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 an 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 portrayed as corrupt! The Joker only targeted them because they were big names that would get attention!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave: I suppose…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know why the Joker wanted Harvey to go insane?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave: And that is…?

You’re saying the Joker is the hero.

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

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

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

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

Dave: Yes.

To uplift their spirit?

Dave: Yes!

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

Dave: Exactly!

…And then blow them up anyway?

Dave: Wait what?

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

Dave: Uhm…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave: Uh… a picture of the Joker?

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

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Frozen (Pt. 3)

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

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

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

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

I see. And what do you base that on?

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


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

WTFAW: Disney Triple Feature

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

Dave: All four are from Disney movies.

…Is there a theory about Frozen?

Dave: Well..

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

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

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

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

Alright. What are the arguments?

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

Is that all?

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

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

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

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

Dave: But what about the tea-set?

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

Dave: Uhm…

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

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

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

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

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

Next theory.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this look like Agrabah to you?

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

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

Dave: I still have one more theory .

Oh goody…

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

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

Dave: Yes.

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

Dave: That’s the one.

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

Dave: Exactly.


Dave: Yeah, isn’t it cool?

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

So what are the arguments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave:… why do you know that..?

Because unlike you, I pay fucking attention!

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

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

Dave: Well, we never see the Queens body…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

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

Dave: The theory is that Will is actually dead

OK, explain.

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

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

Dave: Well, it’s not impossible.

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

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

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

Dave: Could be artistic license.

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

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

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

What about it?

Dave: he calls it “rare”

Yes. So what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave: What’s that?

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

Dave: Yes?

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

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

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

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


Back to Main Page