Five Nights At Freddy's Adaptation

I have indeed heard from the Double Toasted review that it borrowed the more famous elements from the later games.

It also takes elements from the novels. More spefically Five Nights at Freddy's: The Silver Eyes

There's something about this movie that felt off. With Super Mario Bros. Movie, maybe because there's a certain expectation I usually have with Illumination movies and thus the threshold of what the film was felt appropriate, so that's why that wasn't off. With this, Blumhouse was trying to be safer for sure—and if you look at the Happy Death Day movies, despite being PG-13, those don't feel like they play it safe though.

For me, it was an issue of tone. And characterization. And sometimes, a combination of the two.

As people have pointed out, the instant you see your freakish killer animatronics have a slumber party with the protagonists, well, that's it for them being threatening. They don't even represent a danger to anyone we (ostensibly) care about—or display anything but mild contempt or indifference towards the main adults until they piss them off.

A blood-lite massacre of some scumbag hooligans isn't exactly the stuff of nightmares.

"But, Prowler," I tell myself, "the robots aren't even the real threat! Afton is!" Which, yeah, great, so why do they withold the only information that might make this feel anyone's in danger? Is there a reason he doesn't show up to bother Mike until the last night? Having Mike need to lock at least one homicidal furry out of the security room once or twice would have gone a long way.

But that might not have helped anyway, because despite my praising Hutcherson's commitment, Mike fucking stinks.

It's been said by writers that the fastest way to make a character likable is to have them be good at what they do, or at least be extremely driven. This film is a case study that the inverse is also true. This dude sucks at every job someone gives him, is surly to the kid he protects, and accomplishes nearly nothing except saving Abby once and preventing his own mulching. What can you say about a hero whose primary goal is to be having a DREAM for most of the runtime, and he isn't even good at that?

Edited by Prowler on Nov 6th 2023 at 7:22:50 AM

Yeah. The tone definitely was an issue. It was trying to be accessible to kids while still being edgy and it didn't know how to strike the right balance it felt.

While teens got into the games, it feels like this is a story suited for a younger audience. It's almost like how Mercury Rising—which I love that movie by the way—seemed to have the plot of a kids/family film almost and yet was made as an adult thriller.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Nov 6th 2023 at 6:46:51 AM

I loved the fort scene. It shows how these are just kids and it is contrasted to when the animatronics to become antagonists later.

Imagine if Scott names the next movie Springtrap's revenge and everyone starts making jokes about the 'In the flesh' story from Frights.

Yeah, I personally liked that for once we actually get to see the animatronics be friendly towards a kid.

It made the whole thing later on more horrifying IMO.

I also liked the fort scene. Pretty much what's been said. Tonally yeah it was a little disjointed, but this is a movie about freaky animatronics so I'm not analyzing it for characterization or tone beyond "does this remind me of the games."

The games are "edgy" and creepy, but the experience diminishes once you've seen the jumpscare enough times, or when Balloon Boy has popped up a few too many times. Building the fort felt like a representation of that where the movie stopped being scary for a moment to remind you that these are children trapped inside of killing machines. I'm glad the movie didn't try to be the stuff of nightmares. If it did, horror veterans would be analyzing how the scares don't work because the premise is too silly.

Mike's also got more accomplishments than Game!Mike. That dude works a job where he can't move, works nights, makes 17 bucks a day, is probably going to die, and he still got fired at the end of the week. Him being a loser is... kind of an accurate representation of the games. He's more heroic than he was in the games.

Edited by FOFD on Nov 7th 2023 at 9:03:07 AM

If we continue to adapt stuff from the novels we might do twisted ones next. That story where Springtrap / Afton gets control of a group of killer robots called the twisted ones and uses them to kill people across town and then the twisted ones and classic animatronics fight in an underground cave.

I' not sure which part of the story it was, but I like the idea of the animstronics getting around by burying themselves during the day and popping out at night.

Yeah I like the fort scene too as it gave a good reminder that they are still kids and it makes the twist of them trying to turn Abby into one of them later more creepy.

That was also from the twisted ones.

I also enjoyed the fort scene, because, let's face it, FNAF has always been a little bit silly, and it's a good showcase of the kids in the robots being allowed to be themselves for a bit.

Yeah, Sister Location is one of the funniest games in this series for example. That had a lot of wacky commentary. So I don't find it immersive breaking that the animatronics built a fort with the humans, it's a pretty silly scene that shows the duality of the animatronics and sets up the later conflict.

Plus who didn't have their heart melt a little when Abby hugged Freddy?

Edited by RedHunter543 on Nov 8th 2023 at 2:47:32 AM

It's not surprising the movie showed a good relationship between the animatronics and children. That was one of the most praised parts of Security Breach, that Freddy became Gregory's Parental Substitute.

Plus Casey and Roxanne's adorable friendship in Ruin

Yeah the lore states the animatronics, possessed or not, do genuinely care for children and would never willingly hurt them. Circus Baby was genuinely distraught and confused when she murdered Elizabeth against her will. The Fredbear plushie also shows Golden Freddy regrets what happened to the crying child and wants to fix him.

So this the fort scene was a good way to establish that piece of information besides the phone guy telling it to the audience.

Edited by RedHunter543 on Nov 8th 2023 at 2:58:34 AM

I think you're taking my words too literally. I'm just saying, even as Defanged Horrors it felt... inadequate.

Re:Mike the blundering fuck-up, a kid I know told me the same thing. Which, great. A funny idea in the context of the games. Murder, for a movie centering him as someone we sympathize with.

Edited by Prowler on Nov 7th 2023 at 4:47:48 AM

I wonder if Balloon Boy was supposed to be Garrett. Haha.

(2) I took it as "the problem is the movie should be scary and this makes it not scary" but my answer to that is "not really, it works fine."

Not really.

I, and that kid too apparently, found him pretty sympathetic. Why didn't you?

If anything he's more sympathetic because he has a younger sibling he genuinely cares about. In the games he's just a Silent Protagonist and an avatar for the player.

I thought the implication was that Abby was a reincarnation of Garrett.

No, she didn't, she pretty much agreed with me. That his failures brought him closer to the game's depiction seemed to be what made it tolerable to her.

And I think I've made it pretty clear that I just thought he was an asshole. One, I might add, who only looks virtuous via being pitted against an even bigger asshole. His introduction is beating the shit out of an innocent stranger. True blue hero—yeah, okay, I've known traumatized people, they don't beat the shit out of their trauma triggers.

He sleeps through the one simple-ass job he NEEDS to protect the sister he cares about. REAL heroic. Even at the one point where he might become sympathetic—where he has to choose between finding a killer he can't...can?? Can or can't remember(the movie does not make it clear if he does) and his own living sibling, he chooses the former.

Edited by Prowler on Nov 7th 2023 at 12:34:32 PM

Mike does get a few standout moments in the game and calling him a bumbling idiot is a bit of a stretch. Swearing vengenance on your dad after he causes you to get scooped and turned into a walking corpse (the reason why he gets fired after a week in almost every game) and later freeing the souls of the children and killing Afton for good (Glitchtrap was just an AI/Mimic). Plus not everyone agrees if he is even the protagonist of the first three games anyway though it is largely supported by canon.

"she didn't, she pretty much agreed with me. That his failures brought him closer to the game's depiction seemed to be what made it tolerable to her"

To give some context there, in the games Michael himself killed his brother. He was a bully who accidentally killed his little brother in a prank gone wrong, albeit he felt horrible about it.

So Mike being kind of a fuckup who makes bad decisions indeed had precedent.

Oh, so he's the Big Brother Bully who gets his sibling's head crunched(one of the few things I knew about the games going in)?

Now I'm kind of wondering if at some point in the film's writing process, that was going to be the case in the movie, and different minds prevailed.