Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190721003717/@comment-32182236-20200107230234

Take the transition from Drips.wav to Guts.wav on Night 5 of Sister Location. The two sounds are very well mixed, and the transition is subtle, something you’ll only see if you’re watching for it. But sure enough... the sound of water falling changes to the sickly sweet sound of flesh being torn from bone. This is what I call a Super Deliberate Detail. There’s no possibility that this is a glitch or a mistake. It is a clue the author purposely hid very deeply.

..I mean, he literally put the file in there, I'm not sure how you could say that's a mistake.. I guess they REALLY just don't want their headcanons to be debunked..

And by the principles of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the smallest things are often the important. Because a mystery is a game about finding hidden things.

Why not just say EVERY detail is important?

Steven Universe is famous for hiding clues in odd places, like in-universe TV commercials or subtle background details that only seem relevant with Cartoon Logic in effect.

Wait, the commercials are canon? ...Really?

When I said Lion 4 showed a very specific camera shot where Steven is seen with a halo between the giant legs of Pink Diamond’s ship as if he was her son/grandson, or that the show weirdly pauses to focus on a piece of splattered watermelon flesh on Greg’s leg when he stomps on a Watermelon Steven, that looks like a pink diamond, as if Pink Diamond was in Steven’s stomach, I got laughed at. Who could possibly find relevance in such trivial details?

I mean, in-universe, it means nothing. The angle of the camera means nothing, unless the camera is an actual entity within the Steven Universe canon.

Just as all of Sister Location was designed to show us that Michael had a metal endoskeleton inside him.

I mean, we literally see that at the final Custom Night cutscene. And the metal hitting Micheal and making a metal "clank" wouldn't work if there wasn't already metal.

So I agree that most theorists are using the wrong method. But I have a method that does the same thing, but without all the speculation about what the author may have "meant". So why switch over to yours? It makes the same predictions, while also avoiding things that are more than likely false.

So I try a wholistic approach to theorizing, attempting to guess what the bigger picture is while I’m looking for clues, and refining the jigsaw puzzle a bit more each iteration as more and more pieces fall into place.

Just make sure you derive the picture from the pieces, not the pieces from the picture.