r/fnafmovie

Gary Dauberman's most praised work is It (2017), however this may not be the true testament of a writer that some FNAF fans seem to think it is. Let's walk through his pros and cons as a screenwriter first.

Pros:

- He seems to know what mass audiences want out of a Friday night horror movie. His work is highly accessible and consistently profitable. This is commercially good for the studio; it makes sense why Blumhouse would hire him amidst criticisms while still eyeing profit.

Anabelle Comes Home (2019)

Domestic Gross: $74,152,000

Worldwide Total: $231,252,591

Anabelle (2014)

Domestic Gross: $84,273,813

Worldwide Total: $257,047,661

Until Dawn (2025)

Domestic Gross: $20,172,192

Worldwide Total: $54,105,064

The Nun (2018)

Domestic Gross: $117,481,222

Worldwide Total: $366,082,797

It (2017)

Domestic Gross: $328.87 million

Worldwide Total: $719.76 million

It: Chapter Two (2019)

Domestic Gross: $211,593,228

Worldwide Total: $473,093,228

- He's able to create iconic standalone entities. The best example is obviously Pennywise in It (2017), especially with the projector jumpscare sequence. This is great news for FNAF 3 since Springtrap—a zombified animatronic creature—is the main antagonist.

- He's experienced in working in a horror franchise (The Conjuring Universe and the "It" movies). And he's great at playing in a shared sandbox (we'll get to that later).

Cons:

- He uses formulaic scare tactics (silence, a slow camera pan, a false relief, and then an explosive auditory and visual jump scare). His over-reliance on these traditional jumpscare setups can make his films feel incredibly predictable, especially if you're a horror fan. Anabelle (2014) is the primary evidence for this. Rushed into production to cash in on The Conjuring, the script is a textbook example of "generic studio horror". It leans heavily on predictable, loud-noise jump scares, a paper-thin plot, and characters making frustratingly cliché horror-movie decisions.

- Mechanical dialogue due to expository myth-building. His characters often function as conduits for lore. A massive portion of his dialogue is dedicated to explaining the "rules" of the monster, the cursed object, or the environment. The FNAF movies already has this problem, and we don't need him to exacerbate it.

- When tackling dense or non-traditional source material, he tends to strip away nuance in favor of simpler, broad cinematic horror tropes. A disappointing evidence of this is the Until Dawn (2025) movie.

Finally let's get to It.

Most fans were ecstatic to learn that Gary Dauberman is the official screenwriter for FNAF 3, as he is well-known for writing the film adaptation of It and helping bring Pennywise to life. But what they don't acknowledge is that he didn't write It from scratch. He was hired to rework the original screenplay that was previously written by Cary Fukunaga and Chase Palmer before they left.

There is a massive difference between a writer who builds a house from the ground up and a writer who moves in and renovates.

Fukunaga and Palmer did the heavy lifting of figuring out how to split Stephen King’s massive novel into a two-part structure with the first one being focused on the characters as children. Their drafts were the foundation for the final script. Without this structural foundation, the movie might have looked very different and inhabited the flaws that we later see in It: Chapter Two with Dauberman being the sole writer.

However, Fukunaga’s vision was far more eccentric and less mainstream, which caused major creative differences with the studio. Dauberman's rewrites are what actually injected the film with its pacing, emotional stakes, and crowd-pleasing tension (as far as we can see).

Take the opening alone. In Fukunaga's draft, Georgie and Pennywise talk for a single page before the kill. The interaction felt quick and personally unsatisfying. Dauberman, on the other hand, stretched it into 3-4 minutes of agonizing suspense.

His work in this movie proved that he is great at refining a script and showcased the best of him as a collaborator. However the sequel It: Chapter Two exposed his limitations when left entirely to his own devices as the sole credited screenwriter. The script suffers from structural and conceptual flaws. Exploring this will honestly need its own post, so just watch the movie yourself and compare it with the first movie.

When Dauberman has a strong existing blueprint to constrain him, he can sharpen dialogue, heighten emotional stakes, and deliver a tight commercial product that pleases the crowd and generates revenue. But when he is handed total creative control over a massive canvas, he defaults to repeating a formulaic pattern until the runtime runs out, which proves that he struggles to build a solid story on his own. This is concerning for FNAF 3. Because:

A. it's a closing sequel to a trilogy

B. he's a solo writer for the movie. And, if he does have a co-pilot offering him advice, it'll probably be Scott Cawthon, and we know he's not really a great writer for movies…

In summation, Gary is kind of like Scott. He's inconsistent and he needs guidance. I think we've seen this film before.

This is the absolute worst movie ive ever seen i feel instantaneously smarter than half of the people on this earth after seeing it get an 86 percent score from “fans”

I was wondering if Micheal Afton will get some type of backstory in the third movie, since he’s a pretty mysterious character in the second movie with little backstory

Charlotte shares a lot in common with Cassidy. Both seem to be vengeful spirits, (albeit for different reasons). Both died horrific deaths at the hands of the Yellow Rabbit, and both possess Fazbear animatronics.

I have to feel for Charlotte, and what she endured. I wish things could have been different, and that the adults felt bad about not helping the girl out.

It's still hard to get my head around the fact that the Charlotte is so powerful to not only possess the Marionette, but seemingly the entire building, including all of the other animatronics. I often think about how Toy Freddy, Toy Bonnie, Toy Chica, Mangle, and Balloon Boy would just be inanimate animatronics without the Marionette having control over them.

Maybe Charlotte went on to possess those original people off-screen. Who knows? I'm still waiting for the third movie to potentially reveal what happened to those people.

My ACGgoods shop is pretty much all centered around fan merch for Movie Michael and some Vanessa and I thought I should share n that members of this sub might be interested :D the movie timeline is my favorite for the Aftons and I really love exploring it and making stuff for them! (Pics are only some of the examples)

I also currently have a petition up for a movie Michael plushie so if you're interested then you can pledge today! 15 days remain :3

find me here! https://acggoods.com/store/hazardrookie

Recently I been struggling to find a reason to be interested in fnaf. Yea I love the fnaf fan games, fan artists and merch, but the official games I’m lost some interest in. Then modern fnaf lore I hate a lot, and the fact my goat vanny is cut content personified is so annoying.

I did enjoy the first fnaf movie, while second one it’s okay. It’s a decent live action twisted ones with a fnaf 2 skin on it. But third movie with its 3 story plots in a hour and half movie might not do great. But hey I hope yall enjoy it.

I wish I could be as hyped for fnaf like I use to but modern fnaf lore really did a number on my enjoyment. If you love the mimic then that’s fine, I’m glad someone enjoys the fnaf mimic timelines.

I love the movie Afton siblings a lot

I personally loved them, but maybe that's because i'm not really that deep into the lore? IDK, please give me honest thoughts.