What's your favorite headcanon?

[Bohandas]

Airstrip 1 from 1984 is an isolated North Korea style rogue nation. None of what they say about the state of the world is true

[Celestia]

I lost interest in the Silmarillion at about the point where I started confusing characters with "fin" in their name with one another (this was some time shortly after Maedhros' predicament on the cliffside; I will freely admit that part was awesome), but I 100% support this theory.

Wait, which one are you talking about? Finwë? Fingolfin? Finarfin? Fingon? Findis? Finduilas? Finrod?

[Knaight]

There's some definition imprecision here, but if a definition is used that involves adding something to a work to make the rest of it palatable I have two.

The Croods: I strongly suspect we're meant to read them as a cave family in Earth's past, but there are so many reasons that just doesn't work that trying to do so was ruining the movie for me. Replacing that with an alternate hypothesis involving a soft science fiction series set well after a nuclear apocalypse on an alien planet that has been reclaimed by nature and has an ecosystem made largely out of earth imports that have either evolved dramatically for the new environment or been genetically altered in the apocalyptic war was much more fun. That plus a series of jokes at the movie made it palatable, and none of it technically contradicts anything explicitly.

Legend of Zelda: The imposition of a broader canon through the convoluted timeline that connects the games is just stupid. So I generally just ignore it entirely, instead interpreting each game as a retelling of what is fundamentally one story with the lots of the same trappings (characters, items, whatever) cropping up repeatedly.

[Seppl]

Airstrip 1 from 1984 is an isolated North Korea style rogue nation. None of what they say about the state of the world is true

Glad to hear, I am not the only one with that idea

[Celestia]

Legend of Zelda: The imposition of a broader canon through the convoluted timeline that connects the games is just stupid. So I generally just ignore it entirely, instead interpreting each game as a retelling of what is fundamentally one story with the lots of the same trappings (characters, items, whatever) cropping up repeatedly.

I've heard this one before, and I do like it. The Legend of Zelda is actually a telephone game where each story emerges from a single source. They all share certain key elements, but specific details are altered, added, or dropped through the various "retellings." I think it fits the lore aspect much better. Though, I do still enjoy the idea of Link as the multi-incarnate hero because that better maintains immersion. It explains why this kid who's never even seen a bow his entire life can suddenly shoot like Robin Hood and Legolas's illegitimate love child the moment he picks one up.

[Deepbluediver]

Season 2 of Firefly opens with Mal calling everyone to the cargo hold in preparation for decanting Wash and Book from their cloning tanks.

[Traab]

I've heard this one before, and I do like it. The Legend of Zelda is actually a telephone game where each story emerges from a single source. They all share certain key elements, but specific details are altered, added, or dropped through the various "retellings." I think it fits the lore aspect much better. Though, I do still enjoy the idea of Link as the multi-incarnate hero because that better maintains immersion. It explains why this kid who's never even seen a bow his entire life can suddenly shoot like Robin Hood and Legolas's illegitimate love child the moment he picks one up.

I look on link as a mad max style folk lore hero. Basically, all these grand world saving adventures may or may not have happened, but its always attributed to this ageless eternal hero who always shows up to save the day. Was he ever real? I dunno, maybe. The point though, is we are actually hearing someone tell the story to an audience. Think 300 and how the entire thing was narrated by a spartan to glorify his king to a greek army. None of those crazy things happened. Leonidas stood, he fought, and he fell to an army of men. Not to dark magic users, immortals, mutant beasts, etc etc etc. But that doesnt make for an epic enough story to rally the troops. So in the various zeldas we get boulder throwing braclets, a hero able to fire off beams of energy from his sword, who can take dozens of blows from a giant hydra and continue to fight, etc etc etc. An undying hero who will always turn up when the world needs saving.

[Thrudd]

To make a meta argument though for canonicity, 'headcanon' isn't used in that exclusive a manner though. Usage is ultimately the only authority on a word's meaning, especially with Neologisms. In fact, the 'I substitute my meaning for the original' is more intuitive, because the usage of the term canon seems unnecessary for what's essentially, this is my interpretation of the story, or of the story's background. The influence of the Powers in LOTR isn't even filling in a gap, it's merely one of a set of possible conclusions regarding Tolkien's subtext on that subject. From a literary standpoint, giving a term to frame one's interpretation of a work is somewhere East of Morder in saying, this is my opinion in your persuasive essay.

Headcanon isn't any better really though for reality substitution, because it denotes one feels the need to imply an independent universe for preference. You don't. 'This part of the writing was absurd, this is how it should have happened' needs no defense. That's the artistic freedom of criticism. The other issue is that canon itself can be prone to contradiction when it isn't being altered, so even the more gap filling creation requires some personal intrusion. Copyright law is not something I esteem particularly highly when discussing the merits of one's personal significance with a work, either as a creator or receiver. For most of history people simply altered previous works anyway they wanted without some dodgy claim to supreme authority.

People sharing their interpretations either way is fine, but regardless the term seems rather pretentiously unnecessary.

I agree, the term is unnecessary But it seems necessary to clarify what is being asked when they ask "what's your favorite headcanon?" Neologisms tend to be annoying in that way - they don't always or even often use the traditional definition of words or take a word that refers specifically to one thing and start applying it to a wide range of only vaguely related things. Even within the subculture that gave rise to them, terms like this don't always have a specific definition that is obvious to all members.

I would clarify whether we are asking "what works of fiction would you like to have changed?" or about explaining/adding to a work of fiction in order to make more sense of what exists. The goal of the latter, I presume would be an attempt to resolve any and all contradictions that appear in the original work as well as explaining things which seem to need explaining. If the explanation doesn't fit what appeared in the work, contradictions and all, then you're doing the other thing (suggesting changes to the work so the whole thing makes more sense, or is just "better").

My comments were not made to claim it is wrong to do either thing, nor was I claiming anything about copyrights or people's right to critique anything. Just clarifying what I think the term "headcanon" means or should mean in the pursuit of precision.

[DomaDoma]

Either way, the implication is essentially that there's a plot hole, a dissatisfactory part of the premise, et cetera. Whereas my headcanons all seem generated from the thought process: "Oooh, these are neat facets of the world, and what if we put them together at this angle?"

I'm thinking the local definition of "headcanon" is being colored by the general GitP nitpickery, in the same way that the Tumblr definition of "headcanon" is colored by their emphasis on demographic identity and overenthusiastic rhapsodies of extrapolation.

Headcanon is broader than any of that. It's simply a thing you like to regard as a fact of the story, despite the fact that it's not explicitly stated. Sequels that never happened, morbid it-was-all-a-dying-hallucination scenarios, long-winded fantasies about the plight of the Slytherin first-year admitted the term after the Battle of Hogwarts, deciding what happens if you apply Magical Rule X in a trickily paradoxical way, your theory on what the deal is with Lisbeth Salander's sister... it's all headcanon. Relax.

[Legato Endless]

Here's a weird one from the gap filling side of things. Batman is a non practicing Episcopalian. Cross bottony occasionally appear on the graves of his parents, most assuredly because an artist thought they looked cool than any real symbolism. Nevertheless, I rather like the imagery, especially because it holds well with some cultural mores of Batman's characterization. The default response one usually sees as Batman being an avatar as 'rationalism' implies he'd be an atheist. But since he lives in the DC Universe, this is fairly absurd.

Snip

I completely agree.

[Celestia]

Here's a weird one from the gap filling side of things. Batman is a non practicing Episcopalian. Cross bottony occasionally appear on the graves of his parents, most assuredly because an artist thought they looked cool than any real symbolism. Nevertheless, I rather like the imagery, especially because it holds well with some cultural mores of Batman's characterization. The default response one usually sees as Batman being an avatar as 'rationalism' implies he'd be an atheist. But since he lives in the DC Universe, this is fairly absurd.

Extremely unlikely given that at least one Batman writer has explicitly stated that he believes Batman is Episcopalian. And it's actually a very common interpretation by fans. Frank Miller characterized him as Catholic, but Miller is also a total nutbag, so take that one with a grain of salt.

[Pex]

The Maquis of Voyager are given a pardon for their service to Voyager, and the Cardassians are defeated anyway. Chakotay, however, does not return to Starfleet. Seven of Nine and Icheb are questioned about the Borg. Icheb enrolls in Starfleet Academy. Seven and Chakotay settle down somewhere peaceful. Tom Paris is also pardoned for his crimes. He, Be'lanna, and their daughter live in San Francisco and begin to reconcile with their fathers. The Doctor works in Starfleet Medical. When Janeway is promoted to Admiral she recommends Tuvok to be Captain of Voyager. Harry Kim finally gets his Lieutenant pips.

Bajor is officially welcomed into the Federation. Bajor formally owns Deep Space Nine, commanded by General Kira, but as a member of the Federation Starfleet personnel man the station along with Bajorans. The Romulans do leave Betazed and the former Cardassian territory but receive compensation for their assistance in the Dominion War with some systems in the Neutral Zone becoming officially Romulan. They retain hostility towards the Klingons and for now remain silent towards the Federation. Systems that were ceded to Cardassia in the previous treaty, the one that created the Maquis, become independent. Some, but not all, join the Federation. The Klingons are happy enough with the Victory but claim and given a fair share of technological knowledge and resources the Federation would get from the liberated systems. They must also be given all knowledge gained about the Dominion, now and in the future. The Federation helps Cardassia rebuild. Their space empire gone, excepting their own colonies, Cardassia considers joining The Federation as a means of survival. Garak spreads the word of calling it The Root Beer Option. For now talk is to have Cardassia be under provisional consideration, much like Bajor was.

[Velaryon]

With respect, the dark side is explicitly referred to as an aspect of the Force. Multiple times. In the movies, not just the EU. Even disregarding every non-film source, the Force has always been depicted as two sided thing. In the most recent film, Kylo Ren mentions being drawn to the Light side, and it's explicitly canon. The dark side may represent chaos and entropy. but guess what? Those are actual important aspects of the universe, and without them, reality would not exist.

It seems to me that you're lionizing the Jedi, and feel affronted that anything bad could come from them and/or anything negative that did is the Dark side's fault, but good things can have bad consequences, and vice versa. The entire SW universe exists in the dynamic tension between these two forces, and suggesting that getting rid of one of them fixes anything seems shortsighted at best.

Word of George Lucas was that "bringing balance to the Force" meant eliminating the Dark Side. In his canon, there was no Light Side, just the Force, and the Dark Side was a corruption or cancer upon it that had to be removed to bring the Force back into balance. It's late and I need to go to bed, otherwise I'd keep trying to find a primary source for this statement, but it's all over the internet if you google it.

Of course, now that Lucas is out and Disney owns Star Wars, who knows what the "official" stance is?

The Star Wars movies are not an exact depiction of the events therein. They are relayed to us by an unreliable narrator, and that narrator is R2-D2.

I actually really like this idea.

My own Star Wars headcanon(s):

The Boba Fett we see in the OT and the EU is not the boy we see in Attack of the Clones. Rather than retconning away the backstory established in the EU that Fett was Jaster Mareel, I had it that Mareel killed Jango Fett's clone and assumed his identity. Mostly because I really hated Attack of the Clones and preferred the EU to anything from the prequels. But these days I don't much care either way.

The original EU, Star Wars Legends or whatever it's called now, ended after The Unifying Force, meaning that the entire Legacy of the Force and Fate of the Jedi series did not happen. Neither did the Legacy Era comics. Or any of the comics, really, except maybe the old Tales of the Jedi stuff, those were okay.

[Fiery Diamond]

Legend of Zelda: The imposition of a broader canon through the convoluted timeline that connects the games is just stupid. So I generally just ignore it entirely, instead interpreting each game as a retelling of what is fundamentally one story with the lots of the same trappings (characters, items, whatever) cropping up repeatedly.

I've heard this one before. I dislike it. Part of that is the fact that I have a pathological hatred for the entire concept of "Death of the Author." It's been explicitly stated that there is a timeline (a split one, but still) and each game is a separate story. Regardless of whether you think it's stupid (which I strongly disagree with; in fact, I think that thinking it's stupid is stupid), it is the fact. Heck, that there is some sort of linear connection is even alluded to IN THE GAMES THEMSELVES. See - OoT/MM, WW/PH/ST, and Windwaker's opening.

Now, the idea that these are all mythical stories about actual events, all attributed to an ever-incarnating legendary hero, is more palatable. Because that, at least, doesn't actively contradict the games, just the creators. The actual stories of the games are far, far too different to all be retellings of the same story with their own embellishments. I mean, I could maybe buy TP and OoT being different tellings of the same story, but either of those being the same story as Wind Waker or, say, Minish Cap, is patently absurd.

My own headcanon about the series is one that contradicts canon established in Skyward Sword (info that I got upset at SS for including). Mine is that reincarnation is not a thing. Zelda =/= Hylia, Link doesn't reincarnate. Instead, there is a spiritual essence that is passed on, a spiritual inheritance. Zelda inherited from Hylia (and subsequently from previous Zeldas), Ganondorf inherited from Demise, and Link inherits from previous Links; but they aren't the same people. The Ganondorf/Demise one is actual SS canon; I prefer to think of Link and Zelda being the same way rather than reincarnations. Mostly because A) it's thematically appropriate to the whole "Legend" concept and B) I hate the idea of reincarnation and it makes me uncomfortable.

[Androgeus]

The Romulans do leave Betazed

I mean, it was the Dominion that occupied Bajor, but sure.

Oh also going back to the first page

Pex lives!

I thought this was confirmed by the graffiti at the end.

[Knaight]

I've heard this one before. I dislike it. Part of that is the fact that I have a pathological hatred for the entire concept of "Death of the Author." It's been explicitly stated that there is a timeline (a split one, but still) and each game is a separate story. Regardless of whether you think it's stupid (which I strongly disagree with; in fact, I think that thinking it's stupid is stupid), it is the fact. Heck, that there is some sort of linear connection is even alluded to IN THE GAMES THEMSELVES. See - OoT/MM, WW/PH/ST, and Windwaker's opening.

I'd agree that it's the fact. My argument is that the series would be better had it been treated that way, not that it somehow was treated that way, and that each game is more enjoyable if the whole extended timeline is completely ignored (OoT/MM, and WW/PH/ST are taken as groups here - it's tying them into things like SS or TP where the official timeline gets ridiculous). Granted, I suspect my distaste for setting agglomerates and the practice of not letting works that should be in disparate settings be in disparate settings* is probably just as strong as your distaste for Death of the Author, so there's that. I also was speaking at a somewhat more meta level - the works themselves are retellings of a basic story with a lot of repeat characters; the claim that they're part of a timeline comes across as an unconvincing retcon, and while it does apply to those made after said retcon they can be largely ignored.

Now, the idea that these are all mythical stories about actual events, all attributed to an ever-incarnating legendary hero, is more palatable. Because that, at least, doesn't actively contradict the games, just the creators. The actual stories of the games are far, far too different to all be retellings of the same story with their own embellishments. I mean, I could maybe buy TP and OoT being different tellings of the same story, but either of those being the same story as Wind Waker or, say, Minish Cap, is patently absurd.

Have you seen how dramatically different different tellings of, say, Sherlock Holmes get? Or take the King Arthur stories, and the range that goes into them.

*The whole concept of the single Marvel and DC comic book settings where every single superhero they have needs to be jammed in them is a particularly egregious example, but there are plenty of cases where I'd consider the whole broader canon to be a nuisance best ignored.

[Eldan]

Season 2 of Firefly opens with Mal calling everyone to the cargo hold in preparation for decanting Wash and Book from their cloning tanks.

Wash yes. I mean, his death did serve a function in the movie, showing that **** got real. But if the series would be continued, we'd need him back.

Book, maybe less so? His death felt meaningful and good to me. Wouldn't want to undo that. Though he still has a lot of backstory open that might be nice to see, that can still be brought up later even though he is dead.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'd agree that it's the fact. My argument is that the series would be better had it been treated that way, not that it somehow was treated that way, and that each game is more enjoyable if the whole extended timeline is completely ignored (OoT/MM, and WW/PH/ST are taken as groups here - it's tying them into things like SS or TP where the official timeline gets ridiculous). Granted, I suspect my distaste for setting agglomerates and the practice of not letting works that should be in disparate settings be in disparate settings* is probably just as strong as your distaste for Death of the Author, so there's that. I also was speaking at a somewhat more meta level - the works themselves are retellings of a basic story with a lot of repeat characters; the claim that they're part of a timeline comes across as an unconvincing retcon, and while it does apply to those made after said retcon they can be largely ignored.


Have you seen how dramatically different different tellings of, say, Sherlock Holmes get? Or take the King Arthur stories, and the range that goes into them.

*The whole concept of the single Marvel and DC comic book settings where every single superhero they have needs to be jammed in them is a particularly egregious example, but there are plenty of cases where I'd consider the whole broader canon to be a nuisance best ignored.

...I think you have a vastly different idea of what "different tellings of the same story" means than I do. Both of your examples are not singular stories. Sherlock Holmes is a character, as are Dr. Watson and Moriarity. They have archetypes and themes. Each case that Sherlock Holmes solves is its own story. You can say there are different versions of Sherlock Holmes (for example, the original works, the Benedict Cumberbatch [or whatever his name is] show, Elementary); they are not the same story. They are reimaginings of the characters, and the setting changes are warped around to match those imaginings. They are not retellings, they are entirely separate stories borrowing characters from earlier works. Now, calling, say Game of Shadows a retelling of the story in the original works in which the nemeses tumbled down the falls would be more accurate, but the differences there aren't anywhere near the scale we're talking about with highly different Zelda games.

The King Arthur comparison is better, but again, there aren't really as many VASTLY different ones that are straight retellings rather than being additions to the collective of "stories(plural) about King Arthur." I'll grant there are some, though.

[GloatingSwine]

Wash yes. I mean, his death did serve a function in the movie, showing that **** got real. But if the series would be continued, we'd need him back.

Actually, it kinda didn't because ten minutes later the whole plot is resolved by Mal being magically immune to the Operative's Vulcan Kidney Punch, so **** very much did not get real and the alleged danger the main cast were now in was totally undermined, and retrospectively Wash's death was just Joss throwing a middle finger to the audience because he could.


Let's face it, Joss Whedon does not have a particularly good track record with movies. Yeah, sure, he blames external meddling, but barring The Avengers which lets face it people would have liked as long as it didn't go full Michael Bay his movies have all had some kind of downfall. Serenity had Wash dying like a bitch for what turned out to be no dramatic reason and didn't really give Inara much to do except smoulder at the camera, Age of Ultron had a dull villain we didn't really care about, and even The Avengers if you actually listen to the dialogue it's not real human speech, it's 100% Whedonisms. (Witty banter is fine when it's not the only mode of speech in an entire film.)

Even as a writer things have tended to go wrong, Alien Resurrection, for instance.

Maybe Toy Story was an accident? Maybe people with other skills are required to moderate him.

[DomaDoma]

...I think you have a vastly different idea of what "different tellings of the same story" means than I do. Both of your examples are not singular stories. Sherlock Holmes is a character, as are Dr. Watson and Moriarity. They have archetypes and themes. Each case that Sherlock Holmes solves is its own story. You can say there are different versions of Sherlock Holmes (for example, the original works, the Benedict Cumberbatch [or whatever his name is] show, Elementary); they are not the same story. They are reimaginings of the characters, and the setting changes are warped around to match those imaginings. They are not retellings, they are entirely separate stories borrowing characters from earlier works. Now, calling, say Game of Shadows a retelling of the story in the original works in which the nemeses tumbled down the falls would be more accurate, but the differences there aren't anywhere near the scale we're talking about with highly different Zelda games.

What about the sillier incarnations, like (to list the ones people admit to watching) Hayao Miyazaki, The Great Mouse Detective, or Basil Rathbone? You know, action-adventures that wind up involving steampunk robots and cartoon-style hypnotism with startling frequency?

Or, heck, we can just isolate Irene Adler. She's a markedly different character in every incarnation. (Except, of course, Brett.)

[The Glyphstone]

What about the sillier incarnations, like (to list the ones people admit to watching) Hayao Miyazaki, The Great Mouse Detective, or Basil Rathbone? You know, action-adventures that wind up involving steampunk robots and cartoon-style hypnotism with startling frequency?

Or, heck, we can just isolate Irene Adler. She's a markedly different character in every incarnation. (Except, of course, Brett.)

Don't you dare leave Sherlock Holmes In The 22nd Century off that list of silly Holmes incarnations.

[Deepbluediver]

Wash yes. I mean, his death did serve a function in the movie, showing that **** got real. But if the series would be continued, we'd need him back.

Book, maybe less so? His death felt meaningful and good to me. Wouldn't want to undo that. Though he still has a lot of backstory open that might be nice to see, that can still be brought up later even though he is dead.

Fair enough- personally I thought Wash's death was totally unnecessary, and I had just started with that, but the last time I mentioned this to someone they're first response was "what about Book?" so I added him in as well.

[Pocgels]

Anything where somebody proves a character is literally Satan is usually pretty good

[Vinyadan]

There are no Star Wars prequels. Dr Zhivago is the only prequel to the original trilogy. Zhivago became Darth Vader, and the Soviet Union the Galactic Empire.

[Eldan]

Actually, it kinda didn't because ten minutes later the whole plot is resolved by Mal being magically immune to the Operative's Vulcan Kidney Punch, so **** very much did not get real and the alleged danger the main cast were now in was totally undermined, and retrospectively Wash's death was just Joss throwing a middle finger to the audience because he could.


Let's face it, Joss Whedon does not have a particularly good track record with movies. Yeah, sure, he blames external meddling, but barring The Avengers which lets face it people would have liked as long as it didn't go full Michael Bay his movies have all had some kind of downfall. Serenity had Wash dying like a bitch for what turned out to be no dramatic reason and didn't really give Inara much to do except smoulder at the camera, Age of Ultron had a dull villain we didn't really care about, and even The Avengers if you actually listen to the dialogue it's not real human speech, it's 100% Whedonisms. (Witty banter is fine when it's not the only mode of speech in an entire film.)

Even as a writer things have tended to go wrong, Alien Resurrection, for instance.

Maybe Toy Story was an accident? Maybe people with other skills are required to moderate him.

Fair enough. Let me change that to "Wash's death was intended (or said to) to serve a function"

[Durkoala]

Ignoring the brewing argument to put forward my own favourites

Overwatch:

D.Va is a competant and professional, if rather eccentric, soldier who's found her place in the world. She might not have all the answers or experience of her elders, but she's as unshakable and capable as any of them.

The real nervous rookie looking for her purpose in life is Pharah. She's wanted to be in Overwatch all her life, but feels overshadowed by her mother's legacy and awed at being among idols. Before the recall, she was chasing the dream of being Overwatch, but acutely aware that Helix wasn't even enough to be Overwatch's shadow, let alone its successor.

Jack Morrison, Gabriel Reyes and Ana Amari were only ever friends and comrades, later to become enemies.


Miraculous Ladybug:

Adrien was the chosen prize when their powers were handed to them and Marinette was a gamble that paid off immensely. Seriously, the girl got the most basic hero test and can't walk between rooms without tripping over her feet, while Adrien came trained in fighting and let go of everything he wanted because an old man halfway down the street needed help.

[Amaril]

Overwatch:

D.Va is a competant and professional, if rather eccentric, soldier who's found her place in the world. She might not have all the answers or experience of her elders, but she's as unshakable and capable as any of them.

Agreement, and addition: her usual cutesy, cheerful attitude is totally an act, something she puts on for her fanbase. At least, it used to be, before she started getting so used to doing it that she sort of forgot it was fake. Underneath, she's angry, aggressive, and competitive--her gamer trash-talk is no joke, she just makes it seem that way to be appealing to viewers.

The real nervous rookie looking for her purpose in life is Pharah. She's wanted to be in Overwatch all her life, but feels overshadowed by her mother's legacy and awed at being among idols. Before the recall, she was chasing the dream of being Overwatch, but acutely aware that Helix wasn't even enough to be Overwatch's shadow, let alone its successor.

Eh, I'm not sure about this. But Pharah is far from my favorite, and I've never paid her that much attention, so I don't know.

Jack Morrison, Gabriel Reyes and Ana Amari were only ever friends and comrades, later to become enemies.

As opposed to whatever tangled web of romance some people shove them into? Not sure if there's a specific theory you're disagreeing with, but I still think you're right.

Some of my own:

• Genji is more of an Adam Jensen cyborg than a Raiden cyborg. Much of what we usually see is just armor, which he can take off.
• Hanzo is gay, but keeps it mostly secret due to his conservative upbringing.
• Reaper's degeneration causes him extreme chronic pain. As soon as he's had his revenge on everyone he holds responsible, he plans on eating one of his own shotguns.
• Mei suffers from PTSD after her ordeal at Watchpoint: Antarctica. One of her coping mechanisms is a safety blanket-like attachment to her coat, which is why she's almost never seen without it.

[Sapphire Guard]

In the Mortal Instruments books, Asmodeus returns the leads to their homeworld because he thinks they're idiots that will weaken the government rather than let someone competent take charge.

[Velaryon]

[*]Mei suffers from PTSD after her ordeal at Watchpoint: Antarctica. One of her coping mechanisms is a safety blanket-like attachment to her coat, which is why she's almost never seen without it.[/list]

Given what a pain in the arse every single game mode set in Antarctica is, I have no problem at all accepting this theory.

Speaking of Overwatch headcanon, my personal theory (until it's disproven) is that Pharah's father is Native American, specifically Eyak. This Tumblr post makes me want it to be so.

However, I like to also think that Ana and Reinhardt were a thing once, and remained friends even though it perhaps didn't work out. I'm not really into shipping, but it seems to me there is at least a little something more than friendship between them.

[Hunter Noventa]

"If the Emperor had a text-to-speech device" is my 40k Headcanon.