WTFAW: The Burton Theory

Dave: I’ve come across something interesting, called the Burton Theory.

Really? What’s that?

Dave: It’s a theory that suggests that all of Tim Burtons original movies are connected. To clarify, that would be Vincent, A Nightmare Before Christmas, Frankenweenie, Corpse Bride and Beetlejuice. Prepare to have your mind blown. Ready?

I’ve got my migraine medicine and sickbag. I’m as ready as I’ll ever be.

Dave: Let’s begin. In the short film Vincent, the eponymous character has a dog named Abercrombie, who he likes to experiment on. The theory claims his mother gave the dog away, and it was adopted by Victor Frankenstein, who renamed him Sparky. When Sparky died, however long after the events of Frankenweenie, he becomes a spirit in Halloween Town. Victor gets a new dog, named Scraps, who later dies as well. Now, Victor from Frankenweenie and Victor from Corpse Bride look a bit similar, right?

Well, yes, a bit.

Dave: That’s because they’re the same person! The loss of a second dog was too much for Victor. He ran away from home and ended up being adopted by the van Dorts. Amusingly, the neighbour in Frankenweenie, Mr. Burgomeister, is the brother of Finis Everglot, Victors future father in law. When Victor eventually dies, he goes to the afterlife, and becomes Jack Skellington. His sweetheart Sally is actually the dead wife of Vincent Malloy, and she also passed into the next life and changed her name. Also in Halloween town, Dr. Finkelstein has an assistant, Igor, who looks an awful lot like Edgar from Frankenweenie. Obviously, he also died and came to Halloween Town. Speaking of Frankenweenie, the character Elsa van Helsing is also Lydia, the daughter in Beetlejuice. The Weird Girl in the same movie is really named Kim, and when she grows up, she appears in Edward Scissorhands.

Wow… that’s… a lot of detail. You know, I feel bad now.

Dave: Why’s that? Is it because you’re sorry you doubted the theory?

No, it’s because it’s clear that a lot of effort has gone into this theory. It’s easily the most elaborate theory you have ever brought me. And that is why it almost breaks my heart that it doesn’t work. Believe me, I would love for this theory to be true, but the arguments presented simply do not add up.

I admire the effort, but I am frustrated at the lack of attention to details. Because it’s the details that really are important.

To begin with, if Sparky and Abercrombie are the same dog, why do they look nothing alike? Sparky is noticeably chubbier than Abercrombie, for a start. I’m more of a cat person, but I’m pretty sure dogs don’t dramatically change size and shape with time. And then, when Sparky dies, you say he becomes Zero, the ghost dog in Halloween town?

Dave: Exactly. That’s why his nose glows.

But Sparkys nose didn’t glow. It occasionally (and fittingly) sparked. And again, Zeros shape is very different to Sparky, including long floppy ears.

There’s also another, very important detail, but I’ll get to than soon enough. In the meantime, there’s the idea that Victor runs away, and is adopted by the van Dorts. Remind me, why did he run away?

Dave: Because his second dog, Scraps, died. The trauma was too great.

The problem with that is that by the end of Frankenweenie, Victor is pretty shaken up when he thinks his dog is dead (again), but he is also ready to accept this fact. Supposing this is true, that would mean that when Scraps died, that is the third or fourth time Victor loses a pet, depending on how you look at it. I understand how sad it is to lose a pet, but I don’t really see Victor as the kind of person to run away when his second dog dies.

And even then, we know what Victor van Dort looked like as a child. It is one of the first things we see in the movie.

Left: Victor van Dort. Right: Victor Frankenstein
Suddenly, the two don’t look so alike, I think. And if he ran away from home because Scraps died, how is it possible for him to have a picture of himself and Scraps from what has to be AFTER he ran away?

All in all, that is not possible

Which is not surprising, since the two Victors cannot be the same person.

Dave: Why’s that?

It’s the same reason Finis Everglot can’t be Mr. Burgomeisters brother. Not only is there a notable size difference, with Mr. Burgomeister being quite tall and Finis being comically short (as is all members of his family, going by the pictures in his house). There’s also the fact that the two movies are set at radically different periods.

So either they’re separate people, or I’m going to need a very good explanation for how Victor Frankenstein and Finis Everglot managed to leave their home in what appears to be 1930-1940’s America, and end up in what looks to be England, in the 1880’s.

And I really hope you won’t to try to bring the time machine from Back to the Future into this, just because there’s lightning…

Now, let’s skip ahead slightly to Sallys supposed origin.

Dave: Yeah?

So, Vincent Malloy imagines he has a wife, right?

Dave: Right.

A wife who doesn’t exist, because she’s imaginary, right?

Dave: Right.

And despite this, he tries to dig her up, as part of his imaginary world. Which means she still doesn’t exist. He’s just pretending to dig up her corpse, but in reality just ruins her mothers flower bed. Because his wife is imaginary, and therefore does not exist. Right?

Dave: Uh… right…?

So please explain to me how the spirit of said wife, despite being purely imaginary, and therefore does not and has never existed, still manages to pass through to the afterlife and take on corporeal form despite, and yes I know I am repeating myself, because this is ever so slightly massively crucial:


How is that possible?!

Dave: Well…

The answer is: it isn’t possible! And we KNOW Sallys origin! She was created by Dr. Finkelstein. It’s a big part of her character, that she keeps poisoning him and leaving, to be close to Jack.

Speaking of, this brings us neatly to Jack, as well as Igor, Zero and indeed Sally. The theory suggests all these people died and passed through to the afterlife. Now, there’s a problem with that idea, and this is where I get back to the problem I mentioned earlier.

Halloween Town is NOT the afterlife. It’s one of the many ”Holiday Worlds”, worlds that specifically create holidays for the people of the world. Halloween, Christmas, St. Patricks Day, Thanksgiving and so on.

This is not the same as where people go upon death. We know this, because in both Corpse Bride and Beetlejuice, we see two very different versions of the realm of the dead.

There is nothing to suggest that the creatures in Halloween Town were once human. The only way that works is if we first assume it is a form of afterlife. Because if we assume it’s the afterlife, the people there must be former humans, which proves it’s a form of afterlife. That’s just backwards logic.

But this leads us to Lydia from Beetlejuice. Explain.

Dave: When Victor ran away, Elsa van Helsing fell into a deep depression and her parents, unable to help her, gave her up for adoption. She was adopted by Charles and Delia Deetz.

Dear god, where to start… Ok, the idea of Lydia being Elsa from Frankenweenie relies on the idea that Victor ran away from home. But as we’ve established, there’s nothing to suggest he ran away from home, because he and Victor van Dort can’t be the same person.

But let’s suppose that Victor did run away. Were they really that close, for her to become absolutely distraught when he disappeared? Yes, they got along, but it’s not like they were a couple, or long time childhood friends.

But again, let’s suppose that she fell into depression. And her parents tried and tried to help her, but nothing seemed to work…

So they put her up for adoption?! What kind of maniac leap of logic is that?! That is not solving the problem. That’s just washing your hands and move the problem somewhere else. What, they just figured ”Our kid being depressed is such a drag. Let’s get rid of her”?

That reasoning doesn’t work, unless the parents are both sociopaths!

And why would she change her name to Lydia, even if she was adopted?

Dave: Because she wanted to leave her past behind and-

If she was able to leave her past behind like that, she wouldn’t have become so depressed she couldn’t be helped by medication or therapy or any of the many other methods to deal with grief, would she?!

And finally, the Weird Girl in Frankenweenie. What’s the deal there? I mean, her personality is nothing like Kims from Edward Scissorhands. So how did she reach that point?

Dave: She was adopted by Peg and Jim Boggs.

Ok, let’s ignore that it doesn’t really explain the change in personality. Just answer me this: why?

Dave: She tried to explain what had became of her cat, Mr. Whiskers, but her parents wouldn’t believe her, and eventually put her up for adoption.

Wait, what!?

Now I have to ask, Dave. What do you think adoption is? Because it’s not just a conventient way to get rid of troublesome kids. Again, unless the parents have absolutely no love or empathy for their child, they’re not gonna put her up for adoption for… what, lying? Is that what we’re going with?

And you say her parents wouldn’t believe her? Why not? She’s got a town full of witnesses! In fact, chances are, HER PARENTS WERE THERE DURING THE EVENTS!

Elsas parents were gone for the duration of the movie. Weird Girl’s parents weren’t mentioned as being missing.

But despite probably witnessing these events first hand, or if not, having a fucking city full of witnesses, they decided to put her up for adoption, and just hope things sorted themselves out?! 

That makes no sense at all!

And the idea is, she’s adopted by Peg and Jim Boggs, and changes her name to Kim? Again, children don’t generally change their names when they’re adopted, do they?

Dave: What do you mean, change her name?

Her real name is Anne Chambers. A simple google search tells you that.

This is what I mean with why the small details are so important. Because of these small, but crucial details, we have a very elaborate fan theory wherein, near as I can tell, not a single part of it actually works. As soon as you scratch the surface or put it to any amount of scrutiny, it crumbles to dust.

And there are of course variations of it, but many of them make the same mistakes. The only one I found that kind of worked is the idea that Victor Frankenstein is a descendant of Victor van Dort. And that doesn’t really work either.

Dave: Well, you can’t prove it’s not true…

Maybe not, but the absence of counterarguments alone does not validate the theory. It’s far more important to provide evidence to support their claims. That’s how making a theory works.

But I digress. Like I said, it’s an impressively elaborate theory. But that is not enough on its own.

In a way, this theory is very much like what actually happens if you stick a lightning rod to a dead dog, and put it into a thunderstorm.

You will get lots of noise and lots of sparks. You will not, however, get a reanimated dog. No matter how impressive the process looks or sounds, that dog, like this theory, will still be dead as a doornail.


Back to Main Page



WTFAW: The Lion King (Pt. 2)

Dave: Hey, I’ve found an interesting theory.

Is that so? Well, forgive if for not leaping for joy. Bad back, you know…

Dave: It’s funny you should make that reference, actually.

What? Oh no! No no no, don’t tell me it’s about The Lion King!

Dave: That’s right! The theory is that Mufasa and Scar aren’t brothers!

I’m sorry… I think I my ears stopped working for a moment. What was that, again?

Dave: Mufasa and Scar are not brothers.

Right. Mufasa and Scar are not brothers. I see… Mind if I ask you a personal question, Dave?

Dave: Sure, I guess?

Are you feeling alright?

Dave: What do you mean?

I mean, are you feeling alright? Things in your life are going well? You don’t feel a bit gloomy or depressed? No recent tragedy or heartbreak?

Dave: Uhm… no. No, everything’s fine. Why do you ask?

Well, I’ve told you before that The Lion King is my favourite movie of all time. I love it with a passion, and I make it a point to watch it only once a year. I do that, specifically so I don’t get sick of watching it, because it’s such a precious, important and valuable part of my childhood.

With that in mind, can you imagine why I might be a bit concerned about your mental well being?

Dave: Well, no, I’m not really following…

See, since you already know all that, and still decide to bring me a theory like this, I can only assume that you are performing some elaborate suicide attempt!

Dave: What? No, it isn’t!

Ok, so if that’s not the case, would you please explain why else would you do something so absolutely mindnumbingly insane, before I lose my selfcontrol and beat you to death with your own spine?!

Dave: It’s because this theory actually makes sense.

Now, I know that it won’t. But since I am actually curious how the hell it managed to convince you, I’ll humour you, Dave.

Dave: Well, there was an interview with the producer and director, where they discussed the possibility.

Right. And what did they say?

Dave: I have the quote right here.

[While making the movie] we talked about the fact that it was very likely [Scar and Mufasa] would not have both the same parents. The way lions operate in the wild…when the male lion gets old, another rogue lion comes and kills the head of the pride […]

Is that all?

Dave: No, it continues:

There was always this thing about well, how do you have these two [male] lions? Occasionally there are prides that do have two male lions, in an interesting dynamic because they’re not equals [since they don’t have the same parents]. One lion will always kind of be off in the shadows. We were trying to use those animal truths to underpin the story so we sort of figured Scar and Mufasa couldn’t really be from the same gene pool.

Ok, so let me get this straight… this whole theory is based on that interview?

Dave: Pretty much.

Ok, let’s start off with the fact that they are discussing the idea of using animal truths to underpin the story. They talk about how “in the wild” lions operate in this and that way. But there’s a slight issue with that idea.

Dave: What’s that?

In the wild, animals don’t fucking talk!

Keeping it accurate to real life kinda goes out the fucking window at that point! In the wild, there aren’t “lion brothers”. There are also no kings! When a lion gets born in the wild, a mandrill doesn’t come and hold it up for other animals to see! Lions don’t have birds as majordomos! If we’re bringing real life into this movie, THIS MOVIE WOULDN’T FUCKING EXIST!

And if Scar isn’t Mufasas brother, why do they refer to one another as brother? Why does Simba and Scar refer to one another as nephew and uncle?  Zazu refers to Scar as “the kings brother”. He then notes that there’s one like Scar “in every family”. 

Scar himself mentions the differences between them, that while he got the brains, he’s “in the shallow end of the gene pool” when it comes to strength. The detail about the gene pool  line doesn’t make a whole lot of sense unless they are siblings!

Scar also states that were it not for Simba, he’d be “first in line” to the throne. In fact, it’s clear that Mufasa’s father was king before him, as shown during the scene where Simba and Mufasa look up at the stars.

In case it’s not really clear yet, that is called a line of succession. You know, that thing which DOESN’T FUCKING EXISTS AMONG LIONS IN REAL LIFE!?

It’s almost like real life doesn’t really apply here or something!

Not to mention, of course, that from a story perspective, they HAVE to be brothers! The movie is a loose adaptation of Hamlet, with Simba betrayed by his uncle, who murdered his father to claim the throne.

It’s also highly reminicent a story in egyption mythology, wherein Osiris is killed by his treacherous brother Seth, who in turn is defeated by Osiris’ son Horus.

The story REQUIRES them to be siblings.

Dave: But… Scar murdering his brother and attempting to murder his nephew is really sad.

Yes! Exactly! That is the fucking POINT!

Originally, they WEREN’T supposed to be brothers. Scar was just supposed to be a rogue lion.

But then the writers realized that it’d be much more interesting if they were brothers. It’s what makes the betrayal that much worse. The villain in this movie isn’t the grand vizier, or a “mistress of all evil” who can turn into a dragon.

It’s a member of the main characters FAMILY. A person ruthless enough to be willing to murder his own brother and nephew to seize the throne.

It’s what makes Scar that extra bit evil.

And it’s also what makes his defeat all that more satisfying. And the greatest part is, he isn’t killed by being stabbed by a magic sword or falling into lava or anything like that. Simba doesn’t kill Scar. He defeats him, but he’s not what gets Scar killed.

Scar dies as a result of trying to save his own neck, hoping to shift blame on his own allies, the hyenas. Then when he is defeated by Simba, they come back and kill him as revenge.

He becomes a victim of his own treacherous nature. Betrayal got him the throne, and betrayal then got him killed.

Dave: But… that quote…

That quote was to explain why there’d be two male lions. That’s a problem which doesn’t even exist, since it’s a fictional story anyway, and we can suspend disbelief to accept that! All this theory does is make the story less impressive.

And of course, if you just google Scar, you’d find out that Scars mother and father are called Ahadi and Uru. And wouldn’t you know it?

They’re also Mufasas parents.

But hey, it’s not like that’s easily available information that required all of 20 seconds of effort to find…

Oh, and there’s this final problem with it.

Let’s say that you are right. That we are going by real life lion rules. That would mean that all the female lions are Mufasas mates, right?

Dave: I suppose…

And logically, the father to all cubs?

Dave: Yes, he would be, but…

Including Nala.

Dave: Oh…

Oh” is fucking right.

You have brought me a theory that suggests that, in my FAVOURITE MOVIE OF ALL TIME, the main character ends up having a kid with his fucking sister.

What is wrong with you, you sick, braindead moron!?

Dave: …Is this the point where you tell me to “run away and never return”?

No, this is the point where, if you don’t get out of my sight right now, I will shove your head up your ass. Now get out.

Dave: So you’re saying I’d “never see the light of another day”.


Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Harry Potter (Pt. 5)

Seeing as it’s been a while since I’ve had a crippling headache, that can only mean it’s time to shake the cornucopia of crazy that is Harry Potter fan theories again, and see what horrors fall out.

Dave: I’ve three theories for you today.

Three theories… Dear god… Very well, let’s do this. I suppose it’s better to tackle the madness in diluted waves rather than being slammed by a concentrated tsunami of idiocy…

Dave: The first theory is that George Weasley is Willy Wonka.

Well, so much for the ”diluted madness” plan… OK, explain the reasoning.

Dave: It’s established that Fred’s death had a devastating effect on George. Suppose it was such a trauma, he got himself a Time Turner and traveled to another time and place, to create a paradise for children, in memory of his brother?

Right. And what is there to support it?

Dave: For one, Willy Wonka’s candy seem to have very magical qualities. Ice cream that never melts, everlasting gobstoppers and especially gum that turns people into giant blueberries. That sounds a lot like the candy Fred and George sells. Also, Wonka says he’s hard of hearing. George lost his hearing during the seventh book. And they’re both ginger!

Oh, so we’re just focusing on the 1971 movie. I’ll be honest, considering how bad things got the last time I wrote about Willy Wonka, this could have been a lot worse. That said, this theory still doesn’t work.

First off, you say that George traveled back in time, changed where he lived and changed his name.

The problem with that is that we know what happened to George. He got married and had two children, one of whom was a boy named Fred.

THAT was enough of a tribute, not making an enormous chocolate factory in another fucking time period! And speaking of the factory. A “paradise for children”? Did you forget the part where, with the exception of the five children, NO CHILDREN are allowed to enter the factory? What kind of a paradise is that?!

As for the candy having physical effects, that’s true. But you’re forgetting, not only that ALL wizard candy has weird properties, but also that with Fred and George’s candy, the physical effects was the point.

When the bubble gum made Violet swell into a blueberry, that was a SIDE EFFECT, because the gum wasn’t finished!

And then there’s the part with Wonka being hard of hearing. First off, he says that to Mike Teevee, and tells him to “speak louder next time”.

Thing is, Mike is ALWAYS SHOUTING. That’s the joke! Wonka isn’t hard of hearing. He’s being sarcastic.

Second, even if he was hard of hearing on one ear, he’s pointing at his right ear. George injured his left ear.

(said ear is also turned away from Mike, again suggesting he’s being sarcastic…)

And then, even IF he wasn’t pointing at the wrong ear… He’s pointing at one of his ears.

As in that thing George doesn’t have two of! George didn’t “lose his hearing”. He lost a FUCKING EAR! So how can Wonka have two ears, if he lost one of them when he was young?

And finally, there’s a major issue with this theory. And it can be summed up with this one word: Why?

Supposing (wrongly) that it is true, why go through all that effort? He gets a time turner, turns it however many thousand times you need to travel to 1971, change his name, identity, home country… for what?

Dave: To deal with the trauma of losing his brother!

So he lost his brother, and to deal with that loss, he leaves his family, friends and everything he knows, to travel to another time period. Doesn’t that sound a bit… backwards?

And think about what this theory says about George, He wasn’t the only one who lost friends and family during the battle at Hogwarts. And yet, his pain is so much greater than everyone else, to the point where he has to reject everything he has ever known?

I’m sorry, Dave, but you are not giving George nearly enough credit.

However, I WILL concede that they are both ginger. So that part of the theory is correct. Sadly, the rest is all nonsense.

Next theory.

Dave: Ok, you know in the first book, the trio has to go through a number of challenges?


Dave: The theory is that those challenges are foreshadowing the later books!

Right. Interesting. The first room is obviously for the first book. So what does the giant plant mean?

Dave: The Devils Snare is a giant plant. In the second book, Harry and Ron have a run in with another big plant, the Whomping Willow.

That’s… incredibly flimsy. After all, the whomping willow is more relevant to the plot of the third book… Anyway, what about the room with the flying keys?

Dave: Here they have to fly on broomsticks. In the third book, there’s a quidditch match where Harry is attacked by dementors.

But… the only connection is that there are broomsticks. It has nothing to do with quidditch or dementors! And let me guess, the giant chess set is a game, much like the tri-wizard tournament?

Dave: No, of course not! When they arrive in the room, they at first confuse it with a graveyard. In the fourth book, Harry ends up in a graveyard and witnesses Voldemorts return.

It’s sad that my interpretation makes more sense… What about the troll?

Dave: The room with the troll could be a reference to Grawp, appearing in the fifth book.

Yes, because Grawp was a giant troll too… Oh wait, no. He’s a giant.

Giants and trolls aren’t the same thing, you racist. Also, Grawp wasn’t knocked out at any point and he wasn’t an obstacle.

I hesitate to ask, but what’s next?

Dave: The sixth chamber is the potions riddle, set up by Snape, the eponymous Half Blood Prince, and much of that book focuses on Harry using Snapes old potions book.

That’s it? You’d think there’d be more focus on the horcruxes or something like that. That said, it does make more sense than the previous one… And that leaves the final chamber.

Dave: Yes, Harry’s showdown with Voldemort, which of course takes place in the seventh book.

That’s hardly foreshadowing. The main, overarching villain of the series appears at the end of the book, much like he does at the end of the series…?

See, this is another of those house-of-card type theories. All parts have to fit for the theory to work. The problem is, most of them are too vague and flimsy to support it. It’s like the theory about Snape’s supposed hidden message, in that it’s just confirmation bias. You’re looking for a connection, and will accept anything, no matter how loose, to support you. In my experience, that’s a surefire way to make a bad fan theory.

What else do you have?

Dave: Ok, so the last theory is that Credence Barebone is really Voldermorts father!

Great. Another theory where one character really is another character?

Don’t get me wrong, credit where it’s due. At least these characters are from the same universe.

Of course, I spot an obvious problem, in that we know that Voldemorts father was Tom Riddle Sr, a muggle who lived in England with his wealthy family before he was coerced into a relationship with Merope Gaunt thanks to a love potion (Still no idea why those aren’t illegal). At the time of the movie Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Tom had escaped and lived with his parents.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Please elaborate. I’m sure you have plenty of arguments to support this.

Dave: Actually, on second thought, how about we just call it a day?

No, wait. Let’s not. I want to know the arguments. I know it doesn’t make sense, but I am curious.

Dave: Uhm… Well, Credence Barebone died in December 1926. Tom Marvolo Riddle was born in December 1926…

OK…? What does that have to do with this? If anything, that’s an argument AGAINST the theory. What else do you have?


Excuse me?

Dave:…Nothing, ok! I got nothing else! I just saw the setup and thought it was interesting!

…What? You’ve got nothing? Not one solitary scrap of support? No easter egg or background detail or throwaway line to support the theory… You have nothing…?

Zilch, nada, inget, fuck all?!

Dave: Nope.

That… is amazing. You have brought me some terrible theories. You have brought me convoluted, ignorant, insane and ridiculous. But THIS is officially the worst theory I have ever seen! Hell, it’s barely a finished theory! The only way you could have come up with that, is if you never read the books, and were too lazy to look it up on google before you wrote it all down!

What the actual fuck, Dave?! Did you panic? Did someone slam you in the face with a shovel? I’m not being snarky when I’m saying this: You can do better!

Dave: I told you we should have called it earlier.

Yes, if only we had, I would have been spared this brainfart of a theory. That was awful, I think I have become dumber from having read it, and if you ever bring me something this badly done again, I will kick you in the balls with a golf shoe.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Peter Pan (Pt. 2)

Dave: It’s time for a fan theory again.

Of course it is. What is it this time?

Dave: OK, so you mentioned the movie Pan in the previous article

Oh dear god, don’t tell me you’ve got a fan theory about that fucking movie!

Dave: No. But it reminded me about a fan theory about Peter Pan, which is today’s subject.

I know that is supposed make me feel relieved, but instead it just makes me worried… Alright, go ahead.

Dave: The theory is that Peter Pan is the angel of death.


Dave: He’s an angel, guiding the souls of dead children to Neverland, AKA Heaven. That’s why they never grow old. They’re all dead!

I’m going to save the obvious question for later. In the meantime, explain your reasoning.

Dave: It’s really straightforward. I’ll just quote directly from the book by J.M Barrie.

There were odd stories about [Peter], as that when children died he went part of the way with them, so that they should not be frightened.

Dave: There’s not a whole lot of wiggle room. It’s right there, clear as day.

Is that it? You have one line, taken out of context, as your support?

That quote is from the first chapter in the book, where Mrs. Darling hears about Peter, and remembers the stories she heard about him when she was young.

But the problem is, that these are stories, and are not necessarily true.

If Peter guides and cares for dead children, shouldn’t there be more Lost Boys? I don’t want to sound morbid, but the book was written at the beginning of the 20’th century. Kids dying before they grow up was a LOT more common back then than it is today.

In other words, Neverland should be packed with kids, both boys and girls! Instead, we are told that the Lost Boys, as their names suggests, are orphans who got lost by falling out of their prams, and the reason that there are no lost girls is that girls are “much too clever ” to get lost like that.

Dave: Ok, but that is said by Peter, and he isn’t exactly the most reliable source. He could be making it up on the fly.

True, that’s possible. But you also said that this theory explains why the Lost Boys never grow old. The problem is, that they DO grow old. They mention that in the book you just quoted!

Also, let’s look at it this way. Consider the idea of an angel of Death, that guides the souls of dead children to the great hereafter. Now tell me, do you know what that job requires?

Dave: A scythe…?

A sense of responsibility and duty.

You know, those things Peter doesn’t have and actively rejects.

Seriously, what kind of batshit insane higher power looks at Peter and gives him any kind of responsibility over something as amazingly important as the transfer of souls!?

And what about Captain Hook, the pirates and the indians? Where do they fit into the theory? Are they also souls of dead people? We know that at the very least, Hook went to college at Eton, so we can assume he’s not just a spectral construct. So what the hell is he doing in Neverland?

Dave: Uhm….

And finally, that leads me to the obvious question I hinted at earlier. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that this theory is true. That Peter Pan is the angel of death, ferrying the souls of dead children. It is reasonable to assume that the Lost Boys are therefore dead, right?

Dave: Yeah…?

Then would you care to explain to me how, if they are dead, they somehow join Wendy, John and Michael in returning to London, to be adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Darling?

I mean, if it were just the Darling children coming back, you could perhaps handwave it as them having a near-death experience or something. It’d be bullshit, but it would be somewhat harder to disprove. Here, six children randomly returned to life and materialized in a home in London.

Do you have ANY explanation for how the fairydust fuck that is possible!?

Dave: Uh…


Dave: …No, I don’t.

I thought so.

This really is in a very special category of theory. Theories that are not only stupid, but also incredibly weak. One quote, taken out of context, and that’s it?

Don’t bring me theories like this, Dave. They’re so easy to disprove, you just make me feel like I’m bullying you.

Dave: Well, there’s one thing you could do to make me feel better…


Dave: You could give this theory a pass.

Go fuck a garbage disposal, Dave.

Back to Main Page

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?


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.


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.


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 shown 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.


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!


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!


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