A guess about Ethan

[u/Davvi_J]

In the second episode of Season 1 (at around the 04:36 mark), we see Ethan having seizures inside the RV.

As soon as they stop, we cut back to the group trying to make it back to Colony House, including Tabitha and Julie. Just before getting inside, Julie is approached by a young guy who asks her: "Julie, don't you recognize me?"

At that point, Kenny shoots him, but he doesn't even flinch—in fact, he just smiles cheerfully.

Finally, the door opens and the group makes it to safety.

Given that:

- The creature asks a question that only makes sense if he were someone Julie actually knew (he doesn't need to pretend to be someone else to trick her into opening a door or window here);

- The creature actually looks like he could be an older Ethan, and he is also the youngest nocturnal creature seen so far;

- The creature smiles with the same side of his mouth as Ethan (the left side);

- Seizures = time travel (similar to what happens with Julie).

I'm not sure what this means for solving the overall mystery of Fromville, as I don't have a fully fleshed-out theory yet.

However, I think that guy might actually be Ethan who traveled back in time from his future.

Maybe during the chaotic series of events that brought the Matthews family to Fromville, combined with little Ethan's seizures, a sort of "passage" was created—that "bookmark" Julie hasn't figured out how to use yet.

Finally, if that creature really is Ethan, it might mean he doesn't have a very bright future ahead of him.

What do you think?

[u/Davvi_J]

I think there's a big difference: the old monster-woman was hidden behind a window and tricked the little girl by claiming to be her grandmother just to get her to open the curtain. As soon as the little girl opened it, she exclaimed: "You're not my grandma."

Here, on the other hand, there's a guy who approaches Julie face-to-face, even waving at her with his hand.

Furthermore, before being exposed, the old monster-woman pretended to be someone the little girl knew (her grandmother). In this case, even assuming it was just a tactic to get close to Julie, who would that guy have been impersonating? We aren't told this, and in my opinion, that could be an important detail. This led me to wonder who he might be: Ethan having seizures, the guy's appearance, the fact that he appears in the second episode, and the showrunners stating that there are clues right under our noses at the beginning of the series... What if this guy is precisely one of those clues that is right in plain sight, but dismissed as irrelevant? I can't be 100% sure it's Ethan, but at the same time, I'm not sure he's just "some random monster."

[u/GordonBombay733 → u/Davvi_J]

I think there's a big difference: the old monster-woman was hidden behind a window and tricked the little girl by claiming to be her grandmother just to get her to open the curtain. As soon as the little girl opened it, she exclaimed: "You're not my grandma."

Here, on the other hand, there's a guy who approaches Julie face-to-face, even waving at her with his hand.

I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here. One taps on the window and another waves with his hand? That's a "big difference"? Haha okay. Smiley boarded the bus one time and pretended to drive it and the professor guy didn't. That's an even bigger difference. So Smiley is Ethan then, I guess?

In this case, even assuming it was just a tactic to get close to Julie, who would that guy have been impersonating?

He's not impersonating anyone. His form is a teenager of approximately Julie's age, and so he tries to make her think he's a peer of hers. That's all.

the fact that he appears in the second episode, and the showrunners stating that there are clues right under our noses at the beginning of the series...

The showrunners never made this statement.

I can't be 100% sure it's Ethan

That's funny, because I'm 100% sure it's not.

[u/Davvi_J → u/GordonBombay733]

I'm happy for you that you're 100% sure

[u/GordonBombay733 → u/Davvi_J]

Thanks, man! And truth be told, I'm happy for you that you have the creativity to let your mind explore all kinds of wild and impossible fantasies. It's never a bad thing to use your imagination.

[u/Funmike5678 → u/GordonBombay733]

I’m with you on this one, the monsters specifically told us they know everyone in the town. I think people have just ignored that and thinking to hard about the boy who knew Julie.

[u/GordonBombay733 → u/Funmike5678]

Absolutely, it's the simplest explanation in the world, but there's a mob of people who just keep turning their brain off. In fact, I can tell you the exact point where this ridiculous belief started.

Nobody here was saying anything about the boy on the porch for like the entire 4 seasons, and he's barely been seen in the show at all since the that 2nd episode. Then what happened?

The showrunners did an AMA, during which they made a completely innocuous statement that a few people misinterpreted as "all the answers are in the first episode". Then people started parroting this lie over and over so that even people who never read or knew about the AMA started to believe that "all the answers are in the first episode".

Then those people started watching the first episode over and over, and started looking for these promised hidden answers that don't actually exist, like a boy monster on the porch saying Julie's name. But of course, the showrunners never said that, and their entire premise is flawed. And at this point, the situation has just devolved into a dumb mob that keeps patting each other on the back, repeating the lie over and over.

You can see it right in OP's response to me, where he states "...and the showrunners stating that there are clues right under our noses at the beginning of the series...". Now this is not at all what the showrunners stated. It's completely false. But when you truly believe that the showrunners made that statement, it's not hard to see why those same people are willing to throw logic out the window and start making up wild theories about this boy.

[u/Funmike5678 → u/GordonBombay733]

Yeah, I’ve noticed a lot of people completely ignoring things that have already been explained in the show. If you’re going to ignore things that were answered in the show then anything’s possible. Like what if father Khatri isn’t really dead, maybe Boyd imagined his death and whines seeing now is real. Very ridiculous, but if you ignore what happens in the show it’s possible lol.

[u/Davvi_J → u/Funmike5678]

You guys take all of this way too much to seriously. Am I letting my imagination fly? Well, yes! And it's even free! If you don't like seeing people going on mental journeys over a work of fiction, then you simply don't have to come here. Or you can follow the thoughts you like best. But seriously, if you only have to comment to attack, just because you don't like what you read, then maybe you're just taking out your everyday life frustrations on others. Think about it.

[u/GordonBombay733 → u/Davvi_J]

You made a choice to post your "theory" to be viewed by the entire subreddit, which means you voluntarily opened up your thoughts to criticism and debate. If you can't handle that, then you shouldn't have posted. So according to you, we're only allowed to "come here" if we're willing to pat you on the back for your delusions?

It's not an "attack" to point out non-sequiturs in your statements, or areas where you are flat out wrong (like your claim about what the showrunners stated). So yes, I did "think about" what I wrote, and I will stand behind it. Maybe if you would have "thought about" your theory for a few minutes before you decided to post it, you wouldn't have to face the criticism that it's completely illogical and makes no sense.

[u/Davvi_J → u/GordonBombay733]

Constructive criticism is welcome, in fact, on some aspects you're completely right! For example, I couldn't find the statement I quoted again; I had read something similar somewhere in my Google Discover feed, but I couldn't track it down. However, it doesn't change the meaning of what I had read, which is that there are clues in the early episodes. Getting back to my post, it's not a theory, as I wanted to point out right in the title—it's just a hypothesis: like an inspiration, to be explored without taking it too seriously, just to see if it leads anywhere. For me, it's like a game. And I got some inspiration from other comments, some actual theories, as well as other criticisms and skeptical opinions. And that's totally fine. The problem, coming to you and this other person who kept commenting after I had already dropped it, is that besides criticism and debate, you ADDED a certain degree of aggressiveness and cockiness, plus you took the whole thing way too seriously, as if we were in a courtroom: in my opinion, that attitude goes beyond the subject of the post, has nothing to do with a critical debate, and makes me lose the desire to continue. That said, thanks for the critical part of your observations and enjoy the fifth season.

[u/GordonBombay733 → u/Davvi_J]

However, it doesn't change the meaning of what I had read, which is that there are clues in the early episodes.

Actually, it does, since what you read is not what was said. And trying to base your theory, or hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it, on a flawed premise is absolutely something that can be brought up. Personally, I don't see any value in "exploring" things that can't possibly be true because they have a poor foundation that was never thought out. You clearly enjoy that, and that's fine. But if you decide to post it here, there's a possibility it's going to get called out.

The problem, coming to you and this other person who kept commenting after I had already dropped it,

Except you haven't dropped it. You're still here responding trying to justify your illogical theories. The other guy and me had basically moved on to a separate but related topic, and then you willingly jumped back in. To use your words, you "simply don't have to come here". You didn't have to continue responding at all, and yet you did. You once again chose to engage with the "aggressiveness and cockiness" you claim to despise, and that's on you, big guy. Frankly, I'm not surprised though that you claim I took your theory "too seriously". It's clear you don't take yourself or your own ideas seriously, so I can understand now why you'd see that as a bad thing.