Reddit is home of many different subreddits, some of which you can fall into for hours before realizing it. Among those in the category is Fan Theories, where you can pore over theories concerning music, television, and movies for what feels like days.
Some of the theories are so well explained and supported that they can change the way you watch a movie. They can add depth and enjoyment to a movie you disliked and make your favorites blow your mind over again. Here are 10 that I think lend more to the movies than they may have originally intended, or otherwise deserved.
1. The Hobbit trilogy was over the top and bloated because Bilbo Baggins is telling the story.
Context: While it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what aspects might have made the Hobbit films disappointing, most critics cite the obvious fact that turning one book into three movies forces filler and pointless exaggeration of small details to fill up the spotlight. The Battle of the Five Armies was nothing more than a 2 hour CGI-fest in which over half the characters had no significance to the audience.
Theory: What Bilbo actually experienced during his adventure with the Dwarves was probably far less significant and monumental than the movies make it out to be, because the movies show how Bilbo retells his adventures, not how he actually lived them.
After seeing nearly all his belongings sold after returning home in the last movie, Bilbo probably felt disappointed that his life now meant nothing more to the residents of the Shire than it did when he left. To justify his long absence and appear more amazing to his fellow Hobbits, he sought to make the recording of his trip as fantastic as he could, turning each small detail into ordeals far larger and drawn out than they actually were, thus events which only filled a small book turned into three separate movies.
Tolkien fans might (i.e. probably will) disagree with me, so I present this not as a legitimate theory, but instead an internal justification of what would otherwise be disappointment in the Hobbit prequels. — Questionbdp
2. Indiana Jones was able to survive a nuclear explosion by hiding in a fridge because of his earlier adventures.
He drank from the motherfucking holy grail, you think Indys gonna die lol he trolled us the whole movie for he very well knew that he was invincible. Why else would he still get into these shenanigans at 60. — brendrey
3. Jones the cat from the Alien movies is a traitor.
Jones and the Alien were bffs and murder conspirators the whole time.
Think about it. These humans drag him out into the cold uncomfy spaceship with no sunbeams to fall asleep in, and every time somebody’s petting him it’s like they’re trying to scratch his face off. I mean, does this look like a happy cat to you?Then he meets the alien and they become best buddies. Later, he’s closed himself off in a locker just to get away from these stupid people, but they find him and scare the shit out of him cause it looks like they’re going to capture him and shock him with an oversized tazer.
So he lures one of them to the alien who kills him and Jones just fucking watches!
He fucks right off for the rest of the movie because the alien is clearly more fun then the dickhead humans. Then at the end, Ripley shoves him into this tiny little box, and runs off with him. The Alien stops her of course because she’s taking his bff and they share a nice little “Dude you okay. Fucking shit, that’s a small box. This ship is screwed so I’ll go hide in the escape pod”. I mean this aggressive ass alien doesn’t kill another species? They’re totally buds.
And then Ripley makes him watch as she shoots his best pal out into space and blows it to smithereens. In between different sessions of scratching his face off. Bitch.
4. The Mist ending isn’t what you think. (This one is for Steven and his big brain.)
One of the most memorable concluding scenes from any movie was in the mist, where the man shoots his whole family just to have the mist suddenly lift and the military save all the survivors. Damn! If only he had waited just two more minutes, he wouldn’t have had to kill his son and wife and two random old people! Right?
Wrong. I think it had to happen. Remember the crazy bitch in the store claiming to be a prophet? She said she needed the boy’s blood to appease God. And she was actually telling the truth. Killing the son appeased God or the monsters or whatever and lifted the curse. - Shrimpcookin1
5. Brick Tamland is a time traveler.
At the end of Anchorman 2 Brick has a ray gun, and it is implied he got it from the future, but I think the time travel jokes go deeper. At the beginning of the movie when the crew are trading nostalgic stories, he starts talking about that time 10 years from now. He also quotes Ghostbusters when he says “I aint afraid of no ghost” in a movie set 4 years before the release of Ghostbusters (1984). It opens all sorts of possibilities for the character. Maybe he was actually attending his own funeral due to time travel shenanigans. In the first movie he randomly acquires a hand grenade that the others cannot explain, then suddenly a trident. I haven’t seen the first (or Wake Up Ron Burgundy) in a couple years, but are there any other examples anyone can think of? Maybe some of his character traits (general confusion and randomness) can be explained by not knowing where he is in the timeline? Maybe I’m just grasping at straws. - scottlikesfire
I watched the first Anchorman earlier this week, and near the beginning when his character was introduced (if you recall, each of the guys spoke directly to the camera to introduce themselves), he told us (the audience) that a doctor WILL tell him his IQ and that he’s mentally retarded. He spoke directly about an event that is yet to occur. - ding_dong_yo
6. The aliens in Signs were using our planet as a prison. This is a really long one, so:
-In no point during their visit do they use Spacecraft or weapons to attack earth defences. Nor are any alien ships recovered. Prisoners dont need help. And again if it was a kidnap raid surely they could of used some largescale gas deployment from their ships.
-They are sophisticated enough to make navigational beacons without being detected (crop circles). So its highly likely they would have technology to determine if Earth was safe to colonise. They would quickly discover Earth would be a hellhole to any alien that landed, Yet they still did. Perfect place to exile political prisoners tho. also explains why this so called invasion was over so quickly. Not even a week. Worldwide invasion. 2 days. They pretty much dropped them off and got the hell outa there.
-Its sort of implied that they sent scouts down first. (They hear one outside the house early on) I find it unlikely that the aliens reported back to their superiors that Bumblefuck USA or some Brazil suburb were great places to start the invasion. Id say they were scouts sent down to make sure there was no equipment and resources the prisoners could use to escape.
The Aliens probably make visits every hundred years or whatever to drop off large amounts of prisoners
This theory kinda makes the last alien scene, where it dies to water, sad. Because really he was a desperate man with no where to go. - Hyena_Gold
7. Tucker & Dale vs. Evil tells the story of people not targeted by death.
In the very beginning of the movie there’s a scene where the driver (don’t know his name) swerves out of the way of a truck, saving everyone’s life. From what I know about Final Destination, the basic premise is someone cheats death and then death wants payback so it goes out of its way to kill errbody. That’s what seems to be going down here. Everyone in the car that survived the accident-to-be dies in some ridiculous way throughout the movie. Everybody except Allie who is saved by Tucker and Dale which is why it’s called Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. Evil being death or the force that’s pushing people to die accidently. - [deleted]
8. The Blair Witch Project is actually about the cult shutting Heather up for good. This is another long one, but you should follow the link and read the whole thing.
There are many times, during the group’s frequent arguments, where Josh or Mike threaten Heather with physical harm, but they “hold back.” (Sometimes they REALLY STRUGGLE to do so.) My theory says they WANT to kill her right then, to end their “ordeal,” because they are tired and hungry from being out in the woods for so long. BUT, they MUST refrain from harming her, until their cover-up is complete. (They must still lead her to the “scary witch house” because they want to make it appear that something supernatural kills her, then presumably kills them.)
BUT NOTICE that we NEVER ACTUALLY SEE Mike or Josh “dead.”
The ONLY PERSON (we see/hear) killed is HEATHER.
Mike and Josh lead her there, to the basement, where Mike stands in the corner, as a distraction, while Josh hits her on the head from behind!
Mike and Josh then fake their own deaths and disappear into the cult life, but not before they make sure the footage is “found” as a warning and deterrent to others! - TomkatDF2
9. In The Incredibles, Kari the babysitter accidentally unlocked Jack-Jack’s powers.
I just rewatched this movie for the first time in ~5 years last night with a group of my co-workers, and we realized something that seems so obvious in retrospect but that none of us had noticed before now.
When Kari is on the phone with Helen, she mentions that she’s going to play Mozart for Jack-Jack since it is supposedly “scientifically proven” to aid in neurological development. Up to this point, Bob and Helen are completely convinced that Jack-Jack has no powers - it’s likely that Violet and Dash had already developed their powers by the time they were Jack-Jack’s age, and so they considered that proof that their third child was “normal.”
However, Jack-Jack very clearly has powers in the final fight scene of the movie, since he uses them to brutally manslaughter the movie’s antagonist. So, where did these powers come from, and why didn’t Bob and Helen know about them?
The answer is very simple, and appears in the animated short “Jack-Jack Attacks.”
Shortly after Kari hangs up the phone on Helen (or rather, Helen is too busy dodging missiles to carry on the conversation), she takes Jack-Jack out of his high-chair, sets him on the floor and turns on a Mozart cassette. As soon as the music starts, Jack-Jack’s eyes dilate and unfocus, and he immediately begins floating through walls, sitting on the ceiling and bursting into flames.
Tl;dr - When Kari said that Mozard stimulates development in children, she didn’t know how right she really was. - LegionOfMisfits
10. The Director in Cabin in the Woods was more meta than one may have realized.
I just realized this a few days ago, and I think this might actually be what the filmmakers were going for when they wrote in Sigourney Weaver’s cameo at the end of ‘Cabin in the Woods.’ The film itself is an essay on the current state of the horror genre (and possibly even film itself, but let’s stick to the horror thing for now). Because of this, there is a lot of self-referential humor, etc. throughout the film; this is really just the premise, but I feel it necessary to mention. The main actors in the film are relatively unknown. Sure, Chris Hemsworth is big, but it’s not like they got Brad Pitt to star. The actors are very good (in my opinion), but odds are the average moviegoer would probably only recognize Hemsworth, if anyone at all. However, at the very end of the film, Sigourney Weaver shows up. Everyone recognizes Weaver, either by name or facial recognition. ‘Ghostbusters,’ ‘Alien,’ ‘Avatar;’ she’s huge. Her character, The Director, is not. It’s the definition of a cameo. We know that the film is very meta and self-referential, and we know that the world of ‘Cabin’ (which represents the film itself) is literally falling apart at the end. When an audience (the “Dark Gods,” representing the viewers of ‘Cabin’) clearly doesn’t like a film, the filmmakers, including the director, pull cheap tricks to try and draw the audience back in. Why would any Director appear in his or her own film? Why would the filmmakers insist on inserting a super-famous actress in a cameo role surrounded by, frankly, B-list actors? To save the film. Incidentally, that happens to be exactly what The Director is trying to do. She shows up, out of the blue, and makes one more attempt to get the actors on board to save the film. Sigourney Weaver’s appearance in ‘Cabin in the Woods’ is an allegory for her character’s role, which is in turn a metaphor for efforts made by a film crew to save a disaster of a movie. Told you it was meta.
TL;DR: Sigourney Weaver’s role in ‘Cabin in the Woods’ is her character’s role in ‘Cabin in the Woods.’ - nope_cubed