Watch the Footage archive

In Joe's WTF episode 5 video, we see Cinderella arriving into our world in a subway station. We see sparks of lighting hitting the ground, and then she appears. When I saw this, I assumed, like I'm sure many of us had assumed, that this is the same way all fictional characters had arrived into our world. But then the witch appeared, and it was much different than Cinderella's appearance. It wasn't lightning that brought her here, but a tornado. Could this be significant? Maybe each of the characters have arrived/will arrive in a way that somehow reflects some element from the story they are from. The witch came from a tornado, which is a major element in the Wizard of Oz, while Cinderella was brought here through what could very well be a magic spell from the fairy godmother. Maybe by examining how the characters arrived, we could better deduce what brought them here and how we can send them back.

Have any of the other characters described their arrivals? Going through Don Quixote's tweets, it seems like he just stumbled into our world in a state of confusion, which again, is very reminiscent of his own story.

Those are all interesting. Although I prefer my version where they were sucked into a portal.

In Joe's WTF episode 5 video, we see Cinderella arriving into our world in a subway station. We see sparks of lighting hitting the ground, and then she appears. When I saw this, I assumed, like I'm sure many of us had assumed, that this is the same way all fictional characters had arrived into our world. But then the witch appeared, and it was much different than Cinderella's appearance. It wasn't lightning that brought her here, but a tornado. Could this be significant? Maybe each of the characters have arrived/will arrive in a way that somehow reflects some element from the story they are from. The witch came from a tornado, which is a major element in the Wizard of Oz, while Cinderella was brought here through what could very well be a magic spell from the fairy godmother. Maybe by examining how the characters arrived, we could better deduce what brought them here and how we can send them back.

An intriguing theory.

So... Don Quixote stumbled into our world all addled and confused, which makes sense in his story. The Wicked Witch of the west was dropped (in Kansas, no less) by a Tornado. Cinderella hopped through some kind of magical portal... and it must have been close to midnight, as opposed to midnight, as she was still wearing her beautiful dress - it hadn't turned back into rags (maybe she was just thinking about how she had to get away quickly, while also wishing she could keep her lovely dress?) And I do recall there's a mermaid buzzing about who appeared, naturally in the ocean.

Have any of the other characters described their arrivals? Going through Don Quixote's tweets, it seems like he just stumbled into our world in a state of confusion, which again, is very reminiscent of his own story.

As for that, I don't know. How did the Cheshire cat say he got here, if at all? Were rabbit holes involved? And how did Poirot and Holmes say they got here again? I mean, Holmes wasn't by any chance going over a waterfall in his own world, was he?

And Poirot I forget, which of his books did he say he arrvied here after? It... wasn't the one with the train perchance, was it?

Scarab wrote:And Poirot I forget, which of his books did he say he arrvied here after? It... wasn't the one with the train perchance, was it?

It was after Death On The Nile, during his heatstroke. He has no memory of the event.

It was after Death On The Nile, during his heatstroke. He has no memory of the event.

Right. A moment of confusion, then? That seems to be a pattern if nothing else - confusion, chaos, or delusion was in play at the moment they crossed over.

I think the reason they don't remember how they got here is because whatever is between their world and ours is not something anyone wants to remember.

I think the reason they don't remember how they got here is because whatever is between their world and ours is not something anyone wants to remember.

This is entirely possible, there are some things man was not meant to know. Or perhaps whatever's in there ITSELF ensured they wouldn't remember and something is at work here even bigger than Mister A. I find it hard to believe that something as major as these cracks in time could've happened by complete accident.

Scarab wrote:

I think the reason they don't remember how they got here is because whatever is between their world and ours is not something anyone wants to remember.

This is entirely possible, there are some things man was not meant to know. Or perhaps whatever's in there ITSELF ensured they wouldn't remember and something is at work here even bigger than Mister A. I find it hard to believe that something as major as these cracks in time could've happened by complete accident.

Yea. Also, Cheshie seems to be perfectly well aware of how he got here, but his personality can be summed up by the words "batsh*t insane" so I think he gets an exemption. Don is probably less insane, since he utilizes rational thought and logic, just in an incredibly skewed form, so I'm not sure if he remembers anything or not.

Lordxana0 wrote:I think the reason they don't remember how they got here is because whatever is between their world and ours is not something anyone wants to remember.

That's assuming that there is anything physical between our worlds to be seen.

I'm not entirely fond of this theory. The idea that the characters saw something between worlds and just forgot or blocked it from their memories is rather mundane, and kind of pointless. Plus, two of the characters, Sherlock and Poirot, don't really seem to have the mental capabilities to just block out a memory like that.

I'd rather believe there was nothing to see between worlds, that the journey between the worlds was instantaneous. They were in one world, and then, suddenly, they're in ours.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:

Lordxana0 wrote:I think the reason they don't remember how they got here is because whatever is between their world and ours is not something anyone wants to remember.

That's assuming that there is anything physical between our worlds to be seen.

I'm not entirely fond of this theory. The idea that the characters saw something between worlds and just forgot or blocked it from their memories is rather mundane, and kind of pointless. Plus, two of the characters, Sherlock and Poirot, don't really seem to have the mental capabilities to just block out a memory like that.

I'd rather believe there was nothing to see between worlds, that the journey between the worlds was instantaneous. They were in one world, and then, suddenly, they're in ours.

Yea, that's probably more likely. It must have occurred while they were disoriented (i.e. Poirot's heatstroke) so to them it seems like they passed out and woke up somewhere totally different. But the cat said that he actually "ran" between worlds, and he claimed to have seen SOMEONE. Maybe he's just insane, or he defies normal world hopping physics... I don't know. Not enough info, to be honest.

Of all the characters, I would say the cat is the most likely to have chosen to cross worlds.

Sicon112 wrote:Yea, that's probably more likely. It must have occurred while they were disoriented (i.e. Poirot's heatstroke) so to them it seems like they passed out and woke up somewhere totally different. But the cat said that he actually "ran" between worlds, and he claimed to have seen SOMEONE. Maybe he's just insane, or he defies normal world hopping physics... I don't know. Not enough info, to be honest.

I think I remember that tweet. I don't think he actually said he was running. I believe someone asked him if he saw a monster while running, and he simply answered that "he" would be offended to be called a monster. He never said that he ran between worlds, someone said it for him, and he neither confirmed or denied. And once again, he speaks in riddles. It's hard to be sure exactly what he is saying.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:Yea, that's probably more likely. It must have occurred while they were disoriented (i.e. Poirot's heatstroke) so to them it seems like they passed out and woke up somewhere totally different. But the cat said that he actually "ran" between worlds, and he claimed to have seen SOMEONE. Maybe he's just insane, or he defies normal world hopping physics... I don't know. Not enough info, to be honest.

I think I remember that tweet. I don't think he actually said he was running. I believe someone asked him if he saw a monster while running, and he simply answered that "he" would be offended to be called a monster. He never said that he ran between worlds, someone said it for him, and he neither confirmed or denied. And once again, he speaks in riddles. It's hard to be sure exactly what he is saying.

Indeed, but English is such that an answer of that type implies the assumption of the question. Also, he corrected other parts of the question (The "amok" thing) but did not correct the assumption that he had been crossing the wall at the time. Also, I misspoke, he does not imply that he was running, but he makes it obvious that he saw whatever it was he was talking about "while crossing the wall".

Sicon112 wrote:

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:I think I remember that tweet. I don't think he actually said he was running. I believe someone asked him if he saw a monster while running, and he simply answered that "he" would be offended to be called a monster. He never said that he ran between worlds, someone said it for him, and he neither confirmed or denied. And once again, he speaks in riddles. It's hard to be sure exactly what he is saying.

Indeed, but English is such that an answer of that type implies the assumption of the question. Also, he corrected other parts of the question (The "amok" thing) but did not correct the assumption that he had been crossing the wall at the time. Also, I misspoke, he does not imply that he was running, but he makes it obvious that he saw whatever it was he was talking about "while crossing the wall".

Yes, I speak English, and I'm pretty good at mind games, and I happen to know that a lack of a no does not necessarily imply a yes. The problem with the question he was posed was that it made many assumptions that may or may not have been correct and posed them in a way that made them seem true. And the response the cat gave wasn't really a question, but a vague statement, intended, in my opinion, to do nothing but confuse the asker. From this, you all start making assumptions that the cat said these things simply because he didn't deny them. It really feels like that he's toying with us in this particular case. For all we know, he could've been referring to himself the whole time, and he's the villain we should be worried about. It's hard to say what the cat's trying to say as he's never straight about anything.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:Yes, I speak English, and I'm pretty good at mind games, and I happen to know that a lack of a no does not necessarily imply a yes. The problem with the question he was posed was that it made many assumptions that may or may not have been correct and posed them in a way that made them seem true. And the response the cat gave wasn't really a question, but a vague statement, intended, in my opinion, to do nothing but confuse the asker. From this, you all start making assumptions that the cat said these things simply because he didn't deny them. It really feels like that he's toying with us in this particular case. For all we know, he could've been referring to himself the whole time, and he's the villain we should be worried about. It's hard to say what the cat's trying to say as he's never straight about anything.

First off, grammatically, he can;t have been referring to himself. Second, normally, lack of a 'no' would not imply a 'yes', but as I mentioned before, the cat did indeed correct OTHER assumptions in the post, but did not correct the main assumption. On the same topic, if the main assumption was wrong (that the cat was aware of crossing the wall) the question literally could not have been answered. Combine this with the fact that the cat has never yet (and will never, for meta reasons) directly lie to us, and you have an almost sure thing, which is as close as it is possible to be to an '100% chance'.

Sicon112 wrote:First off, grammatically, he can;t have been referring to himself. Second, normally, lack of a 'no' would not imply a 'yes', but as I mentioned before, the cat did indeed correct OTHER assumptions in the post, but did not correct the main assumption. On the same topic, if the main assumption was wrong (that the cat was aware of crossing the wall) the question literally could not have been answered. Combine this with the fact that the cat has never yet (and will never, for meta reasons) directly lie to us, and you have an almost sure thing, which is as close as it is possible to be to a '100% chance'.

Never said he directly lied. I don't believe he has or ever will. I do believe that he has a way of twisting words so that he wouldn't have to. And grammatically, or can he not? Self-referential third person is not unheard of. But I was merely using that as an example as to how words can be twisted. I don't believe the cat is trying to mislead us, but I do believe him to be the sort to tease and challenge our expectations. With the cat, a statement can have multiple meanings, so it's very important that we don't go jumping on any wild conclusions without further confirmation. I'm not saying don't trust the cat, just be mindful and exercise caution.

WackyMeetsPractical wrote:Never said he directly lied. I don't believe he has or ever will. I do believe that he has a way of twisting words so that he wouldn't have to. And grammatically, or can he not? Self-referential third person is not unheard of. But I was merely using that as an example as to how words can be twisted. I don't believe the cat is trying to mislead us, but I do believe him to be the sort to tease and challenge our expectations. With the cat, a statement can have multiple meanings, so it's very important that we don't go jumping on any wild conclusions without further confirmation. I'm not saying don't trust the cat, just be mindful and exercise caution.

Seeing as I am analyzing everything he says to this extent, I would say I'm being cautious. Also, the cat clarified that the thing he saw did not have a name, and also that it probably didn't have a gender. Since he has both (Though I suppose you could call The Cheshire Cat a title) I don't think it was him. I think there is very little chance of a self-referential third person in this case, but even so, it still shows he was aware of the time crossing, so the point I made that started this conversation still stands.

I've looked on Death on the Nile, and apparently the next book is Appointment with Death.

Maybe if Poirot returns back to HIS 1920s or 1930s world, he'll be on that case next.