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.
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?
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?!
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.