There are a lot of fan theories that add backstory or explanation to existing characters or works. Some of them help fill in holes in plot, background, or motivation, and some are just useless or counterproductive, and others are someone doing the equivalent of playing devil’s advocate. What are some that you really like and/or really don’t like? I have two that are similar:
“The Joker knows he’s a character in an imaginary world.” This one is about the mainstream versions of the comic book joker - not the Heath Ledger or Joaquin Phoenix versions, and not the older Joker who was just a gangster with an odd face or makeup. The theory is that the Joker is aware that he’s actually a character in a story, and that he is written in to be an interesting villain. When he makes giant schemes that kill people, he’s completely unconcerned with their deaths because he knows they’re not real, and he isn’t worried about simply getting killed because as long as he’s interesting, they’ll write him back in in a future issue. I like this theory because it provides him a different motivation than other villains, doesn’t negate anything within the stories (as far as the people in the story are concerned, it’s just a crazy belief), and adds an interesting take.
“All 419 of these shows are actually just dreams of Tommy Westphall”. There’s a theory that a whole bunch of TV shows are actually just dreams of a kid in the show St Elsewhere. The idea is that there was a hint to the audience that St Elsewhere was just a dream of the kid, and that then every series that has any kind of character crossover or reference to it or any show that has such a reference must also be a dream of the kid. I don’t like this one because it doesn’t add anything interesting when watching shows, invalidates any sense of drama or tension (as they’re all literally just some kid dreaming), and doesn’t really hold up to critical thought.
Closely behind the ‘fan theory’ that Total Recall actually happened or there is any ambiguity intended. Total Recall absolutely 100% happens in the mind of Quaid
From the Jason Arnopp novella Auto Rewind, which I just read. There’s a character named Walter Atherton. I’m convinced that Arnopp intended the name as a mashup of William Atherton and the character he played in Ghostbusters, Walter Peck.
You don’t say whether that’s your favorite or least favorite, but I will say that I’m not fond of the whole Wold Newton hypothesis. I don’t like the implications of it: some people, through mutation, are just naturally superior to the rest of us (they have “good genes,” perhaps).
Don’t bother trying to accomplish anything, you poor ordinary genetically inferior person. Just continue living your humdrum, unimpressive life, and leave the important things to your betters.
“James Bond” is a cover identity tied to the 007 designation. There actually have been, in-universe, at least seven different agents who have taken on the identity.
Yeah, I like that one a lot too. Explains the changing actors (and personalities around them) without having to change the way you look at what happens in the movies, and doesn’t make the risks meaningless.
I find that one very interesting, not so much for the idea that all those shows are a dream, but for documenting the sheer number and intricacies of crossovers between different television shows. There are connections across comedies and dramas, different networks, spanning decades, and some shows are fictional within the world of other shows.
The Michael Bay Transformers and Friday the 13th reboot happen in the same universe due to actor Travis Van Winkle playing the same character in both movies.
One I think I saw on the Dope I like: Blake’s 7 and Star Trek are contemporary TV shows set in the real world. The difference in tone is the political bias of the showrunner.
Supporting this idea: Lazenby-as-Bond says “this never happened to the other fellow (meaning Connery-as-Bond)”.
Conflicting this idea: the entirety of Casino Royale. M recruits a guy who’s actual name is James Bond. And never mentions the guy she had a 007 before, who used the “code name” James Bond. Interesting coincidence!
I think the “James Bond is a code name” idea works well for the pre-Daniel Craig movies - it certainly helps explain why a “secret agent” keeps introducing himself to everyone by his “real” name and never seems to use any sort of cover identity.
The Daniel Craig movies actually tried to give Bond a history and personality beyond being 007, which does indeed conflict with this theory. Casino Royale was already intended as re-boot of the series, we just need to extend it a bit. In the pre-Casino Royale continuity, “James Bond” is a cover identity. In the post-Casino Royale continuity, James Bond is the character’s actual name.
I like these theories, but my theory is James Bond is a mythical character, like Robin Hood or Superman. Or Jesus. Each story is different, and they really don’t need to worry about conflicting. So Bond movies aren’t “fact”, as it were. The telling of a real story. They’re myths. You can enjoy the tales, but they aren’t factual tellings of real events.
Star Wars, for example, is a “true story”. However, Abrams’ Star Trek is making Kirk another mythological figure, with how different his movies are from what used to be considered canon.
I like the Breaking Bad theory some fan came up with.
Walter White really froze to death in that Volvo in New Hampshire. All of the subsequent events we’re shown, beginning with him finding the keys, are the dreams he had before dying.
I really hate any sort of “it was all just a dream/character is really dead” type theories. Mainly because what’s the point of making an already fictional story even more fictional? It doesn’t add anything. Same with any “character is imaginary” theory. Looking at your Ferris Bueller.
Claiming Ferris is imaginary flies in the face of Ed Rooney trying to catch him playing hooky, anyway. Every “Ferris the Imaginary Friend” I found during a quick search completely glosses over Rooney.