#personal theory

Clot (my misprint/toonsona) being a god damn cloak & meeting Blot for the first time

More Waxwell ramble below bc i like him

This might contain spoilers for Poppy Playtime Chapter 5, so if you don't want to risk being spoiled, DO NOT READ THIS. You have been warned.

Since watching plenty of playthroughs of Poppy Playtime Chapter 5, I wanted to give my own theory about why exactly The Prototype is so obsessed with Poppy.

Thinking back to his tutelage and brotherhood with Savage back in the Clone Wars, Maul had the one thing he never had while under the tutelage of Sidious, and that was loyalty. Maul, despite his relationship with being very Sith coded, dominating his brother and asserting himself as the alpha male between the two, still treated him with more leeway than most Sith apprentices would under the tutelage of their master. But then again, Maul and Savage were not true Sith, just dark side warriors who challenged the Sith by creating the Shadow Collective under the instructions of Mother Talzin.

But with Savage dead at the point of Maul: Shadow Lord, I'm looking forward to see our favorite Nightbrother taking his new Twi'lek student under his wing for the time being. As shown in both the Clone Wars and Rebels, Nightbrothers and Twi'leks hold family in high esteem and are very loyal to each other. For the past several Star Wars projects, like the Mandalorian and Bad Batch, they've taken gruff, tough men with young characters and softened them up (Din and Grogu | Hunter and Omega) but Maul isn't a teddy bear, but he’s not pure evil like Sidious either.

So whatever relationship blooms between Maul and this retcon of Darth Talon, it'll most likely play a role in his behavior that we see in Rebels. Either this Twi'lek betrays him to assume control of a portion of Crimson Dawn or dies fighting the Empire or even at the hands of Darth Vader himself, is yet to be seen. But yearns for a companion, and perhaps this girl is the second closest thing to having a true companion since he had Savage by his side during the Clone Wars.

(Personal theory.)

I was just randomly brainstorming while looking for the meaning of the word "Onychinus," and suddenly a thought popped into my head: what if that word actually has deep symbolism tied to Sylus, MC, and their dynamic?

So I looked it up for its meaning, and then I started thinking about how it might reflect their relationship. It’s not a common English word, but it’s rooted in Greek. “Onycho-” comes from onyx (ὄνυξ), meaning claw or nail. “-inus” is a Latin-style suffix meaning “related to” or “like.” So Onychinus translates to “clawed” or “claw-like.” Quick side note: yes, onyx is also the name of a stone. It’s a type of banded quartz often used as a semi-precious gemstone. But its name originally came from the Greek word for claw or nail, because its pale bands resembled fingernails. So Onychinus is referencing the claw meaning, not the stone itself. Sylus is a dragon.

Dragons are legendary for their massive claws, deadly, ancient, and powerful. Naming his organization “Onychinus” reflects his true nature: a creature born of instinct, danger, and strength. It’s fierce. It’s symbolic. But it doesn’t stop there. He calls MC “kitten.” And kittens have claws too. Tiny, hidden, but sharp. Gentle-looking, but still creatures of quiet power. Now think about that: Sylus, the dragon, has claws. MC, the kitten, has claws. They are both Onychinus in their own way. And they always hold hands. Two clawed beings, one massive and strong, the other soft but strong, choosing to hold, not harm. To connect, not fight. To protect, not destroy.

So I have an idea that if they do add Gamma Jack in the third movie or at the very least maybe some of the glory day heroes...

Now I'm reaching here....

There either gonna be zombies which is very dark but it would make some sense if you think carefully about it.

Imagine how sad and tragic that be!!! (even though it's a kids movie and they won't go full out in scary mode but WE all remember seeing Gazerbeam's corpse)

Even though the plot of the movie is about the Parr kids. It would be great to see the horror and downsides of being a super because imagine witnessing your parents struggling to not hurt the people they onced cared about as mindless zombies/lackies.

It be a bit dark but it'll give the kids a huge moment of morality but also having a deep understanding that this will be a huge challenge for them.

Unless the villain has a shape shifting ability/power copy...So there might be a high chance we might get a "fraud" villain Gamma Jack.

Edit:

Saw an interesting theory that it could be a relative to Gamma Jack who also has radiation powers which I could take a guess here maybe... I'm gonna go off of a limb here, that I don't want it to be Gamma Radiation but more into Neutron Radiation. (Which yes I had to google on my end so here's the properties of Neutron radiation because in the end radiation is fascinating)

Honestly I am excited truly about this villain for all I know it could be Gamma Jack (even though deep down my heart says otherwise) I want to know what would bring him back if that were true but also...How did he even survive and moreover did he find Gazerbeam's dead body upon arrival to Nomanisan Island for the first time and mourn the lost of his friend.

But once again I'm leaning towards a double body pretending to be Gamma Jack using his memories and powers or the latter...Gamma Jack has a sibling or cousin who wants revenge.

To be fair I cannot wait to see what they have in store for this villain and even if it's truly Gamma Jack or a double body/faker it'll be a huge middle finger towards the Bob and Lucius, possibly Helen too, because they were friends with Jack before soo....👀👀👀

(not joking) (A sassy theory)

I know that after reading the title, you must think I’m delusional, that I’m being sassy, or that I’m just seeking attention, but I have five good reasons to believe that the Pythagorean theorem was invented by a woman. Let me tell you what they are:

Reason #1: The Pythagorean School.

Pythagoras was a revolutionary for his time and allowed both men and women to study and teach at his school. At the Pythagorean school, women could participate because his philosophy focused on the soul and harmony, not on gender. Furthermore, the idea of the transmigration of the soul meant that knowledge did not depend on the body, which likely allowed for their inclusion. We know that women participated because of the writings of Iamblichus (3rd–4th century AD) and Porphyry (3rd century AD) who write that there were female philosophers in the Pythagorean community.

Reason #2: Pythagoras did not invent the Pythagorean theorem.

If you’ve studied the Pythagorean theorem, you’ll know that the most popular belief is that it was the Pythagorean school that developed the Pythagorean theorem, not Pythagoras alone, but it’s actually unknown whether the entire school came together to develop the Pythagorean theorem, whether it was a small group of Pythagoras’ disciples, or a single disciple...👀🔍

Reason No. 3: Theano: The Mysterious Woman.

It is unclear whether Theano was Pythagoras’s daughter, wife, or merely a disciple, but we know she was connected to him. She was a mathematician and philosopher, and it is said that she studied at the Pythagorean school; Porphyry and Iamblichus also mention her in their writings, iamblichus wrote that she ran the school after Pythagoras' death, besides Teano wrote a treatise on the golden ratio (related to the geometry of the theorem).

Reason No. 4: There is very little information about Pythagoras.

Unlike Plato or Aristotle, Pythagoras never wrote a book, and we know about him only through what others have written. We don’t even know for certain what he died of or why, as there are many wild theories about him. If we knew more about him, we could confirm who actually wrote the Pythagorean theorem, but since that’s not the case, we can only speculate.

Reason #5 (the best of all): Why did Pythagoras take all the credit?

Since it is believed that several male disciples or at least one male disciple developed the Pythagorean theorem, why did Pythagoras “claim” the theorem as his own? Although he didn’t name the Pythagorean theorem, he probably never revealed who had actually developed it because if he had, it would not have been known as the Pythagorean theorem. You’re probably wondering where I’m going with all this, and it boils down to two questions: Is it possible that Pythagoras’s name was used as a shield of legitimacy, under the premise that a discovery of such magnitude would not have been accepted by the society of the time if it were revealed that its author was a woman.?Wasn’t the silence surrounding female authorship not an act of appropriation, but rather a survival tactic to ensure the theorem was taken seriously in a world that didn’t allow women to be the owners of scientific truth?

Of course, this is just a theory; there isn’t enough evidence to confirm it, but there isn’t enough evidence to disprove it either. Also keep in mind that this theory was written by me, a 17 year old girl, so don’t take it too seriously either, because it lacks solid proof and I came up with it while reading a study about Pythagoras.

Since the hiatus till the Zootopia 2 teaser trailer drops is starting to have a small toll (it's not really a big toll; I'm still not desperate, only a tad impatient) on me, I decided to revisit the concept art promotional image of the movie that Disney released during August, 2024 featuring some of the upcoming characters, which gave me some food for thought I'd like to share with the rest of you.

(English is not my first language and I'm currently having some sort of writer's block so excuse any possible typos and/or poorly-written structures).

The following, of course, are just my own personal impressions/theories which have all the chances of being far from near from the actual final plot of the movie, specially if Disney decides to introduce some drastic changes within its script in spite of being only eight months away until the release, something I would dread but given the current global scene and the last changes the company has implemented within its inner policies I can't discard.

Friendly reminder that the following are just some made-up theories, unanswered questions and personal wishful thinking.

Let's get started:

What's the deal with Gary?

Meet Gary, the snake.

If Nick and Judy were the heart and soul of the first movie, I have the gut feeling that Gary is going to be the one fulfilling that role in the sequel. For those who haven't yet read too much about its premise, Zootopia 2 will stand out for expanding the range of inhabitants of the animal kingdom. While the first film featured mammals, the second installment will be putting its focuse on reptiles. Specifically, this mysterious snake named voiced by actor Ke Huy Quan (Oscar winner for Everything Everywhere All at Once).

Not much is known about this character yet, except that the story will revolve around him, when Nick and Judy, now as detectives, have to go undercover to never-before-seen parts of Zootopia in order to find him. That, and the fact that, in Ginnifer Goodwin's words, he's a creepy, slithery, highly venomous viper.

Still, with that being said, do you think he has the face of a villain?

An article published by Disney Japan on January 16, 2025, and which a kind soul generously translated on Reddit, corroborates what Ginnifer Goodwin announced during August D23: Nick and Judy will go after him because he's a wanted criminal. However, despite being a poisonous snake, he's also described as optimistic, cheerful, and extremely talkative; an important character who will guide them to a new mystery hidden in Zootopia that will be the key to the story.

(A curious fact is that while at D23 they announced that Nick and Judy would be on his trail, the article from Japan suggests that Gary will be the one chasing them. Is this a mistake in the article or the translation, or is it a hint at something else?)

Without an official teaser or trailer yet, one can only guess. However, given the images already shared on Twitter of the character's animation tests shown at Brazil D23, and another one released just a few months ago to celebrate the Chinese New Year, I am more inclined to think that he WILL NOT BE the main villain of the movie.

He certainly has some creepy expressions but still doesn’t seem villain-coded to me.

Nevertheless, I don't think he'll be a mere sidekick character who serves strictly as comic relief, like Olaf did in Frozen.

In a promotional image of a poster released in China, which I've attached below, we can glean several nuggets of information:

Credits to his post on reddit for the actual translation.

Little fella here is actually 33 feet (10 meters long). I don't discard the possibility that his debut scene may be intentionally ominous and spooky showing some really freaked out Nick and Judy after they realize he is way bigger than the case file stated.

Again, they emphasize his status as a highly venomous snake and his poisonous fangs. If the film has good writing (let's cross our fingers for it), this isn't just a coincidence or an insubstantial detail.

Personality: Extremely optimistic. This further strengthens my belief that he won't be a villain.

Special Ability: Talkative. Based on this and the previous point, I'd venture to say that… he'll get along with Judy and drive Nick crazy.

AND WATCH OUT FOR THIS: Motivations for entering Zootopia: Unclear.

Hmmm. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've found the film's leitmotif. Why is there no information about his intentions and what is this strange (and in my opinion also surprisingly endearing) snake up to? These will probably be revealed throughout the film's second and third acts.

My theory is that the perception we're going to be given of Gary will change as the film progresses and Nick and Judy get to know the different facets of the character.

If I had to guess, I'd say that during the first act, he'll be portrayed as a potentially dangerous wanted criminal, just like the premises states.

Second act, he'll be portrayed as a cinnamon roll who seems dangerous but is actually harmless and a sweet bundle of joy.

Third act: While he's not exactly a villain, he does have ulterior motives that aren't exactly noble (or at least not entirely); or at least, he has some potentially dangerous secrets he's keeping to himself.

A crazy theory I've been mulling over for a while is that he might have several Edmond Dantes ulterior vengeance motives. I believe he's pursuing something, maybe some peace and stability for other reptiles, or perhaps he has some other personal motives behind him: a score to settle against the true villain of the story.

And who that might be?

I think Disney has already given us the answer within the concept art image, right in the centre of it.

Let's take another look.

Is the giraffe the actual villain?

Who exactly is this guy? The new mayor? A wealthy philanthropist? Like most of the details, the question remains unanswered, but if I had to bet my two cents on who the movie's villain could be, I'd say we already have a winner.

Take a good look at him.

Notice its location within the image, right in the center of it and its size in contrast to the rest of the characters: He is HUMONGOUS, he is twice as big as Bogo, which among Lionheart, were two of the biggest mammals that showed up in the first movie, and specially, watch out for his expression.

Have a closer look.

Do you see what I see? This is a look of absolute hate, of pure and raw disgust and revulsion. And it's aimed towards Gary.

His face really catches my attention. Notice how the rest of the characters' gazes are mostly aimed either forward or towards Nick and Judy (as in the case of Gary and Bogo). However, as for this giraffe, the direction of its eyes break the harmony of the composition. The same goes for the other characters' expressions: Nick, Judy, and the Hopps appear scared or bewildered; Nibbles, Clawhausser, and Gary seem excited; and Bogo and the boar wearing the vest are the only ones who look the most serious. However, the giraffe offers a more calculating look: those arched eyebrows, the pursed snout, his sneer of contempt. It looks as if he's got Gary in his sights.

May I open the betting-pool?

Well, my guess is that this giraffe is going to be the other great pivotal point of the film.

I'd say he will be the one to set Nick and Judy (or Bogo, who would assign the case to the fox and the bunny) on their path to go after the snake. Or at the very least, he'll be very keen on catching him.

There's nothing to support this theory, but evoking Fred's words in Big Hero 6 and in reference to what I've already stated in the previous paragraph, I'd say: "THIS IS A REVENGE STORY".

(Or maybe not, perhaps I'm just reading too much into it and both characters dynamic will just serve as another racism allegory, even though I'm rooting for a deeper lecture)

Whatever the final product Zootopia 2 may be, something tells me there's something personal going on between this giraffe and Gary. Whether it's a hatred strictly focused on the snake or toward his entire species or reptiles in general, I'm not sure, and I don't dare say. But if I had to decide (and yes, I admit, if it was up for me to decide), I'd stick with a "hate towards Gary in particular" plot-line.

Share your thoughts with me in the comments. Like, reblog or whatever, and tell me if you would like a Part 2 of this or something.