WTFAW: Home Alone (Pt. 2)

Dave: It’s time for the second week in the Three Weeks of Fan-mas!

Goody. So what subject is the nonsense about this time?

Dave: Today is about Home Alone!

No, did a theory on that last week.

Dave: Yeah, and I’ve got another!

Splendid. I hope for your sake that next weeks theory is at least about another movie. I would hope it made sense, but why wish for the impossible. But I digress. What is the theory?

Dave: Kevins mom Kate sold her soul to the devil.

…Well, of course she did. And what exactly is there to support this?

Dave: This one is kind of obvious, really. In the movie, she desperately tries to get home to Kevin, at one point getting stuck at Scranton Airport. While there, she’s told that there is no space on any planes further, until the day after. She tells them that she is going to get home, no matter what. To quote her directly:

Even if I have to sell my soul to the Devil himself, I am going home to my son.

Dave: Immediately afterwards, she is approached by Gus Polinski, who offers to give her a ride to Chicago. And he plays the clarinet!”

Ok, one piece of madness at the time.

Let’s start with the simple idea that Gus appears as soon as Kate makes the offer of her soul. But for that to make sense thematically, he would have to appear the instant she makes the offer. You know, “speak of the devil, and he shall appear” and all that.

Dave: Yeah?

The problem is, he is already in the background long before she makes that offer, and in fact, we can see the reason he got involved. He didn’t react to anything Kate said, up until she made it clear that she is going home to her eightyearold son.

And he then takes her aside and offers her a ride, since he and his band are going to Milwuakee. And his motivation is that it’s christmas time.

Seems to me he’s more of a good samaritan than the prince of lies.

And as for her offer of selling her soul, by that reasoning, literally ANYTHING SHE DID TO GET HOME would therefore cost her her soul, according to your logic. In other words, there is absolutely no reason for the devil to get involved what so ever. After all, she didn’t specify a time frame for when she would be home.

So why would the devil who, in case you forgot, is FUCKING EVIL, shift a single hoof to help her?!

Dave: Ah, but Scranton aiport is at a crossroads! It’s where highway 84,81 and 80 meet.

Well… no. Firstly, the definition of a crossroads is a point where four different roads meet. This is where three roads meet. That’s not really a crossroad. Secondly, even if it WAS a crossroad, it’s also 1.3 km away. That’s not “at” the crossroad. That’s “a fair distance from the crossroads”. If you can summon devils at that distance, I’d say the crossroads is completely unnecessary at that point.

And then there’s the clarinet.

Dave: Well, the clarinet is a wind instrument!

Yeah… and?

Devil: and the devil likes wind instruments!

…Ok, is this going to be another thing like you did with Pulp Fiction? Where you just make shit up to support your argument? Otherwise, I’m going to need some explanation or a cited source or something.

Dave: I figured you might, so I brought you this, an excerpt from the bible! Ezekiel 28:13

You were in eden, the Garden of God […]The workmanship of thy tabrets and thy pipes was prepares in thee in the day that thou was created.

Dave: Tabrets and pipes refer to percussion and wind instruments. Therefore, the devil has wind instruments and percussion instruments built into him, and is fond of them!

Ok, I am not a bible studier. I am not pretending that I can pick up all the subtleties in the bible, which may have been lost, added, misinterpeted or mistranslated over THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

But I think it’s a pretty flimsy argument that playing a clarinet automatically makes him the devil. Especially when I’m pretty sure the biblical “pipes” refers to… you know, pipes and flutes, not a clarinet, which wouldn’t be invented until about the 1700’s?

And isn’t it strange that the devil would appear in a movie that is supposed to be set in the real world, and nothing else supernatural happens?

But you suggest that the devil appears, at random, to get the soul of ONE RANDOM PERSON, for no good reason, there’s no signing of contracts or agreements made… and then said devil, the satan, EVIL INCARNATE….

Is genuinly helpful and friendly, and her selling her soul appearantly has NO negative side effects at all? It doesn’t alter the plot, it’s a small plot point and in fact changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the movie, even if it was true?

Which of course it isn’t.

Dave: Well… No.

Then even if it was true, it would be a complete waste of time. Got it. so that’s the SECOND week of Fan-Mas done with.

Dave: Only one more to go! Aren’t you excited? Oh! I just realized! If Gus Polinski is the Devil, what if Old Man Marley is God? I mean, he is-

Continue that sentence, and I will stab you to death with a candy cane. I am not dealing with another fan theory today, and the next theory better be about something other than home alone, or I will scrooge you.

Dave: You’ll what?

I will boil you in your own pudding and and bury you with a stake of holly through your heart.

Back to Main Page


WTFAW: Home Alone

I think Bing Crosby said it best. “It’s beginning to look a lot like christmas“.

Dave: So let’s enter the festive season with a fan theory about the christmas classic Home Alone.

Yes, because appearantly, coal was too good for me this year… So, what is the theory this time?

Dave: The theory is that Kevin McAllister grows up to become Jigsaw!

Alright, kind of interesting. What do you base that on?

Dave: They’re both blonde and blue eyed.

Ok, you are going to bring me some better arguments than that right now, Dave, or I’m going to nail you to the fucking ceiling.

Dave: Oh, I’ve got more. Kevin is also shown to be manipulative, eager to terrorize people, good at constructing traps, obsessed with social outcasts and murderers and taking a huge amount of glee in forcing evildoers through painful obstacles. All this smells a bit fishy, and it could be that he’s a nascent sociopath.

Alright, so let’s break this down. Why does he turn evil, exactly?

Dave: Well, he was left behind by his family on christmas, not once but TWICE. Perhaps this made him think that humanity was corrupt and evil, when not even his own parents cared about him.

Except… both times he was left alone by accident. The first time, it was due to a power outage leading them all to oversleep, and in the confusion, they mistook a neighbour kid for Kevin. The second time, Kevin boarded the WRONG FUCKING PLANE and ended up in New York.

Dave: Ah, but they also treated him unfairly! In the first movie, they didn’t save any pizza for him and in the second, they all blamed Kevin for something his brother did.

Yeah, that’s hardly a “All of humanity is corrupt, I must punish humanity” situation. It’s not great, but it takes a lot more than that to turn someone into some murderous avenger.

And while it’s true that he’s able to trick people, like the hotel staff, being charming and convincing doesn’t automatically mean “Sociopath”. It’s less that he’s a mythomaniac and more that, being a kid, people don’t expect him to be as clever as he is.

He even highlights it in the second movie, when he places the reservation.

Ma’am, My feet are hardly touching the ground. I’m barely able to look over the counter. How can I make a reservation for a hotel room? Think about it. A kid coming into a hotel, making a reservation? I don’t think so.

And if we compare that to how Jigsaw operates, he’s not really keen on outright lying. He’s more into irony and withholding information. I get the feeling he’d consider lying as unworthy of him.

Now, you say that he’s good at constructing traps?

Dave: Yeah!

Exactly what traps are you thinking of, when you say that? The paint cans on a string? Plastic wrap with glue, and feathers to the face? Toy cars on the floor?!

Jigsaw’s traps included a beartrap on a timer, attached to a persons head and a collar rigged with shotgun shells, connected to a heart sensor!

It’s a bit of a different fucking league, isn’t it?

Dave: Ah, but that was when he was older! He just got better at it.

Maybe, but there are other, very important details about the traps, but I’ll get back to that.

You also said that he’s obsessed with social outcasts.

Dave: He becomes fascinated with Old Man Marley, after he’s told the old man murdered his family. In the second movie, he also becomes obsessed with the old pigeon lady.

Firstly, he wasn’t “fascinated” by Old Man Marley. He was TERRIFIED of him. And in both cases, he found out that while they SEEMED frightening, they were harmless and kind people. That story about Marley being a serial killer? That was just idiotic rumors!

And in Marleys case, Kevin helped him reunite with his estranged son! He helped another human being, by having a simple conversation, not through some horrible test.

And this brings me back to Jigsaws traps! They are TESTS!

Jigsaws traps always had a deeper meaning, a dark irony meant to teach the victim an important lesson about themselves and the way they lived.

Kevins traps are made as annoying deterrents, not some deranged punishment.

Dave: Well, they ARE technically being punished for their actions, by going inside the house and tripping the booby traps.

That’s not what I mean, and you know it, Dave.

And also, Kevins traps all hinged on the victims not expecting them. They are all booby traps. Jigsaws traps were made so that the victims COULDN’T avoid them, forcing them to “play the game”.

This points to a completely different methodology and approach.

And this leaves out the more obvious flaws with the theory!

Dave: Such as?

At what point did Kevin change his name to John?

Dave: What?

The real name of the Jigsaw Killer is John Kramer. So according to this, Kevin changed his name at some point, for no good reason.

Dave: Isn’t it obvious? It’s an alias!

But why would he need an alias?! You’re suggesting he invented an entire new life and personality, for no reason what so ever! Because we KNOW he started his crusade AFTER he changed his name.

Which brings us to another important point. We know why John Kramer became Jigsaw! His wife worked in a clinic for drug addicts and, while pregnant with their child, was hit in the stomach by a patient, causing a miscarriage. This led to John falling into a deep depression, not helped by discovering he had cancer. When his attempts to get money for treatment were unsuccessful, coupled with his wife leaving him, he attempted suicide, but survived. This caused him to have an epiphany about life and how he, only at the moment of apparent death, started to appreciate life.

He then set to work testing other peoples will to survive, targeting people who were “wasting their lives”.

THAT is what turned him into Jigsaw.


And that is also ignoring that, not unlike in The Burton Theory, Kevin and John cannot be the same person.

Dave: Why?

Because Home Alone was set in 1990. John Kramer was given the news of his terminal illness in 2004.

So how the frosty fahrenheit fuck did Kevin Mcallister manage to age 40 YEARS between 1990 and 2004!?

Dave: Uhm…

The answer is, he didn’t, which renders this theory utterly and completely broken.

Dave: Yeah, I guess you’re right. But I’m not too upset. After all, this is only the FIRST day.

What are you talking about?

Dave: I’m talking about

The Twelve Days of Fan-Mas!

Wait, the what of the what now?

Dave: From now, until Christmas, I will give you TWELVE christmas themed fan theories!

Like hell you are!

Dave: What? Why not?

Do you really think, for a moment, that I’m going to let you ruin my christmas, by making me suffer through TWELVE instances of pure idiocy, when I can barely tolerate ONE per month at the best of times!?

Dave: Well, I…

No fucking way! I would rather eat broken glass with a lemon juice chaser!

So no, we are NOT doing Twelve Days of Fan-Mas!

Dave: But… I was looking forward to it. I mean, it’s the christmas season and all… I thought we could do something special for the holiday seasons?


Dave: Come on! What about… one theory per week, until christmas? That’d at least be something.

So… the Three Weeks of Fan-Mas? Not exactly catchy, is it?

Dave: Please? And hey, that means there’s just two more theories to go!

Well, joy to the fucking world… Alright, let’s do this then.

Dave: Hooray! You won’t regret this!

Yes, Dave. Yes, I really will….

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Harry Potter (Pt. 6)

Before we start, I really have to ask.

Why are we back here? How are we not done with fan theories about Harry Potter by now? Is this just some horrible game, meant to slowly drive me insane? These are questions I keep asking myself, but I know, deep down, I will never get an answer to any of them.

Anyway, I can at least take comfort in that this time, there’s just one theory, and it HAS to be better than the last one you brought me, Dave.

Dave: It’s very simple, really. Muggles don’t exist.

I see. That’s just excellent. I give you a week off and you decide to go and lose your fucking mind. What the hell are you talking about?

Dave: Ok, let me clarify. Everyone is really a wizard, but not everone knows they have that power.


Dave: Kids can use magic in rare circumstances, and those that discover it’s more than just coincidence are sent to Hogwarts to train. Hermione is proof that you don’t need magic parents to become a wizard or witch. This suggests it’s really a skill to be taught, like language. The power lies dormant, until it is exposed, such as in traumatic situations.

Ok, I see. Well, to begin with-

Dave: Oh, and Dumbledore is a villain.

Wait, what? Where the hell did that curveball come from?

Dave: Well, he stopped Grindelwald and Voldemort. Both of these would have exposed magic to the world. If not for Dumbledore, everyone would have become a wizard.

That… is one of the most insane things I have ever heard.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s start with the obvious question. If all people can use magic… then what the hell are squibs?

Dave: What?

Squibs. You know, people with wizard parents, but with no magic of their own? People like Argus Filch. After all, he has been exposed to magic all his life, and yet is shown sending for mail order magic lessons. He is working in a School for Wizards and Witches, and yet he is completely and utterly unable to do any magic.

He remarks on it himself, as something he is deeply ashamed of. It’s not a “skill that can be taught”. You’re either a wizard or you’re not.

Dave: Uhm…

But let’s ignore that for now. If all “muggles” are in reality wizards who haven’t discovered their powers, then the word muggle would have no meaning, would it?

Why would anyone give a crap about keeping the wizarding world separated, if the people they try to keep hidden from are also wizards!?

The witch trials are mentioned in Harry Potter. How the hell did those ever occur, if EVERYONE is magic? Why is there a divide at all between magic users and muggles, if muggles don’t actually exist?

Oh, and what about Petunia?

Dave: What? What about her?

Petunia Dursley hates the magic world. The reason for this, it’s heavily implied, is due to jealousy. She even wrote to Dumbledore, asking to go to Hogwarts!

Dave: Yeah…?

And what response did she get? She was told no!


Dave: Well, maybe her powers weren’t pronounced enough or-

Bullshit! You just said it’s a skill that can be taught! That’s like saying you would be rejected by a piano teacher, on the basis that you don’t know how to play the piano!

The ONLY way her rejection makes sense, is if she is incapable of using magic.

And then we get to the idea of Dumbledore being a villain. That in itself is stupid enough to warrant closer examination.

What did Dumbledore do that was so villainous?

Dave: He prevented the wizarding world from being revealed to muggles, keeping them ignorant of really being wizards.

Ok, ignoring the fact that muggles, as we’ve established, cannot use magic, exactly how did Dumbledore prevent that from happening?

Dave: He stopped Grindelwald and Voldemorts wars.

Right, a few problems there. Firstly, those wars were intended specifically to make wizards rulers of muggles. You’re saying that Dumbledore preventing the subjugation and opression of billions of people was a villainous act?

What sense does that make?

And that’s also ignoring a teeny, tiny little detail.

Dave: What is that?

Dumbledore DIDN’T stop those wars from breaking out! Grindelwald comitted mass slaughters across Europe in the years before his duel with Dumbledore. Voldemort and his Death Eaters caused god knows how many deaths during BOTH wizarding wars, on muggles and wizards alike!

Dumbledore didn’t prevent the wizarding world from being exposed at all! By the time both Grindelwald and Voldemort were defeated, muggles had discovered wizards plenty of times! Why would any of them need their memories adjusted, if their magic powers were revealed? When have you ever heard of a wizard attack resulting in muggles developing magic powers? Not just one or two children, but a massive group of muggles discovering power at the same time?


So no, Dumbledore isn’t a villain for “keeping everyone from knowing they’re really wizards”.

Dave: But how come some muggleborns can use magic, then?

Does it matter?

Dave: Yes!

Why?! What difference does it make? Some people can use magic, others can’t. Maybe it’s some mutation? Maybe it’s luck? Maybe Hermiones great grandfather on her mothers side was a wizard, and the trait never manifested until she was born. Or maybe somewhere, a toad croaked exactly 16 seconds before she was born. We don’t know.

But that doesn’t mean you can just apply whatever nonsense appeals to you to explain it, and flat out ignore any facts contradicting it! That’s just wasting everyones time, trying and failing to answer a question which doesn’t fucking matter!

It’s theories like these that make me realize that Dumbledore was absolutely right.

Dave: Oh? How so?

There are, without a doubt, things that are worse than death.

Back to Main Page

A Guide to Fan Theories

Todays entry in Why the Fans Are Wrong is going to be a bit out of the ordinary.

For the last couple of articles, I have been covering movies made by Tim Burton. And while looking into those movies, an idea popped into my head. An idea for a fan theory.

But while it had potential, upon closer inspection I realized that it doesn’t actually hold up.

Now, since I didn’t want the effort of creating the theory to be wasted, I have decided to use that theory to present a little lesson in fan theorizing.

As I’ve mentioned previously, I don’t dislike fan theories in and of themselves. Interpreting movies, books and games in different ways is absolutely fine by me. What I dislike are lazy fan theories. I dislike fan theories that don’t make sense or where the writer either just ignores crucial details and facts, or twists them to fit their theory.

If you’re really a fan of something, and you want to propose a theory about it, that’s fine. But do a proper job of it. I’m all too happy with people working on fan theories out of care and interest and passion. But I want them to really care, not just making half baked theories and flimsy arguments. That’s just being disrespectful of whatever you’re basing it on, in order to stroke your own ego.

And so, because I want to encourage and aid in creating more good fan theories, I present to you:

Travis Tee’s guide to Fan Theories

So, let’s start. The theory I’ll be discussing is that in the movie Corpse Bride, Emily and Victoria Everglot are related.

Obviously, since I myself am the author of this theory, there is no need for Dave on this occasion. Apologies for those who are disappointed by his absence.

Now, most bad fan theories follow the formula of first deciding on a conclusion, then cherrypicking details and facts to support it. This will always, ALWAYS, create a bad fan theory.

A good fan theory, on the other hand, often starts with a question. In this case, two questions, which I will get to. In the movie, Victor walks out into the woods, rehearsing his vows, and in the process accidentally proposes to Emily. So, first question. Where did Emily come from?

After all, Emily was waiting for her true love to release her, having been duped into eloping by a con man pretending to love her, but who instead robbed and murdered her. She died in the forest quite close to the town where Victor lives, so one can suppose that Emily lived in the same town.

In Victors home town, there live the Everglots. They’re about to marry off their daughter Victoria to the van Dorts, due to financial difficulties. This brings us to the second question. How did the Everglots lose their money? Well, in the song “Remains of the Day“, wherein Emily’s story is presented, they say that when Emily eloped, she did so with “the family jewels and a sacksel of gold“. And the Everglots have no money. The connection, it seems, is right there.

And with that, you have the support of the theory. Emily’s full name (which is never revealed in the movie) is Emily Everglot. She fell in love with Barkis, with whom she meant to elope, taking her familys money with her, eventually leaving them destitute. This in turn prompted them to sell their belongings and eventually causing the arranged marriage between Victor and Victoria. The reason for Victoria not recognizing her might also be explained. Suppose she was either not yet born or too young to remember when this all happened, and when when Emily disappeared, the Everglots disowned her, and may well have removed her painting from the rest of the family portraits. And Emily never interacts with any other member of her family, so the truth is never revealed.

At face value, it’s more believable than most fan theories I’ve covered. (Though admittedly, I am somewhat biased). My theory takes information presented in the movie and uses it to answer questions about the movie.

It has a question, offers a proposition to answer it, and then presents arguments to support the answer.

And THIS is where the people behind most of the theories I’ve covered make their big mistake.

Because there is another, crucial step one has to take. And it is a step many fan theorists don’t take the time to apply.


You see, it is not enough simply to provide arguments to support your theory. You have to examine it and look for counter-arguments. Remember, as the creator of the theory, the burden of proof is on you. Are there arguments against it? Do they hold up? Are they valid? If they negate your supportive arguments, the theory doesn’t work, and you have to either abandon it or modify it.

At its most basic level, Why the Fans Are Wrong is just me applying the fourth step. I examine the theories and provide the arguments that the authors have not adressed.

So with that in mind, I shall present the counter-arguments to this theory.

We know that Barkis murdered Emily. This is a fact. So if she is an Everglot, someone in the city would recognize him. After all, while Barkis is somewhat older than Victoria, there isn’t an incredible age difference. He’s certainly either younger than Mr. and Mrs. Everglot, or of a comparable age. And neither of them recognize him as the man who eloped with Emily?

And even if they didn’t, there is no way that Barkis himself would be stupid enough to rob and murder a member of a respected family… and then come back to the EXACT SAME FAMILY to do it again!

Not when there’s nothing stopping him from just picking some other wealthy family. Which, of course, is what he did.

Then there’s the fact that when Victor and Emily return to the surface the first time, Victor goes to Victoria, who lives in the Everglot estate. If Emily was also an Everglot, she would know right away that Victor was tricking her, and be suspicious when she found herself in her own home.

Also, she wouldn’t refer to Victoria (who she would know is her relative because of the whole living-in-my-family-home thing) in such unpersonal terms.

Not to mention that its a pretty small town. The Everglots are big and influential enough that anything concerning them warrants the town crier to announce it. So if we suppose that it has been 15 years since Emily was murdered (and it’s likely a lot less, given the state of decomposition she’s in), there wouldn’t be a single person in that town who didn’t know that a member of the Everglots disappeared one day. As soon as Victor heard of the story and then her name, the first words out of his mouth would be “Wait, you’re Emily Everglot?!“.

So, for all these reasons, this theory is faulty.

What this means, of course, is that we still have no answer to where Emily came from.  Maybe she came from some other family in the town, or maybe from some neighbouring town altogether. We may never know.

But the the good news is that with this, we have a good formula for how to make a fan theory.

Question, Proposition, Advocation and Analysis.

That concludes todays lesson. Hopefully, this will help in creating some good fan theories. If not, at least I got some use out of this failed theory.

And of course, I can still be happy that, while my theory was flawed, at least I realized as much on my own and stopped before I suggested something stupid.

Which is more than can be said for whoever suggested Ron and Dumbledore are the same person or that Jack Dawson was a time traveller!

Back to Main Page

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, some time 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 are 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 his 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