That’s true but the movie wasn’t really a good movie. But as a fan i saw it in theaters and enjoyed the experience

That’s definitely how it was. They did advertise it as a fan movie and a “popcorn” movie, not a good story for everyone. But for me it’s a cinematic masterpiece, no one is telling me otherwise.

either way it still sucked i wish Scott would have said fuck them kids and made the movie rated R i would have been so much better like alot better.

​​@@dangothemango1725honestly, thank you. Scott Cawthon had a billion and one ways to make the film, yet him and universal decided a generic, boring ass take was the best route. Fuck them both. Here's to hoping Markiplier's Iron Lung does justice 🥂

I really hate how the fnaf movie still can't be criticised without people going "it was made for the fans!" Even as a fan I hated the movie,but also a film that requires you to be invested in every single detail in a decade old franchise before watching is not a good movie.

Fnaf fails in all ideas

There was too many babies and he was trying to save it. However…if you play it in reverse tho 🤣🤣

It was a fun movie! Don’t know why critics hyped it up or why people hate on it.

I don’t care what critics say.

I understand the criticism but in the theatre I was hooked, was never bored.

​@@Cashcornit's not critics that was WB that was overhyping it. Critics have been mixed

@@deviction9314 agreed. It was funny and entertaining. Only thing that was odd was that last scene with the multiverse and weird CGI

I'm from h-town!

And the super Mario bros movie

I didn't like Peter pan and Wendy as well

Agreed, Napoleon had me sleeping

⁠why super Mario movie

@@dianebotelho1980 I had problems with the story and pacing

The tis a great movie.

I knew the lore. It was just ok

Everything you’re saying sounds like reasons it definitely should’ve been on that list

@@Im.Smaher True I guess. I'd rather watch FNaF instead of sonic though. That movie was more garbage and bland.

@@user-ie1gq1vd2xGood for you

@@user-ie1gq1vd2x Which Sonic movie do you mean? I wouldn't say either of them are garbage or bland, however.

@@leticianeal9147 Both of them. But the second is a little worse than the first

THATS WHAT IM SAYING

Well the Mario movie was extremely boring and wasn’t really interesting.

@@DarthScott its just I thought he'd like it alot more than he did because he grew up with mario just like us with the fnaf movie

It doesn't.

Right!

No, it doesn't.

No. The Flash belongs on the best movie list.

The problem with FNaF was that they didn’t translate the games well onto the screen. The movie barley has a plot, it’s just a series of events that they rush to connect together at the end, filled with fan service and barley any questions answered. Of course, no one wanted to see a movie that was just the FNaF 1 gameplay, but it could’ve been cool to see a few scenes of Mike checking the cameras, and using that to create suspense and actually make the movie feel like horror, because this is one pathetic excuse of a *Horror* movie.

I disagree. The plot was Mike trying to hold custody of his sister while also trying to find a job. And of course while getting the job at Freddy's and not knowing much about the franchise he starts connecting the dots on who could be behind his brother's murder. So yes the filmmakers and Scott are going to make changes. It's not going to a one to one translation. That's how video game adaptation are, no matter if they're based on an indie game series or not. Its clear scott and blumhouse and universal cared about the fanbase and wanted to please the fans and while it had its issues, it's clear it was going to be in own thing with elements from the games. I think a lot of game to movie adaptations are usually their own version of the story while others like uncharted told an origin story. At least give credit to the Jim Henson creature shop for delivering game accurate animatronics and using next to no CGI for the film. Most of it was practical. Too be fair there were quite a few deleted scenes that could helped the movie and the issues you had with the film. And I really would have liked them to have included them, but seeing as it's a movie you had to keep audience attention and sometimes a longer movie can be boring to some people

@@MysticFusion7 Mike trying to hold custody of his sister is barely a plot, it’s just motivation for Mike to get the job, that’s why the Aunt Jane subplot was created. Once it served it’s purpose the movie quickly forgot about it. Aunt Jane was was only brought up again to move further the “story”, get rid of the babysitter so Mike would take Abby to the pizzeria, and kill her so Abby can be taken to the pizzeria again. Aren’t Mike and Abby going to care that their aunt died in their house? And is no one going to question them about her disappearance? I know that video game adaptations aren’t going to follow 1-1 to the games. I like the Sonic movies and those really stray away from the source material. The thing is that FNaF just takes so many ideas from different games and crams it into this movie without caring wether it fits or not. There’s also changes that make no sense. Why was Vanessa changed to be William’s daughter? Or better yet, why was Vanessa even in the movie at all? She’s completely useless, so the filmmakers decided for her to be an exposition dump, because they couldn’t find any other way to convey the plot to the audience. The animatronics and the set design are like the one good thing about the movie, along with Josh Hutcherson’s and Matthew Lillard’s acting. But they’re all wasted by this mediocre story.

Max getting killed was actually the ghost kids doing. The whole idea was to get Mike fired so that custody of Abby to go to Aunt Jane which ended up backfiring since I'm pretty sure no one knew that there were ghost kids possessing the freddy gang which resulted in the kills we see. I'm pretty sure it's clear that neither Mike nor Abby were aware that Aunt Jane was dead, but I can agree that there should have been at least a scene where Mike returns home with Abby to see their Aunt dead on the floor, essentially at the end when they're eating dinner. All the ghost kid could tell Abby was she was sleeping. And we also didnt get an explainer for who Golden Freddy was. Only hardcore fans would recognize it. I think your criticism of the film when you talk about the source material is a little unfair. I think the character of Vanessa who is clearly only inspired from her counterpart from the trash game that was Security Breach was put in the film for newer fans of the series who likely got into Five Nights at Freddy's with Security Breach, regardless of whether people like me think the game was good it was a way for fans to have a character that at least resembled one from the recent game. She was not useless in any way. I think her inclusion was smart as it allowed Mike to get more backstory about Freddys that William chose not to share with Mike. Mike knew nothing about the restaurant and its past and having Vanessa there allowed him to fully understand what went down in the 80s that William under the guise of Steve didn't mention because why would he? He's the killer after all. She clearly knew a lot about Freddy's including what a springlock suit was, or at least the film version. Though why she knew this is anyones guess. I disagree that the only good actors were Lillard and Hutcherson. I thought Lail did an incredible job as Vanessa. But thats just me. But not to mention everyone else who had a part in the film like the opening night guard, matpat(who was actually a theater kid growing up) and the security guard VHS tapes set during the 80s with Kim One other thing, you have to understand these lore changes are there for a reason. While you may not be happy with what they chose to change, I think it's clear that, with these changes that the film was going to end up being a separate continuity or universe for that matter than the games. Its obvious that it took more inspiration from the silver eyes trilogy than the games not to mention the Five Nights at Freddy's 1 gang didnt exist in the 80s setting of the games as it was the toy animatronics and the withereds. That's more evidence that the filmmakers decided to have the film be in a different universe. I'm sure the other animatronics from the other games will appear in the sequel but itll be a different way. That's why the Five Nights at Freddy's 1 gang of the film exist in the year 2000 and the 80s. The first game was set roughly in 1993-1994 which makes the game and the film in completely separate universes. That allows the films to tell their own version of the Five Nights at Freddy's story much like the books. It's also why we can have an American William Afton in the film and a British one in the games, and I do not count the one we hear in the Security Breach trailer. I think that was a placeholder. But that's just what I think

@@MysticFusion7 I know what the point of killing the babysitter was. I’m not really sure what that has to with my argument. It was never brought up what Mike and Abby’s reaction to Aunt Jane’s disappearance was, as that was my point, it’s a plot hole. You reiterated my point. Vanessa’s only purpose was as an exposition dump, and it wasn’t smart. Her inclusion is just a lazy way of giving the information out to the characters and the audience. Instead of giving out the information in a way that’s entertaining, like showing the events of the pizzeria in flashbacks or giving clues throughout the pizzeria for Mike to pick up and piece together, referencing the fandom putting together all the clues Scott left out in the games, the filmmakers decided to add a character with awful dialogue to blab all of that information out, which is not entertaining in the slightest. I didn’t say that Hutcherson and Lillard were the only good actors, they were just the only standout performances. I think I already made myself clear that I don’t expect and don’t care if video game adaptations change the source material.

*best