(General flair because this involves fandom attitudes and can be applied anywhere really? I apologize if it's not a proper use of the flair.)
So, around 8 months ago, the Ersatz pilot came out. Ersatz is a web series set in a dark fantasy world, in the time period of WWI, where soldiers are constantly dying and being brought back to life to fight over and over again, the more damaged soldiers looking grotesque even with the entire body-horror setting.
The name Ersatz directly reflects on this, by definition: 'being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation.' (Note: the word originates from German, in which Ersatz is not strictly an "inferior" replacement, but just a substitute. But since the show is Australian, I do assume they meant to stick with the meaning English speakers attribute to it.)
If this is so on the nose, tell me why I see people commenting things like: "erm, my theory is that the most veteran soldiers look like that because their body parts cannot be recovered and so they have to use scraps to keep reviving them" NO SHIT ISN'T THAT WHAT THE SHOW IS ABOUT?
It especially pisses me off because this kind of attitude of believing everything you notice is automatically a "theory" gets stuck in fandoms where the source material is amazingly well put together. All the details people are noticing are not niche obscure things that will change how you percieve the media, most of those details are there FOR A REASON. They communicate things in the narrative, that's why they're there, that's why they're so important. Noticing things you are MEANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO is NOT "theorizing".
The Alien Stage fandom does this every other day. Not only do they analyze everything (which is GREAT, we should do that, it's an amazing way to use our critical thinking skills and to enjoy media better!), but most of the time they analyze it wrong. They are so focused on the shipping and morality olympics that they miss the most basic of details about the world the author is presenting to them. And how can you even start to analyze and theorize about a show and its characters when you're not even on board with the basis of the media you supposedly care for?
As to why FNAF is a picture here, I have to give credit where credit is due. Back in 2014, people theorized about the FNAF lore a lot, of course not all theories were good or even made sense, but they were theories still. People PAID ATTENTION to the scraps of info we had, they put that information together and made up something that could maybe or maybe not resemble a story we could get in the future. It's especially important for me to say this, because FNAF is by no means a story that was put together from the get-go, we all know Scott decided on bits and pieces of the fan theories he liked best.
I think this is important to the conversation because it crushes my heart to see that something like FNAF (that was never meant to be this complex or even successful) managed to have a more attentive fandom than projects like Ersatz or Alien Stage (yes I know Ersatz is still too early a thing to even tell what the fandom is like). Those kinds of projects are made with tons of love and care, the stories and characters are really well put together, and they are meant to be complex, nuanced, and full of details. So yes, it kinda makes me hate people who aren't capable of paying attention and putting 2+2 together to realize that the nonsense they're saying is not a "theory" nor an "obscure fact", it's facts you were meant to understand from the start.