FANDOM


  • So, many months ago, Scott Cawthon confirmed that The Silver Eyes was in fact canon, it was just a seperate continuity. I thought about that "Continuity" word, and I was wondering... does he mean Separate Universe or Separate Story?

    Well, Sister Location seems to answer that question. Look at the crude manner in which Ennard's head was designed... its eye dangling from its right side while its left eye looks ready to pop. Ennard looks agonized without his mask... in fact, he looks very similar to Henry's Monster in TSE.

    I'm talking about the crudely-made, unfinished robot that Henry used to kill himself. Ennard does seem to have an A.I, and that makes sense, because Henry would have to do something to ensure the robot attacked him. However, there are multiple eyes belonging to other animatronics scattered around Ennard's sides... of course, any endoskeleton can have eyes planted on their sides. (Also, Ennard can change eye color, so this does make sense) Essentially, if Henry's Monster exists, then Henry must exist too. And if he exists, than we haven't seen the last of Charlie or Sammy.

    William Afton's presence was confirmed at the beginning too. But if the book and game were REALLY separate universes, then William wouldn't have been mentioned, and Ennard would look MUCH more like an "Amalgamate" kind of character.

    So then, why did Dave die so differently in the book? Well, we have to start at his original death...


    Purple Guy Death Gif 3

    This is his original death.

    So, if he died in FNAF 3 at the hands of the ghosts, yet died in The Silver Eyes at the hands of Charlie, then the book can't be canon, can it?

    Wrong. This springlock incident right here? -------->

    This was the incident that scarred Dave. (AKA This Majestic Being Of Mass Dismantlage, AKA Purple Guy, AKA Michael/William [Still debated]) It would've thinned him out heavily, and if he DID escape, it would sure as hell leave a mark! Plus, we never see him stop moving. We see the ghosts satisfied to see their murderer get what he deserved, and then they vanish. Depending on the player's actions, they go free. Now, despite how dangerous this lock incident was, we don't EVER see a sprite of a still Purple Guy. Even in the trailer he's still moving. And I'm very sure he'd have his crank nearby since his suit was propped against the wall, with any intelligent person leaving the crank nearby. Which means he could've gotten the springlocks out of him before the endoskeleton itself went into him.

    Now, The Silver Eyes didn't SEEM like it fit together with the games, but if you solve that one question, it actually makes a good amount of sense.


    Conclusion: The Games and The Silver Eyes ARE tied.

      Loading editor
    • How in the hell can Dave survive that one?

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:
      How in the hell can Dave survive that one?

      As I said, he'd have his crank nearby, ready to uncrank the suit before the endoskeleton parts the springlocks held back snapped.

        Loading editor
    • And where is the crank?

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:
      And where is the crank?

      Beside the suit. Probably out of view.

        Loading editor
    • Darlaimernr wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:
      And where is the crank?

      Beside the suit. Probably out of view.

      Theory is now impossible.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Darlaimernr wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:
      And where is the crank?
      Beside the suit. Probably out of view.
      Theory is now impossible.

      (shrug)

        Loading editor
    • Ennard looks agonized without his mask... in fact, he looks very similar to Henry's Monster in TSE.

      But Ennard in SL wasn't made by Henry. He's a combination of all the animatronics there. He even says so himself. If he was made by Henry, how did he manage to end up in CBE&R?

      Ennard does seem to have an A.I, and that makes sense, because Henry would have to do something to ensure the robot attacked him.

      He can have an AI without being made by Henry to kill him.

      But if the book and game were REALLY separate universes, then William wouldn't have been mentioned, and Ennard would look MUCH more like an "Amalgamate" kind of character.

      Why can't William be mentioned with the book and the game being separate universes? There's no rule saying a character in two different universes can't have the same name. Ennard does look like an amalgamate kind of character.

      So, if he died in FNAF 3 at the hands of the ghosts, yet died in The Silver Eyes at the hands of Charlie, then the book can't be canon, can it?

      Well, yeah. You're saying he was springlocked, got out of the suit, and managed to survive without any immediate medical help. It's not impossible, just improbable.

        Loading editor
    • Oceasia wrote:
      Ennard looks agonized without his mask... in fact, he looks very similar to Henry's Monster in TSE.
      But Ennard in SL wasn't made by Henry. He's a combination of all the animatronics there. He even says so himself. If he was made by Henry, how did he manage to end up in CBE&R?
      Ennard does seem to have an A.I, and that makes sense, because Henry would have to do something to ensure the robot attacked him.

      He can have an AI without being made by Henry to kill him.

      But if the book and game were REALLY separate universes, then William wouldn't have been mentioned, and Ennard would look MUCH more like an "Amalgamate" kind of character.

      Why can't William be mentioned with the book and the game being separate universes? There's no rule saying a character in two different universes can't have the same name. Ennard does look like an amalgamate kind of character.

      So, if he died in FNAF 3 at the hands of the ghosts, yet died in The Silver Eyes at the hands of Charlie, then the book can't be canon, can it?

      Well, yeah. You're saying he was springlocked, got out of the suit, and managed to survive without any immediate medical help. It's not impossible, just improbable.

      • He isn't an amalgamate. He clearly looks like a regular endoskeleton, just more crudely made and more... pained looking. Also, he has some eyes plastered at his sides. Not really an amalgamate. In fact, the way Desk Man died is very similar to the way Henry died...
      • Well, duh, I'm just saying that's a clear thing.
      • Once again, Ennard isn't amalgamative. And William shouldn't be mentioned in the game because the game was not planned with William to be in the mix.
      • I don't think you need medical help if the sides of your body get roughly cut. You'd just need bandages. Lots and lots of bandages.
        Loading editor
    • He isn't an amalgamate. He clearly looks like a regular endoskeleton, just more crudely made and more... pained looking. Also, he has some eyes plastered at his sides. Not really an amalgamate. In fact, the way Desk Man died is very similar to the way Henry died...

      That makes sense, because he has to look humanoid in order to wear Michael's body. Desk Man's death seems more like a homicide than a suicide. Either way, what that scene is about is still unclear.

      William shouldn't be mentioned in the game because the game was not planned with William to be in the mix.

      That's true, but I don't see how it matters. Mentioning Purple Guy is William in the games is just adding a name to a character. He happens to have the same name in two different universes (shocking).

      I don't think you need medical help if the sides of your body get roughly cut. You'd just need bandages. Lots and lots of bandages.

      Which he'd have to get in a few minutes while likely being immobilized already.

        Loading editor
    • At times I wonder if Scott even remembers anything he said or simply has no concern about consistency...well either ways in a recent steam comment he reaffirmed the book does not follow the games' story 100% so I'm still not using it http://steamcommunity.com/app/506610/allnews/

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:
      At times I wonder if Scott even remembers anything he said or simply has no concern about consistency...well either ways in a recent steam comment he reaffirmed the book does not follow the games' story 100% so I'm still not using it http://steamcommunity.com/app/506610/allnews/

      It follows the story on every level except PG's death. And maybe Charlie and Sammy's existence.

        Loading editor
    • Darlaimernr wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:
      At times I wonder if Scott even remembers anything he said or simply has no concern about consistency...well either ways in a recent steam comment he reaffirmed the book does not follow the games' story 100% so I'm still not using it http://steamcommunity.com/app/506610/allnews/

      It follows the story on every level except PG's death. And maybe Charlie and Sammy's existence.

      It really doesn't as FNAF 2, the bite of 87 and several other things are non-existent because as Scott said "what makes for a great game doesn't necessarily make for a good book" as well as "The book is a re-imagining." Scott told us not to use the book, there's no going around that.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Darlaimernr wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:
      At times I wonder if Scott even remembers anything he said or simply has no concern about consistency...well either ways in a recent steam comment he reaffirmed the book does not follow the games' story 100% so I'm still not using it http://steamcommunity.com/app/506610/allnews/
      It follows the story on every level except PG's death. And maybe Charlie and Sammy's existence.
      It really doesn't as FNAF 2, the bite of 87 and several other things are non-existent because as Scott said "what makes for a great game doesn't necessarily make for a good book" as well as "The book is a re-imagining." Scott told us not to use the book, there's no going around that.

      Well, they're still tied. And reading it brings a few interesting things to light. That's the reward for buying and reading the game. Getting fun facts.

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Darlaimernr wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:
      At times I wonder if Scott even remembers anything he said or simply has no concern about consistency...well either ways in a recent steam comment he reaffirmed the book does not follow the games' story 100% so I'm still not using it http://steamcommunity.com/app/506610/allnews/

      It follows the story on every level except PG's death. And maybe Charlie and Sammy's existence.

      It really doesn't as FNAF 2, the bite of 87 and several other things are non-existent because as Scott said "what makes for a great game doesn't necessarily make for a good book" as well as "The book is a re-imagining." Scott told us not to use the book, there's no going around that.

      Do you think Scott change the protagonist so would feel something for her?

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:

      Darlaimernr wrote:

      Starscream1998 wrote:
      At times I wonder if Scott even remembers anything he said or simply has no concern about consistency...well either ways in a recent steam comment he reaffirmed the book does not follow the games' story 100% so I'm still not using it http://steamcommunity.com/app/506610/allnews/
      It follows the story on every level except PG's death. And maybe Charlie and Sammy's existence.
      It really doesn't as FNAF 2, the bite of 87 and several other things are non-existent because as Scott said "what makes for a great game doesn't necessarily make for a good book" as well as "The book is a re-imagining." Scott told us not to use the book, there's no going around that.
      Do you think Scott change the protagonist so would feel something for her?

      wut

        Loading editor
    • Darlaimernr wrote: Well, they're still tied. And reading it brings a few interesting things to light. That's the reward for buying and reading the game. Getting fun facts.

      Tied yes, compatible no. It's a very interesting book but why the hell did you say reading a game?

        Loading editor
    • Starscream1998 wrote:

      Darlaimernr wrote: Well, they're still tied. And reading it brings a few interesting things to light. That's the reward for buying and reading the game. Getting fun facts.

      Tied yes, compatible no. It's a very interesting book but why the hell did you say reading a game?

      fuck my keyboard that's why

        Loading editor
    • Darlaimernr wrote: fuck my keyboard that's why

      Relatable.

        Loading editor
    • I'm pretty sure it was Baby who killed Henry, but Ennard is a good idea.

        Loading editor
    • I always hope people read what I think, not what I type.

        Loading editor
    • Ennard was created by the other animatronic's pieces.

        Loading editor
    • Sparky 321 wrote:
      Ennard was created by the other animatronic's pieces.

      That's the thing. Ennard used to be Baby's endoskeleton. Remember, his eyes are blue, and the Death Minigame Baby has blue eyes too.

        Loading editor
    • Darlaimernr wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote:
      Ennard was created by the other animatronic's pieces.

      That's the thing. Ennard used to be Baby's endoskeleton. Remember, his eyes are blue, and the Death Minigame Baby has blue eyes too.

      True. Is Ennard a he or a she?

        Loading editor
    • Scott made the statement about not using the book to solve the lore; and since he hasn't said anything otherwise, I'm gonna stick with that. It'd be unreasonable not to.

        Loading editor
    • Sparky 321 wrote:

      Darlaimernr wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote:
      Ennard was created by the other animatronic's pieces.
      That's the thing. Ennard used to be Baby's endoskeleton. Remember, his eyes are blue, and the Death Minigame Baby has blue eyes too.
      True. Is Ennard a he or a she?

      Ennard is a she. Since it used to belong to Baby, who is 100% a female, and it's inhabited by a little girl, it's a she. But I'm gonna call it a he because it looks cool, and only boys can look cool.

      Except Ballora. And Baby. But when something's like, super tattered and broken, I call it a he.

      except chica.

        Loading editor
    • Darlaimernr wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote:

      Darlaimernr wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote:
      Ennard was created by the other animatronic's pieces.
      That's the thing. Ennard used to be Baby's endoskeleton. Remember, his eyes are blue, and the Death Minigame Baby has blue eyes too.
      True. Is Ennard a he or a she?

      Ennard is a she. Since it used to belong to Baby, who is 100% a female, and it's inhabited by a little girl, it's a she. But I'm gonna call it a he because it looks cool, and only boys can look cool.

      Except Ballora. And Baby. But when something's like, super tattered and broken, I call it a he.

      except chica.

      http://imgur.com/DxA1FOG

        Loading editor
    • niec shitpost

        Loading editor
    • Gudteroy wrote: niec shitpost

      It's not really a shitpost, "and only boys can look cool."

        Loading editor
    • It was a joke lol. But I like calling Ennard a he.

        Loading editor
    • 8What if it was Yenndo who killed the desk man, who is non other than Henry himself Yenndo has yellow eyes and was present before all of the funtime animatronics were dismantled.

      and he looks just like how the book describes the animatronic who killed Henry he has an empty stare was never seen before, and also has a bloodless circulation of wires.

      in the games both Charlie and Sammy become the shadow animatronics and William has a family of his own.

        Loading editor
    • NumerableRaptor wrote:
      8What if it was Yenndo who killed the desk man, who is non other than Henry himself

      Yenndo has yellow eyes and was present before all of the funtime animatronics were dismantled.

      and he looks just like how the book describes the animatronic who killed Henry he has an empty stare was never seen before, and also has a bloodless circulation of wires.

      in the games both Charlie and Sammy become the shadow animatronics and William has a family of his own.

      no

        Loading editor
    • I figured it out!!!! William is the killer is the real series! Not Michael! There are 2 purple guys. William is Pink guy, and Michael is purple guy. If you listen it the last cutscene, Michael says "they were all there" meaning the murdered kids. He also says: "they thought I was you." meaning the kids took revenge on Michael thinking it was William, trapping him in the springlock suit. Being outside Fazbear's fright when saying this, we can safely assume that it's after FNAF 3, when the minigames happen. When purple guy is seen in the SAVE THEM minigame, it could be when he takes down the animatronics in FNAF 3. He could have taken them down, as they were trying to attack him. It's pink guy who kills the kid in the Bring Cake game and who kills the kids in the Foxy! Go! Go! Go! minigame. That first kid could possibly have been Sammy, who haunted the puppet, who gave life, causing the 5 other kids to haunt the other robots.

      TLDR: Pink guy is William, Purple guy is Michael, Bring Cake child death is Sammy. If you want the proof, read the whole thing.

      Thanks!

        Loading editor
    • Darlaimernr
      Darlaimernr removed this reply because:
      lol ok
      22:30, January 28, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Sparky 321 wrote: I figured it out!!!! William is the killer is the real series! Not Michael! There are 2 purple guys. William is Pink guy, and Michael is purple guy. If you listen it the last cutscene, Michael says "they were all there" meaning the murdered kids. He also says: "they thought I was you." meaning the kids took revenge on Michael thinking it was William, trapping him in the springlock suit. Being outside Fazbear's fright when saying this, we can safely assume that it's after FNAF 3, when the minigames happen. When purple guy is seen in the SAVE THEM minigame, it could be when he takes down the animatronics in FNAF 3. He could have taken them down, as they were trying to attack him. It's pink guy who kills the kid in the Bring Cake game and who kills the kids in the Foxy! Go! Go! Go! minigame. That first kid could possibly have been Sammy, who haunted the puppet, who gave life, causing the 5 other kids to haunt the other robots.

      TLDR: Pink guy is William, Purple guy is Michael, Bring Cake child death is Sammy. If you want the proof, read the whole thing.

      Thanks!

      But Micheal has completely black eyes in fnaf4. It's his natural eye color, it only turns blue because he's dead.

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote: I figured it out!!!! William is the killer is the real series! Not Michael! There are 2 purple guys. William is Pink guy, and Michael is purple guy. If you listen it the last cutscene, Michael says "they were all there" meaning the murdered kids. He also says: "they thought I was you." meaning the kids took revenge on Michael thinking it was William, trapping him in the springlock suit. Being outside Fazbear's fright when saying this, we can safely assume that it's after FNAF 3, when the minigames happen. When purple guy is seen in the SAVE THEM minigame, it could be when he takes down the animatronics in FNAF 3. He could have taken them down, as they were trying to attack him. It's pink guy who kills the kid in the Bring Cake game and who kills the kids in the Foxy! Go! Go! Go! minigame. That first kid could possibly have been Sammy, who haunted the puppet, who gave life, causing the 5 other kids to haunt the other robots.

      TLDR: Pink guy is William, Purple guy is Michael, Bring Cake child death is Sammy. If you want the proof, read the whole thing.

      Thanks!

      But Micheal has completely black eyes in fnaf4. It's his natural eye color, it only turns blue because he's dead.

      Good point. Scott maybe made a mistake?

        Loading editor
    • Sparky 321 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote: I figured it out!!!! William is the killer is the real series! Not Michael! There are 2 purple guys. William is Pink guy, and Michael is purple guy. If you listen it the last cutscene, Michael says "they were all there" meaning the murdered kids. He also says: "they thought I was you." meaning the kids took revenge on Michael thinking it was William, trapping him in the springlock suit. Being outside Fazbear's fright when saying this, we can safely assume that it's after FNAF 3, when the minigames happen. When purple guy is seen in the SAVE THEM minigame, it could be when he takes down the animatronics in FNAF 3. He could have taken them down, as they were trying to attack him. It's pink guy who kills the kid in the Bring Cake game and who kills the kids in the Foxy! Go! Go! Go! minigame. That first kid could possibly have been Sammy, who haunted the puppet, who gave life, causing the 5 other kids to haunt the other robots.

      TLDR: Pink guy is William, Purple guy is Michael, Bring Cake child death is Sammy. If you want the proof, read the whole thing.

      Thanks!

      But Micheal has completely black eyes in fnaf4. It's his natural eye color, it only turns blue because he's dead.

      Good point. Scott maybe made a mistake?

      No, it's accurate. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/511-eyes-after-death/

        Loading editor
    • Timetoscare wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote:

      Timetoscare wrote:

      Sparky 321 wrote: I figured it out!!!! William is the killer is the real series! Not Michael! There are 2 purple guys. William is Pink guy, and Michael is purple guy. If you listen it the last cutscene, Michael says "they were all there" meaning the murdered kids. He also says: "they thought I was you." meaning the kids took revenge on Michael thinking it was William, trapping him in the springlock suit. Being outside Fazbear's fright when saying this, we can safely assume that it's after FNAF 3, when the minigames happen. When purple guy is seen in the SAVE THEM minigame, it could be when he takes down the animatronics in FNAF 3. He could have taken them down, as they were trying to attack him. It's pink guy who kills the kid in the Bring Cake game and who kills the kids in the Foxy! Go! Go! Go! minigame. That first kid could possibly have been Sammy, who haunted the puppet, who gave life, causing the 5 other kids to haunt the other robots.

      TLDR: Pink guy is William, Purple guy is Michael, Bring Cake child death is Sammy. If you want the proof, read the whole thing.

      Thanks!

      But Micheal has completely black eyes in fnaf4. It's his natural eye color, it only turns blue because he's dead.

      Good point. Scott maybe made a mistake?

      No, it's accurate. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/511-eyes-after-death/

      Oh ok.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.