The idea of the retcon being Fredbear's hat and tie color is so funny

That one retcon not being stated is one of the most annoying things in this entire series

The retcon is obviously the fact phone guy says foxy was always his favorite animatronic in fnaf 2, but then later in fnaf 1 he cant even remember his name

It's kinda crazy a series built up of over analyzing even the smallest details, can get a retcon and Scott doesn't think it's important to clarify what it is. Having to guess whether or not some details are even true, is just pointlessly complicated

Couldn't the retcon be Elizabeth's absence in FNAF 4, since there is absolutely no mention of her in-game, the only hint is the bedroom, which could always have another explanation (the parents also need a bed) but Scott used pictures of him and his sons as background photos in FNAF 4, implying the family only consists of a father and two sons, and it wasnt until Sister Location (And The Fourth Closet) that we get information about Elizabeth and Baby

I feel like Scott’s initial success with the first game, led him to feel the need (very much warranted) to capitalize on the immense popularity it had at the time while it was hot and put out more games. I think it was a fly by the seat of your pants kind of thing, and a majority of the initial connections were a product of just trying to get whatever he could fit in, or make work within the limited skeleton of a story they contained. So now all of the lore has become this skyscraper sized establishment, and the origin of the mysteries come from the fact this skyscraper is built on the foundation of a single bedroom townhouse.

Honestly, I am not going to take Scott's word there is clearly multiple retcons. I think "THE RETCON" is the Retcon that matters the most so all of these retcons are true but dream theory was the main one

One thing I've noticed recently is that Happiest Day isn't mentioned in any official FNaF media after the release of FNaF World, except in some books like The Freddy Files/The Ultimate Guide (unless I've forgotten something else). So I wonder if this might indicate that the retcon mentioned by Scott would be related to Happiest Day in some way, but there's still that problem of "retcon that most people haven't noticed"

What makes "retcon" confusing is the fact that to this day we don't have confirmation on so many things. Anything that could be interpreted in more thanone could be the retcon and it not be noticed because as every youtube thumbnail would say: "we were wrong". And it's rather impossible to believe it is just one retcon. Scott is already flakey on the use of the word canon, I bet he is with retcon too. People noticed Charlie's gender, they noticed he changed the placement of Fnaf 4 from 87 to 82 and then 83. My brain can't really think 8 years ago to remember if it was normalized then or not, but I THINK the main retcon is that Crying Child was supposed to be the Puppet and Charlie was supposed to be in Golden Freddy, but FNAF 4 changes it to make CC related to Afton because it would be weird to explain him murdering his own kid. At any rate, I think the one thing that can be almost universally agreed upon is that most retcons would happen in FNAF 4 because Midnight Motorist aside, it is the hardest game to understand, and I don't actually think anyone has understood it all yet.

"It wasn't a virus that spawned out of Willians agony it was William himself!" "no actually it was this thing called the mimic that went through all of these contrived circumstances ever since 1983 to act and look JUST like a springbonnie burned with a dead corpse inside that imitates william in his prime!" "no no no, actually it was a robot traped under the pizzaplex, that has no correlation to the other animatronic that was actually just a fake out ending made up by a child that had no reason to image all of that, and this robot is the mimic from the books but he's not actually the one that went through contrived circumstances ever since 1983 to act and look JUST like a springbonnie burned with a dead corpse inside that imitates william in his prime!" place your bets where this is going next!

I accidentally cut open my bag of corn before I cooked it and had to scoop all of the corn back into the bag after putting it into a bowl

I feel pretty confident that the retcon is Baby's creator. In FNAFworld, it's pretty directly implied that desk guy (who we infer to be Henry) built Baby. It's almost immediately changed to being William in SL. Some people have theorized that William stole Baby from Henry, which I can see. But I do think it was just retconned, and that this was, in fact, The Retcon™️

I've always thought it was the nature of the "simultaneous springlock failures" mentioned by Phone Guy in FNAF 3 being changed from two employees dying in the springlock Freddy and Bonnie costumes (their spirits becoming Shadow Freddy and Bonnie), to the Bite of 83 in FNAF 4. FNAF 3, where this line was given, was intended to be the last game in the series at the time of its creation. Meaning Scott couldn't have intended the Bite of 83 to be what this line was referring to as he couldn't have conceived of that yet. It being what caused Shadow Freddy and Bonnie makes perfect sense. In FNAF 3, the idea of springlocks snapping shut is ALWAYS used in the context of it killing adults wearing the costumes, both in phone guy's training tapes telling employees to go to the backroom so they don't bleed out in front of the customers, to Afton bleeding out in the suit and becoming the primary antagonist of that entire game. So it makes sense this springlock incident would be adult employees inside the suits bleeding out as well. In general, the shadow animatronics becoming more prominent around FNAF 3 coincides with the idea of springlock suits killing their wearers in that game as well. Freddy and Bonnie are singled out in having both shadow and golden variants, which implies the two are linked and more specifically that one is a direct consequence of the other. And it gives a layer of irony to Shadow Freddy leading the souls of the kids to ultimately get Afton killed inside a springlock suit if that's also the way he died. "Multiple springlock failures" could just be referring to the springlock suits as "springlocks" and multiple of them failing meant multiple suits. If you think this is coincidental, remember that weird supernatural shit has always happened in the FNAF universe going back to the days of FNAF 1. Remember how things like images of crying children, or Freddy taking his jaw out, or the newspaper clippings, would just.. randomly appear and disappear in that game? It wasn't the animatronics doing it, it wasn't hallucinations, it just happened. And it's not because the newspaper clippings had the souls of dead kids in them, small supernatural stuff just seems to follow the main supernatural stuff which is souls possessing the animatronics. And you could point to so much else like the paper plate pals in FNAF 2, the phantoms in FNAF 3, or the minireenas and bidibabs in SL, as being explained away by this. So it's not hard for me to believe that multiple springlock suits snapping shut simultaneously in an establishment where a bunch of supernatural stuff happens as a direct result of malicious spirits would be too much of a coincidence. The thing is that the springlock incident being retconned to being the Bite of 83 creates a continuity error in that Shadow Freddy and Bonnie are now left with no explanation. Which explains why Scott seemingly tried his hardest to make you forget about them FNAF 4 and after, as FNAF 4 was the game where there reason for existing got retconned.

Wait: wouldn’t Dream theory fall under Scott’s “not a retcon just a change in the intent?” Because think of it like this, Scott never explicitly said “everything is a dream”, even if dream theory was the original intent it was never actually explicitly said or confirmed in games, so according with Scott’s logic even if dream theory was the original intention, it being changed wouldn’t be a retcon because he never said it explicitly?

My personal idea of the retcon is the fnaf 2 victims Imo, there is no second set of victims. And the victims we see in 2 were Scott's original plan of showing the MCI murders. That's why every other minigame is showing the original 5 victims (+ charlie). FNaF 1 was Scott's last attempt at a game and he never planned anything after it because he didn't think it'd even do well. So when fnaf 2 came around and he set it as a prequel (and that it pretty much started the lore) I think it's not that big of a leap in logic to think that he originally intended to expand on the little lore that was already there in this prequel (the MCI and the bite, showing the victims and having 2 take place in 87). Ultimately we later find out the mci happened in "Freddy's 0" but I truly do believe the mini games in fnaf 2 were intended to show the original 5 before plans were changed, leaving Save Them to be retconned, hence why those bodies are literally never referenced once ever and it's always the original 5, cuz that's what they were SUPPOSED to be, and that's what phone guy talking about someone using the suit originally was. It also gets rid of the pointlessness of the 2nd victims existing and possessing the toys just to be scrapped and freed in the exact same game they were introduced in and never brought up again. Toys acting hostile can easily just be explained by their facial recognition being tampered with which we do know happens instead of being possessed, or maybe they had Remnant in them from the spare parts of the withereds or by william tampering with them which could explain the suit being used and none of them acting right, he could be tampering with them for remnant experiments causing them to go ballistic while wearing the suit so their facial recognition doesn't recognize him. Just my personal theory.

About the Charges against the murderer; was there perhaps a trial? Here's a weird idea; what if Afton was charged and an entire investigation happened w/ media coverage but in the end, because there were no physical bodies / direct evidence of a murder the case was eventually thrown out? Or worse; there was enough to go to trial and Afton won the case? The reason why I think this legal stuff is interesting to consider is that under either above mentioned situation, there may have been a HUGE bad-press media circus that really wrecked the company's reputation. And these possibilities could explain why Fazbear never shut down entirely, but that Afton's personally owned branch, next to his house, Fredbear's Family Diner, had to get shut down to dis-associate his name from the brand. There are many, many real-life cases of the court of public opinion being very certain someone did murder someone, but they do end up getting a "not guilty" or the charges are dropped before they go to court. Whenever this happens, the convicted does end up having their life ruined and we see a lot of evidence that Afton fell on hard times at some point; that, originally he owns his own branch (Fredbear's) in 1983, but by Sister Location is considered an employee of Fazbear, not a co-owner or something higher then employee / sub-contractor. This is, again, very common in the real world were a scandal breaks out and the CEO is "removed" but technically they basically still work for the company, might even do the same amount of work, but their official position was handed off to someone else and they've been given a new, low-profile title.

One thing I've always found frustrating about FNAF lore discussion is... basically, I'm not sure what the "rules" are. This is actually something I recall Matpat mentioning as well. In your video though, you bring up the part where Phone Guy says "singing those same songs for twenty years." But... does that really establish a timeline? Its a dude on a phone making a general statement. He's just a fellow employee--and despite what the internet tends to think, being employed by a company does not mean you know the minutiae of their history (how many McDonalds employees ever heard of Mayor McCheese?) It would be like if I said "sixty years ago, Batman was the hottest thing on TV." That's just me making a guess at how long ago it was, a guess that could easily be wrong (and in that example, definitely is). So you wouldn't take my statement as definitive when establishing a timeline. So why should I take some number a doofus on a phone mentions? I recall this bothering me with the FNAF4 TV thing which established a year. Its meant to establish the game took place in 1983, but... if you really saw a program that gave an exact year like that, it would likely be a documentary retrospective on the franchise. When I watched He-Man as a kid, I don't recall it ever flashing a big screen that said "He-Man 1983." And yes, I understand that you sometimes have to make concessions for the sake of a game... the problem is that all the "Evidence" FNAF delivers is stuff that really should not work or make a lick of sense. In essence, if this were a courtroom, debunking all of it would be Phoenix Wright's easiest courtroom victory ever.

I have a really stupid idea: What if it's Phone Guy's opinion on Foxy? In the first game, Phone Guy doesn't talk about Foxy very much. He mentions him on one of the phone calls, but he doesn't even do it by name, he just calls him "the character", and only mentions him on like, Night 2. He does bring up his mechanics, but that's it, and he shows no passion for Foxy while doing so. Meanwhile, in FNAF 2, he shows clear fondness for the character. In Night 2, he excitedly asks the guard if he ever saw Foxy before jumping into his mechanics, and in Night 3, he immediately starts off talking about Foxy, asking the night guard if he appeared in the hallway, and saying that he was always his favorite. In fact, this could apply to the animatronics in general. Phone Guy in FNAF 1 states that they sang "those same stupid songs" and treats protecting them like it's just a job. He doesn't even mention any of them by name except Freddy. However, in FNAF 2, he brings up that he loves the old characters. I know that this is probably a stretch, but considering the fact that no one has called this out yet (that I know of), it fits with the "mostly unnoticed" comment Scott made

Imagine if the retcon was just Bonnie's colour being blue instead of indigo.

Edit: I wrote this comment like EXTREMELY early on in the video, and I'm glad you came to the same conclusion about Scott's definition of a retcon as I did like less than 1 minute into the video lol I think the post is taken out of context a lot, but I also don't think Scott was using the proper definition of a "retcon" either. I feel like, over time, the term "retcon" has devolved from, "anything not originally intended by the writers when first developing a story that retroactively changes the context of the original story," to, "Lol the writers just randomly changed stuff and can't explain it bad writing lol." And there's examples of all of these things happening, especially the retcon where it makes perfect sense given the previous understanding of the story BUT STILL makes the original story much, much worse. Or better. Or examples where they do just outright change the lore in a way that they cannot explain that makes the story better or worse. My opinion is that the "one retcon" Scott is referring to is blatantly changing the gender of Charlie from the FNaF 2 minigame. He clearly is depicting the same scene that we see in Pizzeria Simulator with the Security Puppet, except we know Charlie is a female while the original FNaF 2 minigame spelled out "Save him." This doesn't debunk Dream Theory, however, as I believe Scott was using the term "retcon" to mean a change in the story that is impossible to explain neatly. Like changing the gender of a 4 year old child from male to female, or if Bonnie was suddenly never a bunny come FNaF 2 and we were just supposed to go with it. Basically, because Scott never said, "Yeah, FNaF 4 is all a dream," then he's not considering it a retcon. Edit 2: I also did not realize that the post came before Charlie's gender reveal in FNaF 6. Interesting.

it would be super cool if scott outright told us anything ever

You are placing a LOT of faith in the idea that there actually was only one retcon, something I don't buy for a second.

I don’t think it’s THE retcon but I remember when Scott released the fnaf 4 halloween update he specifically said that nightmare balloon boy is canon. I always took that as retconning plush trap to not exist as he moved away from dream theory being real

My favorite theorist has posted again

Honestly in a serie like fnaf,retconning something and not even telling us what it is is bad writing. I know scoot doesnt confirms stuff but changing the story and not even telling us what changed is bad.

Dream theory is the retcon candidate which hurts my faith in Humanity least.

It’s BB. What we call “Balloon Boy” was actually “Birthday Boy” and that’s why his appearance is so prevalent in the mini games. The party was for him and there’s a bunch that could back that up. It’s also why his voices and mannerisms are what you use against Springtrap and why he’s generally on your side. Also why he’s on the table in SB. Bunch more info… Do with this what you please.

Honestly the problem with the Fnaf 2 phone call retcon is that I feel they’re very inconsistent with the gameplay of Fnaf 2 like phone guy saying that the place being shut down for an investigation even though there’s nothing on the cameras to hint that there’s some sort of investigation or issue with the restaurant, Phone Guy saying that this is a summer job and your check is in November and finally the fact the restaurant is implied to have been opened twice thanks to the grand reopening statement in the newspaper right at the beginning of the game. Idk I just can’t get around the idea of the murders happening during the gameplay of fnaf 2.

Obviously the retcon was the Aftons going from being British to being American (yes I know they are revealed to be British after the reveal of the “one retcon”)

The one retcon of FNAF is Scott saying he’s only made one retcon for the game. Jokes aside, if we were actually taking guesses, I’d say FNAF2 Chica’s missing beak. Scott initially said he just did that to make her scarier, but then during a livestream with a bunch of big names in the FNAF community, Scott uploaded to his website, “In the FNAF [idr which game it was] mini game, which is the mini toy chica missing her beak?” Therefore retconning what was originally only meant to be a design choice with no deep lore implications suddenly become important to the lore. And then there’s the box, because scott has said that what’s inside the box has changed over the years.

jeez louise, the frizfredbear employee IS GENIUS??!!? definitely another good candidate for the retcon, and that's true, i never thought to like use those rules of must be before sl custom night, and must be something scott hadn't already mentioned, otherwise i would've been stuck thinking that charlie gender was the retcon

I think the retcon was who we played as, at least in the custom nights, of FNAF 1 and 2. Probably all of 1 though. Tampering with animatronics? Which we see William do in 3's minigames? Done by a security guard? Which William was depicted as in the minigames? Foul odor, like he handled corpses inside the animatronics without reporting them? Up until SL, there really was no reason not to suspect William (or rather, Purple Guy as he had yet to be named) as the night guard, excluding 1 of the newspaper things in FNAF 1 saying the killer was charged, which does not necessarily mean they caught the right guy. If I forgot something and this was already debunked (in the era before FNAF 4, aka before it was a dream and before Michael Afton existed), then oops. Tell me and I'll add an edit saying I'm wrong. But if not, this seems like a pretty fitting retcon, since after Mike was introduced, most people got that it was him. Before that, I dont think "Purple is the night guard" was that common of a theory, so splitting up the two characters and not telling people that he did it, especially if they understand the split better, just seems like a normal thing to do. Avoiding confusion by not making people look back at things that no longer make sense.

For the Fredbear's bow tie thing. Given how that difference between Golden Freddy and Fredbear is reinforced, particularly in say UCN. It seems more like an important detail that everyone missed that Scott was referring to with the "filling the game with random easter eggs this time. I didn't." rather than the retcon. Especially considering Stage 01 seems to have a reference to the MCI with one kid disappearing for that one screen. We know that version of Spring Bonnie and a Fredbear animatronic were in the FNAF 1 location so its not unreasonable to assume that Stage 01 is showing a scene in Freddy Fazbear's Pizza where that animatronic had a black bow tie and top hat and that's what 5th MCI kid was basing their appearance on.

My personal headcanon has always been that the retcon was Bonnie's color - he was purple in FNAF 1 and 2, but he's been blue almost ever since. The toy on the desk in 3 looks to be blue (though with the heavy green lighting in that game, it's hard to be sure) and the sprite in the minigames is blue too when almost every theory I've seen says those are the classics and not the toys. The cartoon on the TV in 4 is blue (and it HAS to be classic Bonnie we're seeing here and not Toy Bonnie, because it uses the original red Foxy the Pirate instead of the white Toy/Funtime Foxy). Adventure Bonnie is blue, Bon-Bon is blue, blue versions of Bonnie are just everywhere once you hit 3. It basically seems like almost every time Bonnie showed up in the Scott continuity and wasn't reusing assets from 1 and 2, he was blue. Obviously this has no lore relevance to anything, but I think that fits with Scott saying it was a minor detail that went under everyone's radar. Also I think it would be hilarious if after all this arguing, all this debating, all this theorizing, the one thing we spent SO much time debating... was a character very slightly changing color. Not even as drastic as Golden Freddy/Fredbear having purple accessories (because that was a big topic of debate at the time, doesn't fit the "nobody noticed it" thing Scott said), all along it was just a character going from lavender to purple

I think there's a good chance that the retcon had to do with the puppet and the crying child, there's a lot of symbols that correlate between the two, the tears, the black outfit with white stripes, the party motifs in the bite incident and the gifts of life and letting the souls rest, the giant puppet crying in the same position of the child in a FNaF3 minigame, Nightmare being replace by Nighmarion in the Halloween mode, etc. Also there's some correlation between the puppet and Golden Freddy, both seem to be the most supernatural entities of the games, one being capable of giving life and the other acting like a intangible apparition, and how Golden Freddy and the Puppet stare at you during the FNaF2 cutscene. Maybe Scott wanted to give the puppet a backstory and he retcon the puppet's car minigame into the FNaF 4 crying child, but he later changed his mind and kept the car game as the puppet victim and turned the crying child as a member of the Afton family and no-one noticed.

One idea that’s been increasingly popular? The year FNAF 1 is set. Assuming your work week starts on a Monday and ends on a Sunday, it HAS to be 1992. Only year it works. But due to Matpat’s initial theory being about the Chuck E Killings(which took place in 1993) combined with some misunderstandings, that year ended up sticking in the fandoms mind and Scott eventually gave in in Security Breach(either that or Scott still intended 1992 and Steel Wool just messed up)

An interesting look. :) Do you have any opinions on what the "SL misconception" would be? As you've been saying about SL custom, I doubt it would be the Michael reveal.

The sheer amount of possible retcons I am hearing about makes me wondering if Scott unintentionally made more than one, and simply forgot about others.

I always thought the one retcon was about the Puppet being Fnaf 2 but NOT in Fnaf 1.

The one retcon is that originally, phone guy was purple guy, since purple guy was holding a phone, but it's now been retconned to have been a banana

My current belief about what the Retcon is this: “If I was forced to sing those same stupid songs for 20 years, and I never got a bath? I’d be a little irritable at night too”. We are clearly established that the animatronics don’t exist for 20 years. It went relatively unnoticed. Personally, I think it fits

The whole ordeal around the retcon highlights the main issue with this series: we don't have enough fully established facts. Think about it: the fact that we play as a night guard of sorts in the first three games was almost fully replaced with "actually we are playing a child's nightmare", and Scott didn't consider it a retcon just because it's never outright stated that we are security guards. That means we can assume anything about anything in the entire franchise. Are the posters in the first game accurate depictions of news headlines or just hallucinations? Do the 5 nights that we spend in the games happen concurrently or is it spaced in the middle? Are the paychecks that we see at the end even directed to our player character? Is yellow guy supposed to be purple guy? Is The answer to those questions can change at any point, and Scott can just say it's been "recontextualized" because we don't know any of those for sure. For god's sake we don't even know if Purple Guy is called *WILLIAM* for sure. That name doesn't ever pop up in the games. We "know" his son is called Michael (in quotes because it was revealed in a vague enough way that made people think Michael could've been the one inside Springtrap for a little while). Even now we are still only getting dripfed information instead of any semblance of full answers with RUIN (though for the recent FNAF games I blame the books) I just want some actual straight answers for once. It just sucks.

imo there are soft retcons & hard retcons: soft retcons are imo things which werent explicitly stated but where changed later on or werent originally intended to be that way (like the whole remnant thing) and this happened all the time

Rather than ruining one of the best reveals of the story, I wouldnt have even minded if he had simply went back to retcon one detail, by making the fnaf 2 paycheck simply have XX in its year but still have a 1987 wage for people to throw people off.

Scott just needs to come out and tell us the story when the franchise is over. The timeline is so fucked and speculative that it’s annoying to keep track of

Well, the Crying Child originally being the Puppet could be it. He had the black shirt with the gray stripes. Cried a lot... and the Bite of 83 could be explained away as him surviving without his frontal lobe for a few years and eventually dying and becoming the Puppet. Also fits with the Nightmarione not being canon because his counterpart didn't exist yet or because the puppet is him. Although, it could have always had been the plan that he'd be a red herring or inspiration for the Puppet design. My other guess would be the meaning of 'IT'S ME'.

One of the things that I feel debunks Dream Theory as the original intention of FNAF 4 is that it’s used as a joke mechanic in a similar vain to the “Foxy is a good guy” and “Phone Guy is Purple Guy” theories in the April 1st character guide for UCN. Those two other theories are debunked, so it’d make sense for Dream Theory to be as well. Somewhat unrelated to this video, I do also feel that, at least nowadays, Michael Afton is Fritz Smith. The connection I made goes in a loop of sorts. -Foxy is possessed by a kid named “Fritz.” -The MCI kid shares a first name with Fritz Smith. -Fritz Smith is fired for the same reasons as Mike Schmidt (same character?). -Mike Schmidt is most likely Michael Afton. -Michael Afton wore a Foxy mask when he was younger. I feel Scott chose the name “Fritz” for the kid that possesses Foxy as a hint that Fritz Smith and Michael Afton are the same character. And hey, that would mean Mike is playable in the first six FNAF games, pretty much making him the main character. With Jeremy on the other hand…they all have some sort of head trauma. Jeremy the MCI kid is missing his face when he’s Withered Bonnie, Jeremy Fitzgerald is (theorized to be) the Bite of ‘87 victim, and Jeremy the beta tester slices his face off. Maybe CC/BV’s name is Jeremy…

the retcon was definitely during fnaf 4 and its hard to say what it is, but I also agree it had to do with if the series wanted to end or not

Guys, I went over this many times, dealt with this many times, and I'm gonna go at it again. I don't think Charlie's gender was a retcon in the first place. Now before you all yell at me in the reply section, hear me out first. FNaF has been a "gender-confusing" game series since the beginning. Freddy, in the 1st game, can be spotted in the female restroom. In the early days of FNaF, many theorized that Freddy's spirit was a girl because of this, as well as the fact if you edit Freddy's laughter, you hear a girly laughter (like Golden Freddy's). But we now know the spirit that possesses Freddy is named Gabriel (Does that mean Gabriel's gender was retconned? No?). And in FNaF 2, Phone Guy refers to Mangle with the "he/him" pronouns, but then Mangle appears during ladies' night. Don't get me started with Funtime Foxy's gender confusion, sometimes it is he, sometimes it is a she. In the international translation for Security Breach, Patient 46 is referred to as "she/her" but we later learn from Tales From the Pizzaplex books that Gregory is actually Patient 46. Also, I have an in-universe explanation for Charlie's supposed gender retcon: the Puppet is a MALE animatronics (confirmed by the Freddy files and Ultimate Custom Night's description), which Charlie happens to possess. Maybe as time progressed, the Puppet's AI programming and Charlie's spirit merged to the point that Charlie's spirit fully embraced the Puppet as her true self. SHE became HIM. Perhaps the minigame that depicts Charlie's death (Take Cake to the Children) is actually the Puppet's memory of their origin. But since Charlie's spirit and the programming of the Puppet have been bonded for a very long time, the memory is a bit distorted, and since Charlie fully embraced her role as the Puppet, she is confused and sees her past self (the sad child locked outside) as the Puppet (HIM). Which is why SaveHim still works.

In my opinion: The retcon is probably that originally there was gonna be a dead kid possessing the Fredbear Plushie, but since sister location it was shown that there was a walkie talkie with the Fredbear Plushie and it went entirely unnoticed, Scott Cawthon probably assumed it wasn’t that big of a deal.

TL;DR, I think the retcon is which ending of FNaF 3 was canon. Read below for reasoning. One thing that I think is quite notable from Dawko's interview with Scott us when he asked which ending in FNaF 3 was considered canon, and Scott wad unwilling to answer it. The only two ways I see this going is if either the endings are more complicated than a "canon" and "non-canon" ending (think alternate timelines or something), but I doubt this, OR if the canon ending has changed from what we previously thought it to be. After all, if the intended end really was the happiest day good ending, then why not just say that? Well, I think this was the retcon, and it was done with a combination of The Silver Eyes and Sister Location, revealing to us that the dismantled endoskeletons were used to create the funtime animatronics, meaning the official canon would HAVE to be that the spirits were not set free like happiest day would suggest. And one could argue that this isn't a retcon because he simply changed his mind about the story direction, but I'd disagree due simply to the phrasing of the two ending names. They're "Bad End" and "The End". It isn't the "Good End", it's *THE* end. A concrete definite statement of fact. Also, if this turned out to be the case, it would also be a detail that nobody really noticed (mostly because it doesn't feel entirely relevant to the timeline, it only reveals to us that the spirits were never freed), we all just kind of accepted that it was the case that William took them apart and made the funtimes with their melted down parts.

the retcon could be fnaf world's lore connections with the happiest day minigame, explaining the way it is achieved in fnaf 3 is bc fnaf world

You're right, Scott didn't specify if it was a retcon in games or in the books. If that's the case then my money is on Charlie being a robot. In the Silver Eyes she bleeds after being attacked by Foxy, and then I guess Scott retconned her into being a robot the whole time in the Twisted Ones.

Fnaf lore is built on 1/2 of a toothpick but it is like soggy and almost split in half

4:00 Generally, the issue with figuring out what would even count as a retcon is that there is a fine line between confirmed and established lore and implications that can be written around. The two posters in this game(this one and the one that talks about how "cameras caught the criminal and he was arrested the next day") Seem vague enough to where one can simply say that either an unrelated and lesser criminal got hit by the opposite of the Karma Houdini-trope and got charged for William's shenanagans or an innocent person was misidentified as the person doing this. I mean, even discounting Fnaf's bending of realism, something does not match up with how no bodies were found in this picture. If these were the same event, then they would have found the bodies if the criminal was caught that quickly, correct? Of course, then we have the coinflip on if this is an actual story-contradiction to help me make that assessment or if it was Scott just missing. It's kinda like how the end of Fnaf 2 has the company get rid of the toy animatronics for "potential of malfunctions" simply because it is a prequel and these guys were not in Fnaf 1, even if that explanation makes no real sense in the setting because the only animatronic I can buy being more of an issue than the old cast is mangle(especially if it did the bite of 87). There is legit a more logical way Scott could have gone about it, which is something I actually misremembered as being canon years ago, simply because it made more sense. 8:24 I am genuinely not even sure if the happiest day is even still canon. It sure doesn't seem canon anymore, I personally had to make up a lot of nonsense in regards to the games after to justify my personal interpretation of it being canon and even with Scott doing some oopies writingwise from time to time, it doesn't feel right to me that something this key to the storyline would require one or more fantheories to put together. The game would logically be more clear about this.

It’s the November Paycheck from fnaf 2. Literally, that thing makes no sense from within its own game.

Faztokens look like those chocolate candies that are shaped like large coins

I like the Happiest Day con as well, it makes the most sense and is satisfying story wise IMO.

I’ve thought for awhile now scott retconned the fnaf 4 bite last minute from the bite of 87 to 83 just bc Scott remembered the 87 victim survived when the crying child didn’t. But Scott might not consider that a retcon since it happened during development

This clears a lot things up nice job Sire

man, have a good vacation sire you'll be sorely missed on my feed tbh

wow your thumbnail work has gotten much better, the glitch effect looks good now

I'm to this day kinda upset at Scott for doing this. Not only is the lore 1000x more complicated nowdays with the new content, but I really wanted to see what was in that box.

I think The Retcon was that Elizabeth was alive when Crying Child died. It makes no sense how Elizabeth dies first when Funtimes should not be made before Crying Child does because Afton doesnt have motivation to make the Funtimes with hatches to Capture Children My timeline: End of 1970s: Afton Dreams of having an animatronic establishement, and makes fredbear and Spring Bonnie, whilst Henry makes the Mediocre Melodies. And they eventually partner up. 1983:the first incident was the bite and crying Child dies and William promises to put him back together. 1984:there is not proof that this year something happens but shortly after the bite Afton makes the Funtimes to try and experiment on Children to learn the ways of life, and makes the illusion discs. And this is when fnaf4 happens so William punishes Mike for killing his little Brother. AND Mike feels sorry for what hes done. Accidently Baby during the grand opening Captures Elizabeth, and the Company shuts down Circus Baby's pizza world and Company lies and tells the media that someone leaked some gas. 1985: The first Freddy Fazbear's open where springlocks where still used and first set of 6 missing Children happens and thus explaining the Cassidy death and how she is in Golden Freddy and is 6 because he kills Charlie to get back somehow at Henry. 1987:Fnaf 2 happens where because of the missing children they implement security systems, and another 5 children go missing bc someone used the SpringBonnie suit After the nights in fnaf 2 we learn that toys will be scrapped and used for parts while the withereds will be used for reopening. 1993:we go back to the first freddy location in fnaf1 which explains why the location is Full of cobwebs and Henry was going to rebrand there and this is the first game where Mike is working and after the week Henry decided not to reopen the location. 1995:fnaf3 minigames happen where William goes to the location to destroy the robots and presumably melts them and he tells Mike that he should go to the Underground location and he will discover where his Sister is. Shortly After the springlock accident occurs where William has been killed. Shortly after Henry finds documents and Blueprints about William secrets and his killing of Charlie. Which gets Henry mad, and Afton was missing from the town so Henry decides to send a team of workers to investigate if Afton is at the locations and there they find him lifeless at Freddy's and Henry decides to put a wall in the safe room. 2000: Sister Location happens where Mike is at the Facility of Afton Robotics. Where Ennard tricks him and inserts himself in Mike to escape the Facility. Mike there discovered that his father was a bad person and was capturing children. 2025:Henry decided to open Fazbear Fright where he hired the workers to deliver some cool creepy merch to bring to the location, they find springtrap and bring him to the location where Mike burns the location to the ground. 2027:Henry discovers that some animatronics still have spirits and there was his daughter in Puppet. He again hires Mike to finish the paragraph4 and bring the pieces back together and burn all of them and lay rest to it all. Fazbear Entertainment is no longer a corporate entity. Cassidy traps William in Hell to be tormented for the misdeeds he has done. 2033 Someone revives Fazbear Entertainment and plans to open a pizzaplex over the same FnafPSim location and hires Silver Parasol to make a vr game making fun of the old events and giving them good PR. Tape Girl stories happen. Vanny becomes possesed by the virus from the chips. 2035:Security Breach happens where Vanny goes around killing people bc virus tells her to do so. Gregory frees her from the control of the virus. 2038:Ruin happens where Cassie frees the mimic to roam around.

The "misconception about FNAF4" is I believe how people believe the Golden Freddy plush talking to BiteVictim during the minigame is William. But it's clear those aren't events of the past but instead BV having to relive his memories while in a coma, now with this spirit resembling a Golden Freddy plush watching over him. One crucial line by GF is "You know what will happen if you go that way" or something to that effect. It implies that BV already knows what's going to happen because these are memories, not a flashback. This makes Golden Freddy a spirit that is manifested in BV's mind while he relives memories in that coma. I think this could be the retcon as well, that originally BV died immediately from the bite and possessed the Golden Freddy suit, but Scott retconned this in FNAF4 to be that he died in the hospital and then had his soul taken by the one already in Golden Freddy. Such a behind-the-scenes change wouldn't be noticed by the fans. Alternatively, the retcon was changing the identity of the guard in FNAF 1. FNAF1-4 had no Afton family yet. There was a killer dubbed Purple Guy that worked at the original Diner that took the lives of 10 children. Another child died of a prank. The guard we play in the first FNAF was the killer that had come back to dispose of the evidence. The killer had no idea the animatronics were haunted at the time, so all the "IT'S ME" stuff was to inform the guard that "yep, we are the 5 children you killed now haunting this place". Having the guard be the killer was too obvious to be true, and yet it was. Scott actually made the first game self-contained.

I'm not saying this is a legit theory, but I think it would be legit hilarious if Fritz turned out to be Phone Guy, and him messing with the animatronics back then was why they were so determined to kill him in fnaf 1 lmao

I feel the “one retcon” probably is “Dream Theory” but what if it was that the older brother was originally intended to be Phone Guy. It explains why the recordings in FNaF 3 contradict Phone Guy not really knowing about Fredbear’s. This explains the seemingly random detail of how Golden Freddy’s jump scare plays during Phone Guy’s death. Also Foxy is Phone Guy’s favorite which would explain why the older brother wears a foxy mask

Wouldnt the Retcon be the line phone guy made “we are trying to contact the original owners” I mean…. As far as we know the current story is there is only two owners. Mr.afton and his business partner

I know this video is a bit old but I remember someone bringing up the idea that the story was generally the same but that the family relationship was changed. As in, William and the CC's as well as Michael's father were supposed to be two different characters but Scott shifted them into one character.

I like the idea that the Killer convicted thing was William framing Henry for the murders, which is why it takes untill 2023 for Henry to get revenge against William. I’m pretty sure i heard the idea from Rye Toast first.

The retcon is probably just fnaf 4 going from being about the bite of 87, to the randomly new bite of 83 that we've never heard about until the game dropped

Now that you mentioned how you would make a timeline, I kinda wanna see what your timeline is

I feel like the obvious one is the puppets identity being Charlie as the retcon (cuz in FNaF 2 it was “save him” not “save her”)

I believe it’s generally thought that the ‘Proto-Freddy’s that William ran in his early days or Henry did is probably ‘20 years’ before FNAF 1. Fredbears Diner was opened in the late 70s and Freddy’s in 1983

Since we're throwing ideas around, the retcon could be in FNAF 2 when phone guy says "...you're new summer job.." even though your paycheck says November?

I don't think Scott retconned FNAF 4 player character. I still think it's the Crying Child.

Part of me kind of thinks that the retcon was nightmare foxy’s tongue. It was established in the teaser and changed in the games and then later changed, and in the grand scheme of the canon is basically unnoticeable.

With scottcons, only one true retcon is needed!

i have been WAITING for someone to make a video on this. the only time people address it is when they use the retcon bullet to fix a hole in their theory 😔

Small thing but the Phone Guy 20 years statement might not be meant as literally as you took it. It's possible he said 20 years in a way that was either him misremembering how long it had been or just as a way to mean "a long time"

There's a channel that did a theory on Fritz a while ago, Dmuted, and ended up in the conclusion that he was just a Fazbear fanboy who got into the day guard position after it was open and stayed in the night to salvage rare collectibles, and when Fazbear found out they fired him It's not really based on a lot of evidence because we don't have a lot, but the conclusion that Dmuted got to was that kn the end it doesn't matter that much because Fritz is just a random guy who isn't really that important

Not the retcon but just letting you know the games do not continue from the happiest day (instead being the bad ending), I forget the details but iirc William disassembles the haunted animatronics and melts them down for remnant to be used with the funtimes and for the scooper, the ghosts are in Ennard and then Molten Freddy when they kick baby out for being too bossy, fnaf 6’s insanity ending confirms this since you find a tape of Henry talking about this along with schematics mentioning remnant. Which I’d assume is the Sister Location misconception he wanted to clear up since I think at the time people believed the funtimes were possessed by multiple new victims (I think matpat had a theory Ballora was possessed by William’s wife lmao)

I mean my theory is just that the “save him” is meant to be “save her”, thus making it Charlie in that minigame (which we already theorised)

I’ve had the thought that maybe the retcon is Happiest Day even being the canon ending to fnaf 3, but as I think about it more I’m not so sure

Maybe the retcon was the amount of kids present in the building during the fnaf 2 puppet minigame vs pizzeria simulator. 🙂

The fnaf timeline is both comprehensible and incomprehensible

That the crying child was originally the puppet because the fnaf 2 minigame says save him. Which was retconed in fnaf 3 or 4

My retcon thoughts include Henry went to jail as he was there on charlies night but then it was changed. Otherwise idk where he went. Or Charlie and CC were one character idea but with too many points of interest was split into two characters

I always thought the retcon was Give Gifts Give Life That was trying to tell us Puppet stuffed the kids but like by the time TSE came out and HW Scott had it be back to Afton

I always thought the retcon was Henry killing himself : that's something that is told in FNAF world and in the books, but as we know in fnaf 6, he has to be alive. Thus why he only said that it was a retcon in the first 5 games

I wonder what was Scott's original intention with the '87 references in the source codes of the FNaF 4 teasers.

The retcon is that nightmarionne is canon now boom

Pretty sure GameTheory talked about Fitz being mike in some capacity, cant remember which video, but Mike being a teenager during Fredbears couldve easily worked there, especially given his dad being the owner.

WAS THAT RETCON OF '87???

I always had the thought that the retcon was Fredbear was not Golden Freddy. In the FNaF2 minigame where we see Charlie’s death, the bear is brown. Or that this was intended to be Fredbear’s and then was retconned to be a Freddy’s

the "byeeeeee" at the end is back :D

IMO we need the series to pivot away from the scifi aesthetic and back to a more supernatural borderline Magical approach or mix the two more (personally i would try fuse the two with ideas like remnant powered tech doing near to legitimately scientifically impossible things such ws the illusion discs being explained with a tiny drop of remnant encased in an electrically oscillating structure both usijg the remnant as an eternal battery and the core of its main function with this oscillation creating a near inaudible frequency that carries the effects of the remant accross it bending reality magically through scientific principles unifying two contradictory principles effectively the sound itself messing with the brain in order to make it susceptible to the perspective altering effects with the results being determined by both the victims image of what there seeing and the influence of the souls bound to the remnant core(now its not weird illusion discs and instead perceived reality manipulation)) I also personally believe horror in this series could be more well done with a marriage of fantasy and science such as the idea that glirchtrap was a basic AI program (not some super AI like the mimic) that just was influenced by a portion of aftons agony in the circuit boards in combination with the VR data Creating an entity powered by aftons soul but distinct from aftons true self whos likely trapped or fragmented between UCN and reality (This is coming from the perspective of someone who's a writer themselves and who's setting is one of science and magic which is why i know it's possible another fun concept would be afton gaining a new human body with cool soul magic able to affect almost everything in the pizzaplex which was built with his original parts and the data copied from it)

i think the retcon was that golden freddy was williams murder suit cause phone guy said someone used a spare suit in the back and then golden freddy started moving

This might be a stretch, but if THE retcon wasn’t noticed by anyone or didn’t have any significant impact, I’m inclined to say Dark Springtrap. Now, I know people have talked about him and how he’s never shown up since that cutscene, but if we’re talking retcons that weren’t noticed by the vast majority, I think Dark Springtrap being replaced by Scraptrap could work. A lot of people don’t seem to know Dark Springtrap by name, anyway.

I hate the idea that there are two spirits in golden freddy. I think that this is the retcon, because Scott wanted the happiest day and the vengeful spirit.