ships up?

Dave: Uhm…

See, this is what I mean! You have no fucking idea what a hero is! Heroes don’t murder innocents for ”the greater good”. Heroes don’t put acid in peoples drinks or blow them up! They don’t take pleasure “savoring all the little emotions” of killing people with a knife! They don’t take hostages and dress them up as goons, hoping that they will get shot when the SWAT team barges in!

These are not heroic acts! They are the actions of a deranged sociopathic monster!

Dave: Well, couldn’t he be an anti-hero?

Again, anti-heroes don’t kill innocent people! For example, Wolverine is an anti-hero. Riddick is an anti-hero. Rorschach from Watchmen is an anti-hero. There ARE characters with the kind of “ends justify the means” mentality that you describe.

Characters like Ra’s Al Ghul or Dr. Doom. While they may have good intentions and noble goals, they do not shy away from hurting or killing innocents to achieve their goals. Guess what! That still makes them villains!

And as for the Joker? If you look up the word “Psychopath” in the dictionary, you know what you’ll find?

Dave: Uh… a picture of the Joker?

No, the definition of the word “Psychopath“, WHICH THE JOKER FUCKING IS!

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Frozen (Pt. 3)

It seems spring is in the air and we are moving towards warmer times. So what better way to say goodbye to the sleet, snow and ice, than by discussing a theory about Frozen?

Back when we covered collection of Disney fan theories, there was one theory I left out, on account of having discussed a theory about Frozen at length fairly recently.

But now, I think I’ve recovered enough to deal with whatever madness Dave has in store. So, what is the theory?

Dave: The theory is that Hans was turned evil by the trolls.

I see. And what do you base that on?

Dave: Ok, so Hans starts off as a caring, charming prince who falls in love with Anna, and he’s later shown handing out blankets to people. But suddenly, towards the end, he becomes a cruel, powerhungry monster, willing to murder to seize the throne.

Uh-huh?

Dave: And in between his introduction and his reveal as the villain, Anna and Kristoff meet the trolls!

Yeah. So what?

Dave: So, the trolls have adopted Kristoff, and they of course want him to be happy! When he comes along with a girl, the trolls start going on about how the two should hook up. Then, they find out that she’s actually engaged, and immediately start discussing how it’s a ”flexible thing” and even tell Kristoff  to ”get the fiancé out of the way and the whole thing will be fixed”. We already know they can alter peoples minds, because they altered Anna’s memories of her childhood. They could have done something similar to Hans, to split him and Anna up so she could end up with Kristoff!

All right, let’s begin, shall we?

There are a few problems with this theory. First of all, what they did to Anna was slightly alter her memories, tweaking them in simple ways. What you are suggesting is full on rewriting Hans’ personality. Those are NOT the same thing! Also, there’s only one troll shown to be able to alter the minds of people: The troll elder, Grandpabbie, and he doesn’t strike me as the ”alter peoples minds just for kicks” type. He simply isn’t as impulsive as the rest of the trolls, which might be the reason he’s the wise elder entrusted with the knowledge of magic.

Dave: But suppose the other trolls convinced him? Isn’t that a possibility?

Well, the possibility does exist, but even if that is the case, the only time we see that kind of magic performed, it required the subject to be physically there. Why else would the King bring Anna to the trolls? There’s nothing to suggest the trolls can use that kind of magic over vast distances.

Not to mention that if they’re trying to match Kristoff with Anna, turning Hans evil is an incredibly complicated way to do it!

Think about it. If this was all part of their plan, they would turn Hans into a killer, and hope that he won’t just stab Anna, but simply refuse to help her and leave her to die, and then that Anna, despite being on the brink of death, tries to save Elsa, and is miraculously saved, and then hope that she falls in love with Kristoff…

It seems overly convoluted, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t it be easier to just alter Anna’s mind to make her fall in love with Kristoff?

Dave: But that would be immoral and evil!

And turning a man into a murderer to help your adoptive son isn’t?! At least with this plan, there’s less of a chance of the girl you’re trying to pair up with your son BECOMING A FUCKING ICE SCULPTURE FOR ALL ETERNITY!

But the main issue, to me, is that you claim that Hans begins all friendly and charming and lovely, and then he turns evil for no reason.

Which is true… so long as you ignore that scene when he explains his motivation for his actions.

As thirteenth in line in my own kingdom, I didn’t stand a chance. I knew I’d have to marry into the throne somewhere. […] As heir, Elsa was preferable of course, but no one was getting anywhere with her. But you? You were so desperate for love, you were willing to marry me just like that!

Maybe this is just me, but it seems pretty clear this wasn’t some sudden impulse brought on by magic. This was his plan right from the start!

Dave: But he was so charming…

Oh, gee, I wonder why! Could it be because he’s A COMPLETE, MANIPULATIVE FUCKING PSYCHOPATH?

He wanted Anna to fall in love with him! Then when he finally DID marry her, he could cause Elsa to have a little ”accident”, and voilá! He’s the king of Arendelle! Mission accomplished! When that plan failed, he found himself with Anna dying, and Elsa facing execution. Letting Anna die and blaming Elsa would present him as the hero who killed the ”wicked winter witch”. Again, mission accomplished, and this time, no queen to worry about!

The trolls had nothing to do with it at all! Hans was evil from word go!

The movie actually highlights how ludicrous it is that Anna and Hans seemingly fall madly in love and getting ready to MARRY within moments of meeting one another! It’s the entire CATALYST FOR THE PLOT!

This is in contrast to the relationship between Anna and Kristoff, whom she meets, gets to know, and their relationship grows over time! And even then, by the end, they’re not on the verge to be married!

Dave: Uhm…

Has it occured to you that this entire concept is a criticism of the stereotypical fairytale “love at first sight” clicheé?

I mean, it’s not exactly subtle. You can’t have missed it. So why are you so into the idea of Hans being a victim here?

Dave: Because it ties together with another theory!

Oh, son of a…

Dave: The theory is that Hans can control fire!

Wait, what?!

Dave: Think about it. Isn’t it strange that Hans is constantly wearing gloves?

Not really… In fact, plenty of other characters also wear gloves…

Dave: Well, it could be because he has secret powers too! He’s a mirror image of Elsa!

But… wouldn’t that mean Hans is also struggling to keep those powers under control? That was the whole reason Elsa wore gloves, after all. Yet, at no point does he seem to show any powers what so ever!

Dave: That could be because just like Elsa, he is worried about fear and prejudice because of his powers! At one point, he tells Elsa to ”not be the monster they think [she] is”. That suggests he knows what she’s going through.

Yes… Alternatively, it could have something to do with that aforementioned manipulative trait I mentioned. You know, making her trust him enough so he can enact his plan?

Dave: But some of his outfits seem to have a flame motif…

Which would mean something, if Elsa wore clothes with a winter motif. But the clothes she wears during her coronation are NOT snow themed. She does wear a winter themed dress, but that is AFTER she has decided to no longer hide her powers and build her ice castle. Hans’ clothes are tailor made. If he is trying to keep those powers under wraps, why would he highlight the fact he has them by wearing an outift that implies it?!

And if he had those power, wouldn’t he try to USE them at some point in the movie?

Dave: Aha, but he does!

When?

Dave: When he reveals his plan, he removes one of his gloves, and snuffs out a candle.

…That’s it?

No fireballs? No flame cascades? No towering inferno of apocalyptic proportions…

He snuffed out a candle with his fingers, so now he’s a flame wizard?

I hate to break it to you, but THAT’S NOT MAGIC!

But let me get this straight… You’d rather support both these theories, neither of which work, rather than the idea that ”love at first sight” is a ridiculous clicheé?

Is it really so unthinkable that marriage might be a somewhat serious issue and not something you can just rush into?

Dave: You can, if it’s true love!

What the fuck do you know about true love?!

Dave: More than you!

…What?!

Dave: You just know how to shut people out!

Oh dear god. You’re either trying to be funny, or you’re actually trying to disprove my argument by quoting the movie at me… Either way, I’m going to leave now, otherwise, there’s a very real chance I might feed you very slowly into a meatgrinder.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Disney Triple Feature

Because I have some deranged masochistic urge to cause a crippling migraine attack, we will cover a collection of fan theories today. However, I understand they’re not just random theories, but all share some common element. So, what is that element, Dave?

Dave: All four are from Disney movies.

…Is there a theory about Frozen?

Dave: Well..

Because I don’t want to do another article on Frozen for a while. If you bring me another theory about that movie before I’ve had time to recover from last time, I will start hitting you with a stick, and I don’t know when I will stop.

Dave: Oh… in that case, let’s make a triple feature. But they’re all really good! Prepare to have your mind blown!

I don’t think rupturing a blood vessel in my brain counts as ”blowing my mind”. But fine, let’s get this over with.

Dave: The first theory is that Jane from Tarzan is the grandaughter of Belle and Beast.

Alright. What are the arguments?

Dave: There is a resemblance between them, but also, Jane could understand Tarzan, who was quite animalistic, just like Belle understood Beast.

Is that all?

Dave: No, there’s also the fact that Jane owned a tea-set with a pot and cups that looks just like Mrs. Potts and Chip. One of the cup even has a crack in it! A family heirloom, perhaps?

OK. So let’s break this down. As for the supposed ”Family resemblance”, is there really that much of a resemblance? Yes, both Belle and Jane are white brunettes, so there are some similarities, but is it really enough to say ”Yes, these two are related”? I’m not so sure.

But then there’s the idea that ”Jane understood Tarzan, like Belle understood Beast”.

Maybe you and I were watching different movies, but Beast wasn’t animalistic in the sense that he was feral. He looked like a beast, but his mind was unaltered. He could speak, reason and argue. He wasn’t a wild animal she tamed. Belle understanding him wasn’t a matter of animal/human relationships. It was a matter of being able to speak.

Dave: But what about the tea-set?

Yes, about that. It looks a lot like the one in Beauty and the Beast, I agree. But there’s one very important detail you’re forgetting about that tea-set. Do you remember what happened to it?

Dave: Uhm…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t that tea-set TURN INTO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE?!

I pointed this out in my article about the movie! They didn’t merge with stuff in the castle, they BECAME stuff from the castle!

In other words, the tea-set from Beauty and the Beast effectively CEASED TO FUCKING EXIST once the curse was broken!

Which means this is a different tea-set, and its appearance doesn’t prove a fucking thing!

So really, there is no evidence to back this theory up. The most you can say is ”they both wear yellow at some point”.

Next theory.

Dave: Ok, so sticking with Beauty and the Beast, you know that book Belle calls her favourite?

Yes…?

Dave: Belle is reading the story of Aladdin! Think about it. ”Far off places, daring sword fights, magic spells, a prince in disguise”! It’s all there!

Ah, ok. I can see a few flaws with that. First of all, ”Far off places”? Agrabah is a far way from France, but considering the stereotypical opening of fairytales is ”Once upon a time, in a far away land”, I don’t think that really says much.

Daring sword fights”? True, Aladdin stabbed Jafar with a sword, and swords appeared here and there… but actual swordfighting? Not really. Certainly not enough to warrant a special mention. As for ”Magic spells”, sure. But again, it’s not like that’s unique to Aladdin. Hell, it’s not unique to Disney! And then there’s ”A prince in disguise”.

Let me ask you this. What fucking movie were you watching?! Aladdin wasn’t a prince! That was the whole point of him wishing for it! That giant parade existed solely to make people THINK HE WAS A PRINCE!

That’s a PAUPER in disguise, not a prince! You got it completely fucking backwards!

And finally, ignoring all of these points, she takes that book with her and reads as she walks through town. At one point, she sits down by a fountain, and we see the inside of the book, with illustrations.

bool
Does this look like Agrabah to you?

Sure, you could argue it’s a westernized depiction, but the scene she describes? That doesn’t happen! I fact, the complete OPPOSITE happens, with Aladdin meeting Jasmine, not knowing she’s a princess!

All of this is also ignoring that Aladdin came out AFTER Beauty and the Beast, which sinks this whole theory anyway. Can I go nurse my headache now?

Dave: I still have one more theory .

Oh goody…

Dave: Mother Gothel and the Queen from Snow White are the same person!

Excuse me… I must have missed that. We’re talking about the same people here, right? Mother Gothel, the villain from Tangled?

Dave: Yes.

And the evil queen from Snow White? Tall, grim, flowing cape, talks to a mirror?

Dave: That’s the one.

And they are the same person? Not sisters? Not just similar? The actual same person?

Dave: Exactly.

Wow…

Dave: Yeah, isn’t it cool?

No, it’s among the dumbest theories I’ve ever heard. What I find strange is that, instead of the migraine I expected, I suddenly started tasting copper, and everything went bright red for a split second.

So what are the arguments?

Dave: Well, they look similar, they both have daggers in boxes, and they’re obsessed with youth and beauty.

I see we’re ignoring the big issue for now. Well, then. You say they look similar? In what way? What is so similar looking about them? They both have black hair and thin eyebrows? They also have different coloured eyes. Gothel has blue eyes, the Queen has green.

Dave: Uhm… but when they turn into hags, they look a lot alike!

You’re still ignoring the eye colour, Dave. But I’ll play. Let’s see, shall we?

Witch.jpg
Wow. Like peas in a fucking pod, aren’t they?

And you’re also missing the fact that with Gothel, that is how she actually looks. With the Queen, it’s a disguise.

Not to mention, their personalities are absolutely nothing alike, with the Queen being dominering, regal and cold and Gothel being manipulative and feigning affection. Both are vain, but Gothel is motivated by greed, wanting eternal youth. The Queen is motivated by jealousy, not wanting anyone to be more beautiful than her.

And the Queen has a dagger in a box? When does she ever have a dagger in a box? The only knife seen in the movie is the one carried by the huntsman. As in, his own hunting knife!

Dave: There’s another! It’s in the box she gives to the huntsman.

That box? You mean the box she explicitly told him to put the HEART in?! The one that had a dagger ON the lock, not INSIDE THE BOX?!

Dave: Well.. that dagger looks a bit like Gothels dagger…

Firstly, so what?! And secondly, no, it fucking doesn’t! It looks nothing like it! Gothels dagger was ornate, with a swirled handle and a curved handguard, and the dagger on the box was more simplistic, with a straight handguard!

Dave:… why do you know that..?

Because unlike you, I pay fucking attention!

Speaking of, there’s that small nagging issue… what was it… Oh right.

How do you explain that both these characters, who according to your theory are one and the same, both end up kind of sort of ever so slightly EXTREMELY FUCKING DEAD!?

Dave: Well, we never see the Queens body…

True, but you know what the thing is with the Queen? Her death is one of the most excessive of any Disney villain!

She’s trying to roll a boulder down on the dwarves, using a stick as a lever. Then a bolt of lightning strikes the stick she’s holding. That’s about 30,000 amperes going through your body. If that doesn’t kill you, it’ll at least hurt like everliving hell. Then the rock she stands on crumbles, and she falls down the cliff.

Given her scream lasted about six seconds before dying out (rather than abruptly stopping) I’d say we’re looking at a more than 180 m drop. In simple terms, she’s dead on impact.

And then the boulder she was going to use to crush the dwarves falls down after her!

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s probably best we don’t see her body, because she didn’t just die. She got overkilled to death.

Gothel, meanwhile, aged what is probably a few centuries in a couple of minutes, to the point where there’s nothing left of her but dust. These are observable as separate events, meaning they cannot be the same person.

In other words, this theory, which is so stupid I fear I have actually become dumber for having dissected it, is as dead as the two old bats it concerns. And I swear, Dave, that if you bring me any more fan theories today, what I will do to you will make the ordeal the Queen suffered seem like the Elysian fucking fields by comparison.

 

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

Today, we’ve got ourselves another fan theory about a popular tv show. However, unlike last time when we talked about Rugrats, this is a show I actually like: The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. So, what madness have you got for me, Dave?

Dave: The theory is that Will is actually dead

OK, explain.

Dave: Remember that fight he mentions in the opening? What if it wasn’t just “one little fight”, but he was in fact beaten to death by a street gang? He jumps into a cab, which is in reality God taking him to heaven, where he gets to be with his deceased aunt and uncle.

As well as their three kids and butler? Did they all die in a car crash or a house fire or something?

Dave: Well, it’s not impossible.

I see… and the fact that we see his parents in the show isn’t an issue?

Dave: No, because that is when his parents are visiting his grave!

OK, slight problem. When his parents appear on the show, he interacts with them. I admit I don’t tend to visit my deceased relatives all that often, but when I do, they don’t exactly converse with me.

Dave: Could be artistic license.

Possibly, but in the case of his father, he appeared only once in the entire show, and that episode was all about Will coming to terms with his father not being there to support him, and how Uncle Phil is the real father figure he deserves.

That is NOT character development that has any meaning after you have shuffled off thine mortal coil.

Dave: Uhm… well, what about cab he gets in?

What about it?

Dave: he calls it “rare”

Yes. So what?

Dave: That could mean it’s otherworldly, and that it is in fact God driving it.

How does… you know what? I’m not going to waste time asking for the logic. It’s a cab with a custom license plate and fluffy dice on the mirror. When he says it’s rare, don’t you think it just means it looked odd to a kid from the streets of philly?

Dave: Oh…. well, what about all the wacky antics of the show? How do you explain that?

Like this: It’s a SITCOM! You know, that type of entertainment that thrives on wacky antics? And even then, the comedy of the show is derived from a wisecracking street kid suddenly living in a very fancy mansion. It’s a far leap from “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” levels of supernatural comedy.

Not to mention, suppose it really IS heaven. How annoyed would Geoffrey be? He presumably died, got into heaven, and has to be a butler for all eternity!

(Let’s ignore that apparently in heaven, you still need money. Call me weird, but a heaven where you still have to work seems a bit pointless to me.)

See, apart from the arguments I’ve already raised, there is one major issue that makes the entire theory collapse in on itself.

Dave: What’s that?

The theory states that Will was killed in a fight in Philadelphia, which is why he is in Bel-Air to begin with.

Dave: Yes?

If that is true, how the hell do you explain Will going BACK to Philly at one point? He walked around, talked to people, found out how things had changed while he was gone, and at no point did anyone go “AAAH, zombie! Shoot it!”. Instead, he was annoyed everyone remembered him as a coward, for running away to California after having a fight.

So unless you are suggesting that someone dropped a nuke on Philadelphia and it all ended up in the same afterlife as Will, the theory doesn’t really work. As with many theories, it doesn’t really add anything to the show, it doesn’t change anything, and it doesn’t work within its own logic.

Not to mention that this theory implies that either Bel-Air is heaven, or heaven is just like Bel-Air. I know Los Angeles is sometimes called The City of Angels, but somehow, I doubt it’s meant literally…

And before you say anything, Dave, that is not an argument supporting the already failed theory, and if you try to claim otherwise, I will hurt you very badly.

 

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Frozen/Tangled

Dave: Hey! I’ve found a cool fan theory about Frozen

Of course you have. Here I was thinking that hey, it’s a new year! A new start, with new horizons! But no, let’s instead go back to the same subject we’ve covered twice already. I’m sure that’ll be much better…

Dave: Well, it’s about Tangled as well…

Oh, great. I’m so much happier now. What is it, then?

Dave: Guess!

No, I don’t want to. In fact, I actively refuse.

Dave: Aw, come on, don’t be boring! Why not?

Because I am at a disadvantage. See, I am a fully rounded and sane person, and because of that, my guesses are founded in reason and logic. In other words, I am incapable of imagining the kind of theories you offer on a regular basis. I literally cannot think that stupidly.

So, how about you save us both a lot of time, and just tell me the god damn theory!

Dave: Alright, killjoy. The theory is that Elsa and Anna are not siblings.

Is that all?

Dave: Well… No. The whole theory is that Elsa is actually adopted, and her parents are the king and queen from Tangled, and Rapunzel is her twin.

But… Rapunzel and Elsa don’t look alike.

Dave: They’re fraternal twins, obviously!

You see!? I couldn’t make that up if I tried! We would have been here for ages!

Dave: You’re just being silly. You haven’t even heard the arguments yet. And when you do, I think you’ll change your tune.

Well, hope, much like stupidity, springs eternal. But fine, let’s hear the arguments.

Dave: OK, first off, we never get an explanation for where Elsa’s powers came from. Rapunzel and Elsa both got magic powers from Rapunzels mother drinking that magic potion!

When the trolls ask Anna’s father whether Elsa was born with the power or cursed, the king pauses before answering. And Elsa and Anna both have blue eyes.

Wait, how does that last one matter?

Dave: Anna’s mother and father have green and blue eyes, respectively. Their odds of having a child with blue eyes is 50/50. Rapunzels parents also had blue and green eyes, and her eyes are green. It’s therefore more likely that Elsa is Rapunzels sister, because it’s more likely that they’d have one child with blue eyes and one with green than Anna’s parents having two children with blue eyes.

Oh dear god, that was painful to read. What the hell are you talking about?!

It’s not “more likely” at all! Just because they had one kid with blue eyes doesn’t mean the second child is more likely to have green eyes! The odds are STILL 50/50, because it’s the same genes involved! The odds don’t change!

As for Elsa’s powers, it’s true that we never find out the origin. But here’s a question for you. Does it matter where they came from? With Tangled, knowing where Rapunzels powers came from is crucial to the plot. However, with Frozen, we don’t need anything beyond “she was born with them” to understand the story. The point isn’t where they come from, but how she deals with them and how they affect her. THAT is what is important. Knowing where they come from doesn’t change anything.

Dave: But why did her father stutter when they asked him, then? He paused, because he wasn’t there when she was born!

Yes, that could be it. Or maybe it was the fact that one of his daughters is in a coma, and he’s asking a bunch of sentient rocks for aid. With that in mind,  doesn’t it seem reasonable that his first sentence should start with “uh”? And that’s all this supposed “stutter” or “pause” was. Him saying “uh” apparently translates to “I don’t know, because this child is not my offspring”. You are really grasping at straws.

But really, why would Rapunzel’s parents give up Elsa and send her away?

Dave: To protect her from Gothel!

But… that makes no sense! When would they have done that? We only see Gothel kidnap Rapunzel, and we see no other child during that entire opening scene. If she had a twin, why doesn’t Elsa appear anywhere in the opening?

Dave: I knew you’d ask that! That opening was given by Eugene, and he is not a reliable narrator! He only gives the information he has, which didn’t include Elsa!

…Even though some of that information, he couldn’t possibly know, like Gothels discovery of the flower, or where the flower came from?

Dave: He could have learned that, somehow!

OK, so let me get this straight. They lost one of their daughters, and their way of protecting their remaining daughter so they don’t lose her… is to send her away to Arendelle, never to see her again, and only making a mosaic of Rapunzel, essentially pretending that Elsa didn’t exist at all?

That sounds… counter-intuitive at best…

Dave: Yes, but it’s a sacrifice worth making, if it means she’s safe!

But if she’s adopted, how did she become queen of Arendelle?

Dave: Because she’s the oldest child, obviously! She is therefore the next in line.

But she’s not the child of the king and queen of Arendelle! If she’s adopted, she’s NOT in line to the throne at all! Anna is the crown princess in that case! That’s how a line of succession works!

Dave: Well… uhm…. never mind! I’ve got more arguments! Both Rapunzel and Elsa are blonde!

Well, that’s true. The problem is, that they’re not the same type of blonde. Rapunzel has golden hair and Elsa has platinum hair. Rapunzels hair matches the flower that granted her power, and Elsas hair is lighter, keeping with the snow motif.

Which is another point. If they both have magic from the same source, shouldn’t they get the same powers? Why, if this theory is true, does only Rapunzel get the power of the flower, and Elsa gets ice powers that have nothing to do with the flower?

Dave: But they DO have similar powers! Look at the finale for both movies. Eugene gets stabbed and dies. Anna gets frozen and dies. Both are revived by magic powers their wielders had no idea they had. Elsa and Rapunzel have that exact same power, and it manifests in the exact same way!

Oh, of course! You’re right, they’re completely identical!

Except for, you know, all the very important ways they differ. For example, Eugene didn’t die. He was mortally wounded and near dead. One might say he was mostly dead. But as we’ve learned from The Princess Bride:

There’s a big difference between MOSTLY dead and ALL dead.

Anna, meanwhile, was dead. She breathed her last. But as Olaf proves, Elsa has the ability to bring life to lifeless things, such as her sister-turned-ice-sculpture. An act of true love thawed Anna’s frozen heart.

And Rapunzels power is not “new” at all! Her power was always healing in nature! We’re talking magic that can restore the youth and beauty of people. It could keep Gothel young and vibrant for what is implied to be decades, maybe even centuries! A stab wound!? That’s a fucking cakewalk!

Not to mention that we SEE it heal wounds in the movie! Eugene cuts his hand, and Rapunzel heals it! All that happens when he got healed at the end, is the last iota of her magic doing what IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO DO!

Oh, and their magic is still radically different for two other, important reasons. 

First: Elsa’s powers can be used for both offence and defence, whereas Rapunzels powers can only heal.

Second and perhaps more importantly: Elsa controls her powers.

Dave: What do you mean?

Nobody can use Elsa’s powers except her. Their form and extent are controlled by her emotions and her will. The healing power of the flower is controlled by the song, before and after Rapunzel was born. If she wants to use her magic, she has to sing. In fact, anyone who knows the song can use her power, so long as they have her close by.

She is only a vessel for the power, whereas Elsa is the wielder of hers. If they both got powers from the flower, both would require that same activator.

And of course, there’s the two major, resounding, gaping holes in this theory, which you, unsurprisingly, have either missed or ignored.

You’ve paid close enough attention to notice that both Elsa and Rapunzel are blonde. But you’ve not only missed the difference in hair colour, but also something far more important.

Elsa has shorter hair than Rapunzel. Her hair is shoulder length. Logically, she’s had a haircut in her 21 years.

Dave: Yeah. And?

Well, since I have to spell it out for you, there was a reason Rapunzel had long hair. If she cuts her hair, IT TURNS BROWN AND STOPS GROWING! That is a major fucking plot-point in the movie! It’s the reason Gothel kidnapped her to begin with! If this theory was true, it’d mean Elsa CANNOT HAVE SHORT, BLONDE HAIR AT HER AGE, because it’d turn brown!

Dave: Oh… well, I suppose…

And finally, and most importantly, I return to my first argument.

Elsa and Rapunzel look nothing alike!

Dave: I told you! They’re FRATERNAL twins!

Yeah, I heard you. But you’re missing the point. Rapunzel doesn’t look like Elsa. But you know who does?

Dave: Uh…

anna.jpg
Her younger sister!
They’re virtually fucking identical, apart from make-up, hair and height!

You know why? Because they were designed to look alike, SINCE THEY ARE SISTERS!

Dave: Oh…

So for all those reasons, Dave, this theory does not work!

I’m almost impressed. The amount of time, detail and effort you have poured into this theory is amazing.

I can’t believe that you’d spend so much effort trying to prove something so stupid. If I may paraphrase; seldom has so much time been wasted in writing so much, meaning so little.

I feel like I’ve aged about 50 years, writing about this. Come here, Dave. Let me touch your hair

Dave: What? You think that my hair can make you younger?

No, I just want something to hold onto while I slam your face against the table.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Rugrats

Dave: Good news!

Oh really? What could it possibly be? Oh, I know. You’re about to present yet another fan theory about something I care deeply about.

Dave: That’s right! I’ve got a theory about the show Rugrats!

Oh. All right then. Go ahead.

Dave: That’s it? No threats? No rage? No ranting about how I might ruin a beloved childhood show for you.

Of course not. I don’t like Rugrats. Never have.

Dave: Oh…. so I won’t risk being beaten to a pulp this time?

I’d say it depends on the theory, Dave. So, what have you got for me?

Dave: The theory is that the babies are simply figments of Angelica’s imagination.

I see. And what are the arguments?

Dave: So, Tommy was stillborn, and that’s why his father is always in the basement, building toys. It’s his way of coping with the trauma. Chuckie died, along with his mother, leaving his dad a nervous wreck. And Phil and Lil’s parents had an abortion, and Angelica imagined both a boy and a girl, not knowing the gender of the baby.

Aha. Anything else?

Dave: Hmm.. nope, that’s it.

Well, I must say, it’s very interesting. As far as fan theories go, it’s a very impressive effort.

Dave: Thanks!

Granted, it’s got more holes in it than a slice of tilsit cheese, but still. An impressive effort. So, where to begin with this one?

You say that Tommy was stillborn, and Stu is in the basement, building toys for a child he doesn’t have. He’s clearly suffering a severe breakdown…which is why he is cheery and positive, friendly and really showing no signs of psychological trauma whatsoever. He appears to be completely normal, unlike someone going through deep seated denial and repression about having lost a child.

Dave: But why is he making toys all day, then?

Because it’s his JOB! That’s what he does to make money! He invents toys to sell!

Then there’s Chuckie, who supposedly died along with his mother. His mother is established as having died, but she died of a sudden, terminal illness. There’s nothing to suggest that Chuckie died as well. In fact, several episodes deal directly with his dad trying to raise his child. Call me a bluff old cynic, but that’s PRETTY FUCKING TRICKY if said child is DEAD!

Dave: Uh….

And then, there’s the twins. Here, let me ask a simple question. Dave.

How old is Angelica?

Dave: uhm…

She’s three years old. Do you really think a three-yearold is able to comprehend a heavy subject such as “abortion”? Imagining two people because you don’t know if it’s a girl or a boy is not “playful imagination”. It’s “delusions due to severe psychological trauma”.

Dave: Which is why she is imagining the babies! She’s coping!

See, I would argue that, at three years old, you are too young to fully grasp the concept of mortality to such an extent.

But even if that’s not the case, the idea doesn’t work! The entire theory is fundamentally flawed, because if it was true, it’d mean she was the only one able to see the babies. But she clearly isn’t! All the adults see and interact with the kids! The parents, the grandfather, the dog, everyone!

Even if we ignore that (which we shouldn’t) there are plenty of situations where they behave in ways Angelica doesn’t expect, and whole scenarios where she doesn’t appear at all! A bit strange, isn’t it, considering she’s supposedly imagining it all? Speaking from my own experience, when I imagined adventures, not only did they tend to be more impressive in scope than “bathtubs are scary”, but I was the protagonist. I didn’t invent a fictional being and then simply step aside and let things happen to them!

A three-yearold child who’s main characteristic is being spoiled and selfish would be no different! In fact, her imagining a bunch of kids makes absolutely no sense, simply because of her personality! One could make the perfectly valid argument that the reason she’s mean to the babies is because they take away the attention from her. She resents them, because she’s worried she might be forgotten.

The whole show is about growing and learning and coping with the world. Hell, in the movies, Tommy has to deal with the idea of having a brother!

Dave: Ah, but-

And yes, the movies are canon. I know it, you know it, don’t bother trying to argue it.

And finally, there’s the basic problem with the theory.

Dave: Which is…?

You have provided details about all the children, but you haven’t actually provided a single, solitary scrap of evidence to support the theory! Your reasoning with the twins is “Angelica didn’t know the gender”, and your only evidence to support that statement is the fact that they’re twins.

That’s completely backwards logic!

This is really the quintessential stupid theory, because you have reached the conclusion that all the babies are imaginary, and then actively twisted facts and fabricated scenarios to justify it, with no real backing whatsoever.

Dave: I thought you said you didn’t like Rugrats.

That’s right. Your point?

Dave: So why couldn’t you just let me have this one, then?

Because I don’t have to like a subject to recognise stupidity concerning it. I actually would like this theory to be true, believe it or not.

Dave: You would?

Yes. You see, I can only assume that the reason this theory exists at all is because someone desperately wanted to make the show interesting. It’s a valiant effort that, like I said, just doesn’t work.

But because of that effort, and the fact that I don’t really care about Rugrats, I will not, in fact, beat you savagely. Consider it a Christmas present.

Dave: Oh… thanks, I guess.


Back to Main Page