You know what? William getting more characterisation than Mike is unfortunately fitting given their roles in the story. "The abuser and all that he did over-shadows the life and character of the abused"
The reason people (including me) love characters like Michael or Vanny/Vanessa mostly comes from headcanon and fan works. The FNAF fandom does a lot of the heavy lifting to make these underdeveloped characters likable and interesting.
I mean Vanessa has a lot more to go off of. Like girl even has a personality despite having it changed drastically before security breach was released but hey at least she has one. Also I agree with the fact that people find Michael interesting because you can develop his character since he doesn’t really have a personality. However I think this is probably why I hate his character in general though (fandom Michael I mean) they stray away from the little lighthearted things he has/likes and give him the most idiotic backstory/personality ever. But again sorry for the tangent. Like the Michael we have rn in canon lore is tolerable and Fandom Michael I can’t 😭🔫
The downside is that since all of it is fan theory and speculation. It leads to more disappointment from the official release because it never corolates to what the fans have anticipated or manifested
@@darkstalker696 yeah, I've been working on a paper for a few years about how the speed of communication affects the development of serialized works. When we look at something like harry potter there is a clear point at which rowling's style grew to be more geared towards screen adaptation. How might this have affected tolkien? Of course this is a bit different to fnaf as the series relies on obtuse, limited storytelling. But how much of that is scott skewing to be closer to fan expectations or more different? I think thats one of the things that hurts a lot of games more than books or movies is that a lot of the game experience is gameplay. A movie can just be vague and you can discuss and thats the point. People watching these games (and not playing them) don't have that part of the experience and so expect there's a concrete conclusion when thats not the case or even the point. That said, Scott baiting the fandom is not helpful
While I was never Mike’s biggest fan, he had a lot of potential. Too bad he was killed off and forgotten about as soon as he was introduced though. A missed opportunity imo. It’s only sadder when you consider that the same thing happened with Vanny, Ennard, Baby and the Blob. All potentially great characters/villains.
I don’t think he’s as worse as a case for the other characters you listed off. I think he could’ve been handled a little better but, I think he was great for what he was.
Well, the Blob isn't dead. It's just digging through the Pizzaplex, potentially trying to find a way out (and is the entire reason the Pizzaplex is in the condition that it is). It definitely seems like the type of character that will be important sometime in the future.
i think the problems with mike are sort of emblematic of the problem’s with fnaf’s storytelling as a whole- they almost never state anything out loud, and if something shares a name or visuals with something else, it’s up to us to puzzle out if they’re actually related or if it’s just a recurring bit of iconography.
Well that's what made fnaf interesting in the first place, there is too many puzzles you should solve to understand the full lore which it's fun, but sometimes bad.
Mike is an excellent example of some of FNAFs biggest problem, and that is proper character writing. Whether it's Scott, Steelwool, or the writers of these books, none of them take the time to plan out who their characters are and what importance they have to the story. As an independent writer myself I always establish my characters first before I even write the first page about them. The series is quite frustrating with it's half-hearted writing issues
But the difference with Scott and the others is that Scott is not a writer, he's a game dev, he didn't expect the game to become a franchise so he just made lore based on suggestions rather than pre planning and execution. The first and second game are barely related to one another just because of the 6th night call saying the thing about kids missing, other than that they are different games. He did make mistakes by the time FNAF 4 and SL came around, he committed the "Game of Thrones writer" sin of subverting people's expectations rather than giving them what they wanted for years and probably should have gotten, e.g. The bite of 87 Steel wool and the book writers are terrible though because they had YEARS of pre-planning and lore background to work with and they came up with terrible character and stories
@@anibalrodriguez2626 I disagree. Scott made many story driven RPGs before FNaF, that's actually his favourite genre of game to make. I think Scott was and is a story-teller at heart but his writing and specifically character writing wasn't really up to snuff a lot of the time.
@@jimUkay I think he was flying by the seat of his pants a lot of the time and making things up without the thought that much of it really needed. I think after the first game he needed to spend more time thinking about the story he wanted to tell in more detail instead of rushing to make a second and third game.
I keep looking at it thinking "Scott isn't a writer." Creative, yes. Highly. But this is a major thing to explode in popularity all because he struck a chord with a balance between nostalgia and video-game level acceptable violence. Genius, in that regard. I hope he hires a ghost writer to help him bring it into focus. I'd love to write stuff set in a world where Freddy's exists. It's got potential.
A redo of the character encyclopedia “written by” Mike would be so cool to see. Him cataloging his experience and thoughts on each of them would provide a lot of insight to both him, and them. *”Foxy. Loved him as a kid, can’t stand to look at him now. Not after what happened all those years ago. His teeth and hook are sharp enough to tear through flesh, and he’s faster than he lets on. He keeps out of sight, away from cameras, and his body looks like it’s been through hell and back. Maybe he and I aren’t so different at all…”* *”Circus Baby. Anytime I think about her, I only ask: ‘Why?’ ‘Why did father make her like that? Why does she look like that? And why did she kill Elizabeth? I wouldn’t even spend time around her, if not for my job. I don’t need to think about her, or Elizabeth. Freddy must be a figurehead, since it’s clear she leads the Funtimes. What bothers me is her personality. She’s planning something. I hear it in her voice. It makes me think about Elizabeth more than ever. Father has some explaining to do, when I find him.”*
I see Mike's journey as one of redemption. He was partially responsible for the brutal death of his younger brother. He's realized just what sort of person his father is and he wants to stop him from causing anymore pain. To me, we definitely play as him in FNAF 1-3, 4 and Sister Location show his motivation, and his journey ends in the FNAF 6 fire. I'm open to the idea of his lingering spirit/Remnant possessing Glamrock Freddy and him using protecting Gregory as a chance to be the big brother he should've been to Evan (yeah, I believe the crying child's name is Evan...) but as for what we've been given? I'm sticking with my idea.
even mike being responsible for his little brother's death is shaky because for an animatronic to be able to inflict that much damage in the first place shady construction choices have been made irl animatronic builds would struggle to give the kid more then some lacerations let alone what was said to have happened
The reason Michael is my favorite fnaf character because he has an actual understandable motivation. William may be interesting but his reasons for killing are really vague, was it because he lost his two kids and wanted to inflict that same pain on someone else or his he's some weird spiritual scientist trying to became immortal? Michael actually explains a question that I've had, why the fuck would the security guard stay? He has to have some big personal stakes to keep risking his life night after night at multiple locations.
@@Wizardjones69 I think you could find a different reason for the initial 5 missing children deaths because William wanted to possibly "fix" the crying child and Elizabeth by giving them new bodies which did work with Elizabeth, but Charlie's death was just pure retaliation due to the fact he didn't yet know the supernatural existed so his actions were out of grief and spite against Henry.
The fact he had a whole fusion of animatronics go inside his body and was still kicking after they left is pretty awful. Like just imagine a walking corpse with most likely a big hole in his stomach walking around in the shadows that’s pretty sad. He had to live like this for who knows how long and was just progressively rotting away. We don’t question how he was getting these security jobs but I’m sure he met a nice mortician who tried to make him look alive or who knows maybe he got a whole silicon suit😂
A lot of fanart just depicts post-scooper Michael as just barely hiding his rotting body with a hoodie and a face mask, or literally wearing a little bear mask. Fazbear Entertainment clearly doesn't do background checks.
I like to put Mike in these steps 1: starting pain (bite of 83) 2: facing pain (fnaf 1,2,3,4 possibly, sister location) 3:ending pain ( pizza simulator) 4:preventing pain ( security breach if he’s freddy)
i don't mind mike's lackluster characterization at all. i actually like it. i think he's a great silent protagonist and the little bits we know about him are interesting to collect and i find his generic traits kinda cute. i guess i just don't feel like i NEED to know much more about him
Honestly how I view it as well. I think Mike is ultimately a silent protagonist. He talks only once and while I think he could’ve been done better, I like that there’s things you DONT know.
Molten Freddy said "Together again!" and Afton saying "You nay not recognize me at first, but I assure you, it's still me." does outright confirm that we play as Michael Afton in Pizzeria Simulator.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 True. My issue with the movie being its own universe is that this is the first time we actually get to see what sort of character Michael is, but it's set in a different continuity with his backstory being completely different. Does world building not even exist in the FNaF universe? The novels give William and Henry a backstory, but the games don't. Why? Tales of the Pizzaplex fleshes out Gregory and the Mimic, but the games don't. Again, why? Why do we need to use AU's and separate canons and continuities in order to get some kind of backstory for a main character?
@A.B.-ub9un I know right?! They've been doing that for most of the story. Where certain parts of the games can explain the book stuff and the certain book stuff may explain the game stuff, it is really frustrating at points to not have it all in one place. And most of this world building is fan speculation, which again can get frustrating.
"And for you, my brave volunteer, who somehow found this job listened, not intended for you, although there is a way out, I have a feeling that's not what you want, I have a feeling that you are right where you want to be [...]"
Honestly I kinda want Mike Schmitt to be his own character. I just find the idea of this guy who's completely fine with haunted animatronics trying to kill him, and puts up with it for a measly 100$ hilarious.
Michael being the son of the main antagonist, give writers a lot to work with. Like we could have had a storyline where he finds out about William murdering the MCI, or him dealing with the fact that he looks just like or at the very least close enough to William to where the animatronics believe he’s William. But instead we got nothing.
I think Micheal’s character is carried by the fandom who gives him a personality, cuz the game don’t give him anything. If you like Mike you’re probably thinking of the head canon version people make of him. The real character shown in the games is lacking personality.
I honestly think that Michael Afton can be considered a symptom of one of FNAF's biggest problems: its refusal to properly characterize and develop its characters. This might have been fine in the first few games when the main character was a mostly silent protagonist with no backstory. But once they started giving them voices and implied histories, it just begged for deeper characterization. Pizzeria Simulator is a big example of this. Despite some hints we're playing as Michael, not only does the game never outright state it, but assuming we are (and I chose to believe it because otherwise makes Michael's promise to hunt down his father pointless), he doesn't get anything in terms of characterization. None. Dude doesn't even get a voice, which is confusing. Was Scott not just able to get his VA back? The fact that his there with both his sister and father and has nothing to say about either of them doesn't help. You'd think that after salvaging Scraptrap he'd be like "Hello, Father. I told you I would find you". Or after salvaging Scrap Baby he'd be like "Sister...". Even if it's just internal monologue, it would help flesh him out just ever so slightly. But I guess asking for even that bare minimum is too much from this franchise, huh? Side note: totally agree that Michael should have been the one giving the speech at the end of Pizzeria Simulator.
fun fact, William and Michael are both voiced by the same man, P. J. Heywood. and since William Afton has new lines in Fnaf 6, that means Scott Cawthon WAS able to bring back Michaels va, and then proceeded to not write any new dialogue of michael for PJ Heywood to preform 😭
I know that Scott has said that the games would be only focusing on the future from now on but GOD do I wish there was a game to explain Michael's motivations, his relationship with all of his siblings (seems strangely disconnected from Elizabeth??) what he was doing in-between games etc.. I just feel so sad that Michael has been thrown away because there is such a good story of redemption, being expected to follow your dad in the family business and how we try to stray from those expectations and end up doing it in a alternate way. Ugh Scott put me in coach i wanna give this boy a STORY! 😢
I find it funny that Mike is my favorite character, I guess it’s just because there’s so little information we have about him that I make my own little idea of who mike really is in my mind, lol.
It’s really funny to think how much of a different focus Mike had in the fandom vs the games and such. Similar thing happened to phone guy where he really didn’t have that much to him, but the fandom breathed life into him through involvement in theories and such. Though it’s really sad to think how much Mike was screwed in the games and such. Fnaf wasted a lot of potential with how little of a role he actually plays, though fnaf is pretty familiar with wasting potentially good characters (Ennard, baby, crying child, and probably lots of others.) Also: 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
When you said "Who wouldn't scream at the puppet," all I have to say is you gave the puppet an 11/12 on the kissable chart to counteract that statement.
I actually really like Michael, or at least the version of created by Sire Squacks and other in the fandom. However, I definitely agree that he needs to be given more time to shine and I do really wish we’d gotten a series based around him going around dealing with Fazbear related shenanigans.
I agree with you, We don't know really anything about Michael, We know more about Gregory than we do Michael which is very weird just because Michael is so important in the game Lore.
I assume it’s due to way that Scott wrote out his characters, and how SW does it. Like Mike for example, he’s not really cut and dry and you can’t pick up on his personality in the games. But you can pick up a little more on someone like Gregory.
Glad to see a lot of people is starting to realize this. People would always get upset when I try to tell them you don’t really know nothing about Micheal. Than they would go on a long explanation about “ he want to save the souls, fix his sister; stop his father and I’m like those are all just theories. We don’t even know for sure if he foxybro. We loved this video. They are amazing.
@@KavinCatastropheI thought it was clear he went down to fix his sister, who died in baby. With William, maybe it’s way I’m interpreting it, but I thought him saying “I’m going to come and find you” meant he’s going to stop him.
@@notrealnamenotatall2476 Exactly. You can most obviously interpret that as him saying he going to stop him. But he technically doesn’t say that so anyone can interpret that line as something completely different.
I think the biggest issue with Mike is that he could potentially be in multiple games and locations. For instance, it would feel really anticlimactic for him to give that whole speech in Sister Location about finding William if he isn't in Pizzeria Simulator. And the numerous Fredbear plush cameras all over the FNAF 4 house along with the empty girl's room kinda links Elizabeth, Crying Child and Mike together. Mostly because it would be weird to have super secret Fredbear plushies all over the FNAF 4 house AND cameras in the Secret Bunker of Sister Location that show the FNAF 4 house if it wasn't William's house. And Mike could potentially be in FNAF 1. Maybe even multiple locations we've seen in the franchise. Problem is, Mike, despite potentially being in numerous games has the personality of a cardboard box. If he is Foxy bro, we know he was a bit of a menace and that he feels sorry about what he ends up doing to his brother. And that he "puts" Baby back together like the Crying Child was promised before his death. And that he eventually decides to seemingly go against William. But that's it. Which is weird. If he is allegedly in FNAF 1, potentially 2, 3, 4, Sister Location(definitely) and Pizzeria Sim, why do we only know a handful of things about him? Gregory had a bunch of characterization and moments cut and Cassie has only been a Protagonist for a single DLC but it feels like we know more about them than we do about the potential Protagonist of 5 or 6 games. We know so much about William, we know a fair bit about Elizabeth/Baby, we know stuff about the Crying Child. But Mike is just a blank slate for most of the time we know him. Definitely lots of wasted potential. Not delving into the books or anything. But purely from a game perspective, we know next to nothing about him.
The only thing I think alludes to his personality more is the cutscenes of him rotting in SL custom night. Specifically, the fact that a lot of people wave at him and while they are probably just being nice, the fact that the whole street is just waving and smiling shows that he’s charismatic or at least likable to people. He’s probably active in his community. And he seems to like to watch soap operas so at least there is also one thing about him. Again, that doesn’t mean his personality is suddenly existent though. He still has the personality of a cardboard box but hey there is at least that lol
@@Sunnysideup420 He does have a jokey personality, we know that much. In the logbook, he likes to draw pictures of a superhero blasting Freddy with eye lasers lol. Along with other funny stuff. And I think that says a lot about a guy who regularly goes toe-to-toe with these things and doesn't blink. Not to mention most likely having been scooped by the time he draws those pictures. He's not angsty, tortured, or even scared of these jobs. He's kind of irreverent and deals with it with "hurr hurr funny bear go boom" lol Which I think goes nicely with his personality when he was a little asshole teenager. He definitely regrets what he did, but he's still himself at the end of the day.
@@damkylan3 I agree. I think the problem is that not everyone reads the books or gets cool side stuff. What Scott should have done was make this personality more present in the games, and it’s not just Mike that is affected by this, it’s a lot of characters throughout the franchise. I know that in media there will always be a character more stronger than another which is fine! But the reason a character has a more stronger personality is because the story revolves more around them. Also, I genuinely think that people can’t tell the difference between lore and story. Lore is more world-building, it’s the history about the world or certain events that aren’t the most relevant while the story is like, a story. It’s the main thing. Lore is what your supposed to find in those guide books or magazines or interviews. Story is supposed to be in the product. Having important story beats and character development in the merch is frustrating and it just leads to misconceptions about characters and missing information. Again, I agree that he has personality it’s just the problem is that those important details are in side stuff and NOT in the main thing and that’s why most people think he has the personality of a cardboard box
The sad truth is that Michael Afton’s “character” sums up how Steel Wool views the franchise as a whole: something that requires the smallest of efforts where it counts, and then way too many half-hearted hints. They expect the fandom to always piece the lore together, but in doing that, they aren’t building the actual canon story, which means that, in the end, no theory is right, because the series will never answer anything. They simply expect anything with FNaF slapped on it to sell like hotcakes because of the LORE!!!! But in the end, they are just slowly killing MatPat and company with puzzle pieces that will never fit together.
I thought that Steel Wool had limited control over the lore aspect of the series. I remember Scott saying he had that control and gave SW basic lore beats to follow
"which means that, in the end, no theory is right, because the series will never answer anything." someone said it everybody, because it really upsets me that WE are writing the story and we have things in the fandom like "[branch of theory] believers" which kinda reminds me of religions how there are people who don't believe in Mary, Mother of Jesus as an important figure and some other do (as an example) Like, it really don't matter, someone said something that links to the "official storyline" and we have been building from that to understand wth is going on. Some ppl really don't grasp that 99% of character buildup is fanfiction and headcanons, and we've been never told something straight up
Of course I don't know Jack! His name is Mike! Also, really good video; I did a deep dive into Mike's character to better characterise him in my fan game (...which is nowhere near being finished) and it's so cool to see someone condense everything in one place too! There are some things you didn't mention (like how in the logbook he can relate to Clara because she sees how crazy everything is but no one believes her), and some things not a lot of people have given a lot of thought to that I'm glad no one is mentioning (because that means I can still surprise people in that fan game)
I know that Josh used to be our neighbor. Everyone played football out in the field and he was very bad but now he's Mike Fnaf so he truly won in the end
It's clear that the movie continuity is a remix of the game's but I like to Frankenstein details for fun despite the redundancy. I think a fun theory for now is that Michael Afton poses as Mike Schmidt, it isn't merely just a pen name, rather Mike Schmidt is a separate person but Michael pretends to be him in the game's continuity to avoid attachments to the Afton family name. I like this interpretation because it allows for both the movie to *kinda* happen in game and vice versa. The existence of Mike Schmidt wouldn't contradict the idea of michael afton appearing in a sequel movie this way, and it's realistic enough that instead of making up a name, Michael Afton had some justification to pose as a returning former employee with a similar name
This is very unfortunate because Mike could’ve been entire stories solely devoted to him. We are talking about a man who willingly threw himself multiple times in extreme danger and traumatizing experiences, what happens inside this man’s head? Is it vengeance against himself? Has he grown to enjoy it? Does he hallucinates these creatures? Does he feel guilty for them?
Michael has no personality, he's the main character we play as yet we almost don't know anything about him. All we know is pretty much linked to his family, or more so William.
"Uh, h-hey listen, I had an idea. If you happen to get caught and want to avoid getting stuffed into a Freddy suit, uhh, try playing dead. Ya know, go limp. Uhh, then there's a chance that... maybe they’ll think you’re an empty costume instead. Then again, if they think you’re an empty costume, they might try to... stuff a metal skeleton into you. I wonder how that would work..." - Phone Guy Not very novel for Michael after all
Okay, straight up, ive always had the opinion that micheal afton being such a nebulous concept is what's so cool about him. I love how nothing feels set in stone and yet is simultaneously grounded and agreed upon despite taking place entirely through implication. I heavily believe that, despite it's flaws, the manner in which the story of the series wss told paved the way for a character that exists entirely between the lines, which is absolutely fascinating and i dont think is appreciated enough. The novelty of something like that is appealing in itself.
I wish they did more for him: he had potential. Like he could have a high moral compass since he tries to set free the souls, he could be really smart and tactful, could’ve showed his trauma of what happened to his brother. Maybe that caused him to feel for everyone who suffers. Make him so much better of a protagonist to follow. He could be a guy for no funny business because he’s struggling with trauma and he possibly was given the job of helping his dad when we was young as his mum possibly left. Maybe some character development as he discovers that he can be funny and let back sometimes.
Man, Scott dropped the ball with Michael. I guess he figured since the protagonist was always silent, he didn't need a character. He just needed to be a vessel for us the players to insert ourselves into, but the story changed. Michael was made into an actually relevant character, and instead of taking the time to actually flesh him out and make us root for him, Scott decided to get rid of him one game later. I have faith that the movie will do what Scott failed to do and give Michael a real character, but we will never know what the canon Michael was really like. And that's sad.
From what I’m hearing from movie goers- it sounds like movie Mike was portrayed nicely. Honestly don’t doubt that Scott took things from Michael to shape movie Mike in a way. Which at least is a tribute to him.
When it comes to fnaf I really like reading between the lines to figure out characters and their personallities but I totally agree with you. Mike is our main character and we should know more about him than anyone else. Even though I don't think movie mike is michael afton, I think we can apply movie mike's personallity to game mikes like with book counterparts. Also one final note there are not a lot of ships between mike and phone guy which i'm really shocked about
I have never and probably will never finish a single fnaf game or even bought any of the books, I just genuinely enjoy this channel, I grew up with fnaf and have been watching matpat since 2015 and I haven't seen anywhere near all his fnaf videos. but whether it's just being a fan of fnaf, the videos themselves, or what you say and how you say it, I've watched most if not all your videos, so thank you for keeping this community interesting 🖤💜
In a series with haunted animatronics, an undead bunny-themed serial killer, VR ghosts, and underground cyborgs, the most mysterious, elusive, and cryptid-like character is Mike.
I love how this isn't new either, in FNAF 1 we know some stuff about the animatronics and Phone guy, why they exist and some characteristics and we at least know about the serial killer's actions and timeline. But nothing about Mike Schmidt was known, no personality, no motive, no past. Why the hell did he stay *was* a huge mystery, a Mike being mysterious is one of the longest running bits in FNAF.
I saw the movie today (no spoilers) and Michael is very much a character in it, in almost every scene, and the film is surprisingly front loaded with exploring his financial and emotional needs for taking such a terrible job. Now for the whole super intense fandom sleuthing finding every game clue shown in this video, the movie is very much an alternate/parallel/original take: the Michael/William/Vanessa are not the characters we 'know' from rhe games, I mean they are but there are differences which I didn't mind at all.
You don’t know how happy this makes me. Super excited to watch this movie more lol. I actually really appreciate that there seems to be clear inspiration of Mike from the games-to the movie version of him. It’s like a kinda..tribute. But thanks for commenting this.
@@UrMentalHealth I had fun, as a FNAF fan I enjoyed it. Between the games and all the fan content over the years, it is by no means a scary film, not for grown adults anyway. I think kids will have a good time with it.
@@AbsoluteTravisT So does that mean the movie just a censored kid bait?... If it is I'm disappointed. I don't want to say anything this early, but I'm worried. I don't want another Security breach.
I still wonder if Michael wrote out the survival guide after his experiences and much of the lore in-game comes from his versions of events. But that's pretty out there, I guess, with almost no direct evidence.
I feel like Michael is supposed to be FNaF's Doomslayer; a silent protagonist that we know next to nothing about. Trouble is, Doomslayer got a game going into his backstory, both in the narrative and in the environment. Michael does not have this.
Honestly, I don’t really like the fact that Michael was theoretically, the guy you played us in every game 1-6. I like them more when everybody was a random person making it all interconnected just kind of feels lame. Also, if we’re being real Elizabeth and William are the only real important members of the Afton family plot. Cutting Mike and making everybody random doesn’t really change anything especially CC/BV Also, I think some games would be drastically better if they were all just random protagonist. Like sister locations scooper thing would not have jumped the shark if it was just some random guy, not the main character. Then they can have the whole mini game thing, but instead of them coming back to life they can just die. would be spooky and scary. (this being said, tho I really do like the idea of Henry being the player character of Fnaf 3 something about that really appeal to me)
They really should make some books or comics or something that’s the fnaf series from Michael Afton’s perspective, they wouldn’t even have to show us anything new or anything I’d just like if we got a chance to know this guy’s personality and reactions and got to see this stuff from his perspective
The funniest option of Micheal's lack of an identity is the idea that actually Micheal Afton Does Not Exist. No one and nothing in game really reacts to Mike, from FNAF 1 all the way Pizza Sim, like the player was ever a real part of the story you'd think the oldest son of the murderer of this tragedy would even tangentially possess by accident of birth alone. Oh sure, there's lines in Sister Location like they thought he looked like William, but would they really give a shit if all they wanted to do was get him into the scoop so they can get out. Would they, like Henry in his Fire Plot, really care for anything other than a body to push the button or be the suit they hide in? Shouldn't Springtrap have lines in 3 or Pizza Sim where he at least notices that he Kills his last living child? Henry can even remember Elizabeth enough to call out Baby, but Micheal has NOTHING but a few lines he utters to himself in Sister Location, after not even having a real reflection other than purple eyes; to spout another flimsy excuse to wander back into some other Fazbear related death trap. And what if that was his real character in a nutshell. A sad man desperate enough to go back, night after night, into a haunted chucky cheese just to force his way having any sort of personality or connection to this dead childhood franchise like the most dangerous Mid-Life Crisis. What if "It's Me" isn't the siren call of some barely identifiable ghost child of many, but "Mike" trying to fantasize any connection at all with the next robot that tries to kill him? Because at least then, Mike being less than a Ghost in a tale about dead kids would mean something.
As a writer, I understand how important consistency is in a story. And being honest, Fnaf isn’t the type of story that had a set course that hasn’t changed in years. It’s sad sometimes to see plot points be dropped in favor of good ol’ Willie Afton, or even worse, simply be discarded ‘cause it no longer serves a purpose in the new narrative. Despite all of this, to me what matters is that at one point Fnaf knew what it was doing with its characters. And although this course has changed over the years, it can also lead to some interesting new characters to appear. So basically… idk, anything good as long as Afton isn’t shoved in it for the spotlight
And as much William is in the spotlight we still didn't see his relationship with Henry, his children, his wife or the CEO of Fazbear. He's overused, but underutulized.
Liked the video! But you forgot a line of dialogue that hints at Michael being the protag of FNAF 6. One of Scraptrap's lines is: "You may not recognize me at first, but I assure you, it's still me."
Admittedly, though, that could be to anyone. The player, Henry, a reference to the fact that he looks so massively different from Fnaf 3. I mean, it definitely sounds like a hint, but it's just... well, hints.
One last thing, Scrap Baby also has a voiceline where she says: "You're not who I expected to see.", but in another voiceline, she says: "You don't really know who your employer is, do you?" So the first line can't be referring to Henry. Again, I'm aware it's could just be a hint, but it's worth noting.
In response to this video, they should update every single game from 1-PS so that every game tick has a .01% chance for Michael to clear his throat, just so we remember he’s there
Okay but we pretty much know Michael is the protagonist in 6 because the end of Sister Locations custom night. Where we see Michael he's going to find Afton. When's the next time we see Afton? Pizzeria Sim
I feel like the most favourable interpretation of the way that the story is conveyed is that it's a bunch of urban legends that have been spread by children to turn the failure of a mediocre line of restaurants to become profitable in light of poor business decisions, ugly and unsettling animatronic puppets that were poorly maintained, their fabric coverings matted with grease and cigarette smoke and frequently malfunctioning, as well as there possibly some real life issues of child endangerment and abduction. If you think about it that way, you can kind of excuse a lot of the sloppiness - children were legitimately unsafe at these locations and the management/owners weren't really equipped to resolve the issues and ultimately ended up going out of business, with the brand changing hands through several different holding companies, who would try and relaunch the brand only for it to be clear that there wasn't really a way to get it to work. All the stuff about dead bodies being hidden in the animatronics, the animatronics getting up and walking about at night, inconsistent dates for the events, revisionism about how many kids were killed, people having their insides 'scooped' out and replaced with robots, then somehow surviving - it all seems to me like it's being made up by children based on things they've overheard from parents and other kids. It doesn't make sense because children can be very credulous when it comes to urban legends and they often haven't developed the critical reasoning skills necessary to discern when something doesn't add up. If that's the intention behind the series then it's honestly genius: it's a series about the proliferation of urban legends amongst children, developed through using implication and vaguery to directly encourage a youth audience to extrapolate and theory craft until they essentially come up with their own urban legend about this fictional restaurant chain. There's every chance that it's just because story and continuity were always an afterthought, but given how much of the way that these games were marketed was to invite speculation and how so much of the inconsistencies present in the different versions did far more to keep the series under discussion than providing logical and consistent storytelling would have done I do wonder if it was at least partially deliberate ('the television said 1983 but I thought it was "the bite of '87", there must be a way that this makes sense - Scott couldn't possibly be getting his kicks from winding his audience up. There is no way that the copyright date on a show broadcast on television isn't the exact date that it is right this moment - as we all know, television is a one and done affair and nothing ever gets shown several years after the initial broadcast date and this means that two people had their heads caught in one of the animatronics' mouths')
It’s fnaf nobody is gonna confirm anything. But the closest we can get to confirmation is the theories that make the most sense with the least plot holes with Mike being who we play us in most of the games including fnaf 6. Otherwise the games just don’t make sense. Why would someone repeatedly risk their lives to get paid minimum wage? Why would the main character not go through the exit in fnaf 6 and keep gathering obviously completely dangerous animatronics? It’s quite obviously Mike who we are playing us
As someone who’s comfort character is Mike, I don’t disagree with the point in this video, it’s a very valid comment, and the video was well done :) but for me personally, Mike being so vague is one of the reasons why I love him. It’s so fun for me when I can look at the shell of a character and interpret them in my own way, and how the fandom sees them. Kinda why I’m attached to Mike and side characters in other series :>
Thank you for pointing out that *we don't actually know* that the Crying Child is Afton's son. I didn't know if I'd missed something in the Silver Eyes books, which I haven't read, but I've been thinking recently about the differences between what has actually been stated, what's actually been implied, and what's headcanon and this is a big example.
The biggest evidence is the Fredbear plush with a walkie talkie in William's secret office in SL. The same room where 1983 is a password which shows the FNAF4 experiment room (ugh). Of the potential numerous big events of that year, only one directly connects to that explicit FNAF4 reference, which is CC being bitten. Plus, there's that map layout that indicates William was monitoring every area the Crying Child walks through in the FNAF4 minigames in some way. Which still leaves the possibility that CC was kidnapped by William or something and isn't truly his son, which is another theory. But yeah, all of the above is mostly where people get this idea from.
@@damkylan3 Thanks! I did know all that, at least, so at least I wasn't missing something obvious. It definitely implies some connection between the two character, just not specifically father-son.
@@Mockingdragon Now that I think about it, there is also that Afton family mockup in SB with the security bots, where one of the "kids" is missing a head. As well as a poster in FNAF6 which contains a clown potentially representing Elizabeth, a ventriloquist and a dummy that looks just like him potentially representing William and Michael, and a bear, which could only be CC. Similarly, none of these directly imply familial connection, but if they DO mean what they seem to, then CC is usually included among the other Afton kids, at the very least.
@@damkylan3 True, there is all that. But here's part of my point - we don't KNOW that the family mockup is the Aftons. We assume so, and it's definitely implied, but it's not a completely known quantity - it's something that could be contradicted later, and if so, any theories built on top of it would crumble. That's what I mean, and it's frustrating that the most concrete evidence we usually get in this franchise is of this strongly implied type.
The Miketrap thing could've been possibly avoided by making it clear that he was the protagonist of 1-4 because then the hand unit label is more decisive and Baby mistaking him for Willy makes the animatronics attacking him in other games make more sense.
I, for one, will be wildly assuming that the movie is canon to both Michael Afton and Vanessa's stories. Can't wait to figure out where they fall on fnaf's super consistent timeline!
Honestly, I don't think Michael is the night guard from fnaf 3. There are some things that don't just add up to me. I don't entirely think that Michael, beings an undead organless dude, would need to breathe since he probably doesn't have lungs. So I find it improbable he would need oxygen from the ventilation system, let alone hallucinate the phantoms and multiple springtraps. The other thing that doesn't add up is the night guard's relation to the phone dude, I could be just looking too much into it, but it almost feels like the two of them are friends or at least know each other. I remember someone saying it could be Henry, and while I don't 100% subscribe to that theory I think it makes more sense than Mike. If I'm going to be honest I think im fnaf 3 you're just some random dude who happens to get themselves into a situation they were never supposed to be involved in. In fact I'm gonna double down on this and say Mikey wasn't even the one who burned Fazbear's Fright to the ground and that it was the player character after finding out about the true identity of the thing he's been avoiding getting killed by.
Whats funny to me about Micheal being the one we know less abour compare to William is that... William or what I still like to call him Purple guy even by the idea that once we called him Purple guy worked the best as a villian all build up by his mystery and what he did. Not why he did it, not the extereme super villian he has become. But what he did. He was by all means a dark shadow of the company fazbear entertaiment. As long as the company was there he was always gonna be there. Even in its ruin. He never needed to be a ceo for that. His existance and Fazbear ent. attempts at hiding him was enough. But then we started delving into him as a character or try to humanize him to an awful extend. Yet in that new era of FNaF the only one remained in "mystery" was the one character who born in that era. Micheal. Everyone else got something but him. And its weird. I'm not sure if series wants make him mysterious as well but unlike Purple guy from his first appearance people already saw the story for him. It just was never told. And this only hurt the character.
I don't have a problem with humanizing him as long as it doesn't treat him as an anti-villain with good intentions. By "humanizing" I mean potraying him as a person with goals, fears, likes and dislikes even if he's irredeemable. I don't like the idea that he killed because he wants to bring his dead family back together. I don't like cartoony mad scientist Afton though.
@@redpanda6497 I like what you say about humanizing him. I think theres personally nothing wrong with humanizing evil people. Just don’t make him out to be someone who is “good”. He clearly isn’t and it’ll annoy audiences if you do that lol. I think it adds something more when you approach characters as William like that.
There was an old old OLD fringe theory that the player charachter/s in 1 and 2 were Purple Guy scoping out the places before the murders to do the murders. There's still people that believe this so idk what to anticipate from some of the some of the stories and or theories about Mike or the afton family going foreward
I think Mike's character was built up on with Gregory, since both give off snarky and pessimistic vibes, difference is Gregory had a story in a book and a whole game, yet gave off more of an impression, I still think Mike is absolutely fab though, and he's earned his cash basket and then some.
I think one of FNAF’s problems is it doesn’t have an intro (or an intro for some characters). Like we don’t get an intro to Mike, who he is, what he’s like, and other stuff. In fact Fredbear’s which is the earliest thing we know of, has never been seen (in actual form and not confusing).
(14:03) I agree with you, I already knew the movie wouldn’t give more explanation to the games, they are two different stories. Scott said in the interview with Dawko that ideally, he would based the movies off of 1-3, and I feel like that’s what’s going to happen. The new movie is (from what I’ve seen) based off of the first game. Mathew Lillard said he signed on for three movies (I think?) and I believed the next movies are going to be based off of 2-3, and it makes sense. I also believe it’s ideal to have the movies to be based off of 1-3, it’s (imo) a perfectto trilogy. I don’t know the actor playing Mike (I don’t want to butcher the name), I think we’ll get to see more of (movie) Vanessa, but younger in the next game movie cause the second game is a prequel. I also don’t think (movie) Mike won’t be Aubergine Shaggy Jr, it doesn’t seem to be implied from the trailers that he would be, and imo, I don’t mind.
Mike could've been so so cool, unfortunately he really suffers from the writing decision to have him go "surprise! I'm actually a character! I've been a character all along!" and then die. Because of that decision, all we can really do is infer his character development and his story. It's a compelling inference- but an inference all the same.
Thats a great video. For one its easy to get mad about Scott "changing the lore" when we assume whats implied must be true. Also liked the point about fnaf needing more story and less explanations.
The one thing I'll never get is the fandom's obsession with Mike being the fnaf4 foxy bully. Like the dude barely even appears and acts as a side character. Why would the supposed main character of fnaf act as a side character in game that supposedly tells his "motivation" to help cc. Even tho Mike only motivation was to find his dad, and that's not even touching on the fact that it makes cc and fnaf 4 utterly pointless as Elizabeth can act as motivation while also still being Circus Baby.
@superduperblurrymario8056 Yeah, people just can't get enough of those brooding bad boys. Also, I think most people don't even know there are other ways for CC to survive. Due to matpat insisting, there has to be robo human somewhere in the games, whether it's Mike or Gregory.
@@Lamp_2155 Yeah but they would've had to been working on the script for a while before this video was even released, it's very likely that there aren't any real movie spoilers in here. I can't speak definitively though since I haven't watched through the whole thing yet
@@soomi5667 yeah plus i hope u enjoy the movie! more funny than scary but an overall entertaining experience (could be a flaw if you do expect more scares)
@@AstroBelowZero Thank you! I think I’ll really enjoy it from what I’m hearing. And I hope you enjoyed it yourself. It’s a long time coming. :) I don’t mind it not being scary, just want to have the tension and atmosphere you feel in the games. So hopefully they delivered there lol. But I can see them combining some comedy and the seriousness of the story itself. From how you describe it, it sounds a little campy. Which kinda fits fnaf tbh. But thank you for letting me know! I think I’m definitely going to enjoy it a lot.
@@soomi5667 np!! i did enjoy it, it showed us iconic parts of the story that we found from the games, definitely disturbing, tense and creepy when it needed to be despite the more comedic parts (there's even some gore, like a lot of people wanted lol), i'd personally say that the comedy made the movie more charming and rewatchable (i don't want to rewatch something like midsommar), but yeah generally it delivered on the horror aspect- i think the main criticism people have is that they wanted the entire movie to be disturbing horror, but for me it didn't need to be main villain + antagonists were great :)
This just kinda proves how Fnaf's story was not written by Scott, but by the fans, its like if i gave some events to someone written on a list and to make sense of them they conjure up a story and characterized names a barely mentioned in said events, its so strange, that is why its so easy for the fnaf fandom to come up with so many AUs and diverge so much from the "original material" cause essentially we don't really know much and so we just are writing a story collectively, the fans make it, which is not necessarily a good or bad thing, i like the idea the fandom made Mike what he is today, but i also kinda hate it cause it just puts on evidence Scott's lack of writing ability, knowing how to do a game doesn't garantee knowing how to do storytelling, and its so evident even in the fnaf books, but also in the games with Micheal Afton and literally with any other chatacter that was introduced aside from William, they were all just molded to fit the new plot and commercial ideas, but were never treated as actual chatacters, like circus baby/Elizabeth, vanessa, puppet, even The crying child, golden Freddy and of course Micheal Afton. Micheal is a ghost of a character who exist in the collective fandom vision we have of him, we wrote him, we made him a somewhat fleshed character and as much as i love creative freedom to make the character as of my own, i still get angry about how much storytelling wise was so wasted on the fnaf games, and part of me feels its because ambiguity gave Scott the opportunity to remain making more and more content so as to make the fans buy and consume more, but it weakened his story, since 90% percent of it was made by the fans, it also makes characters vulnerable to popular interpretations and dare i say misinterpretations, like the one there is that mike is this sad angel that never meant to harm his brother , we dont know much of canon but we know that if mike IS foxybro that i mean its only not canon because its not confirmed otherwise its basically him, but the point is that if he is foxybro, he was a horrible horrible bully, and although you can understand the sympathy and all afterwards if he is micheal afton and then mike smith, i still feel people angelify idk how to put it, but treat micheal as if he were an innocent cinnamon roll, point is that the lack of canon characterization leads to popular interpretations being taken as canon and therefor being a massive misinterpretation of characters. If micheal afton is the one on sister location which he is, we can justify Circus Baby treating him as if he were william like a confusion on her part, since SHE thinks its william, but yeah making mike purple when you already had made that color coded to another character and not clarifying it for the player beforehand was a bad choice and totally scotts fault not a misunderstanding of the fans I think the logbook made a decent job giving us some of what is Mike's personality in casualty, if it is mike that is to say, like the joke he makes about his brother, that one definitely if it is micheal afton aka foxybro, that one would definitely be a conflicting point to the people who truly believe micheal to feel sorry and guilty over killing the crying child, not saying both things aren't possible, but i dont think a boy haunted by grief and regret would give himself the luxury to make fun of said brother he killed, so idk, thing is that on one side, his lack of characterization gives us the opportunity to experiment with canon content and make up your own interpretation, almost like creating an oc with prompts, on the other hand it leads to popular misinterpations or beliefs that popular interpretations are canon, misinformation, lack of consistency and deficiency on the overall quality of the story Anyways rip and farewell to micheal afton, the protagonist we never had and never was 🫡 And regards towards movie mike... Its not even micheal afton, people were hyping him so much, that he would be micheal and he just wasn't and honestly it would be so hard for it to be him, cause micheal is a collective consciousness of a fandom, they would never please all of them since some have so many different variants of who is micheal afton i would absolutely love to read your version of fnaf i think your thoughts are so good regarding fnaf, i like your version of fnaf a lot, if i had to say who i wanted for to write fnaf's story it would be you
Can't believe you didn't mention his drawing skills But I really like your video and agree with the points you made. Who knows maybe we'll get a game about Micheal later on (probably won't happen but if it does I hope they don't go changing stuff that has been already estableshed or add random things for the sake of it)
It's actually fascinating that we know so little about so many human characters other then William Afton. It's impressive to say so much yet so little about pretty much everyone in a series (especially considering how many games in we are atm).
it gets worse because considering all we know about Mike thats actually confirmed, his story never ends actually. if we just go off or confirmed knowledge, he just disappears from the narrative after being a living purple corpse man
I wish he had stuff explained about him Has potentially great redemption story a guy who was a asshole brother who unintentionally killed his brother went through pain and trauma from his dad and decided to stand up against him and went to end this story Such a great storyline if that's how it ended.
I’ve just accepted that we are basically writing fnaf’s story at this point. Some are obviously not fine with that and that’s okay. I also wish the actual series had better story telling. So I decided to write my own because hey, what’s the point of committing to a canon that constantly contradicts itself? Ngl I’m kind of surprised there isn’t that many rewrites of this franchise. It is the perfect material for rewrite fics on ao3 and rewrite videos on RU-vid, but maybe I’m not looking that much
Mike is weirdly an important name on this franchise, Mike Schmidt, Michael Brooks, Michael Afton, Mike from Into the Pit, Michael mentioned in The Real Jake, Mike in You’re The Band, Mike Schmidt in the movie. The only names rivaling is Jeremy and Fritz
I think the lack of a proper mc, lack of characterization and fill in the gaps story approach is a double edged sword that ended up working in fnafs favor. While I agree I'd love to see more clear narrative and characters I don't think fnaf would have gotten so big if it wasn't all vague. I can't excuse the last minute changes of swapping characters and motivations. But the general vague direction of fnaf got so many people into the series including myself. Trying to find out who's who and what their role is, is a big part of the fnaf appeal in my opinion. But I don't like the overwhelming influence the books have had on the games and how connected they seem to be despite being a separate Canon.
Finally, someone has pointed out how much NOTHING Michael is actually canonically made up of in the lore. I have been painstakingly trying to watch theories about the series, but they always hinge on Michael being someone important, whether he’s Mike Schmidt or the Foxy Brother, and the blatant assumption that the FNAF 4 family is related to William in any way. Maybe the theory fights and the lore disputes are happening so often because we have absolutely nothing of substance on most of our characters, save William, and even he doesn’t have an in game motive! At least we got personalities from Security Breach, but the characters have been brought in and replaced and now we don’t know who’s supposed to be the main character anymore.
Using this logic explain to me what the games tell us about: Henry? Elizabeth? Phone Guy? Charlie? Vanessa? Gregory? Casey? Tell me what we OFFICIALLY know about these characters that isn't implied, or using parallels from the books (and now movie). Afton is the most fleshed out because even though he is canonically dead this whole story revolves around him and the ripples he put into motion.
If the Survival Logbook belonged to Michael that confirms he was in Fnaf 3, this is mainly because it's heavily implied it was used at that time, since the book features the Office from Fnaf 3 and the Animatronics from Fnaf 1 Mike also drew Nightmare Fredbear in the Survival Logbook which confirms he had the Fnaf 4 Nightmares (Anything written or drawn in Red was done by Mike because he used Red Pen to write his name in the Logbook, the Faded Text is Cassidy and the Changed Text is CC), the drawing is on a page asking the user about recent dreams they had, meaning the Nightmares also occurred around this time And we know the Survival Logbook had to belong to Michael because in addition to Nightmare Fredbear he also drew the Cash Basket and Exotic Butters, if it was just the Cash Basket and Exotic Butters you might be able to say it's a coincidence, but the fact he drew Nightmare Fredbear means it isn't
This video made me stop and have a think about why I like Michael so much and tbh I think a good part of it just boils down to the fact that I really like body horror, so the whole concept of Mike's existence post Sister Location is vastly fascinating to me in that sense rather than me liking him because of any actual character arc or motivation. Really wish he, and almost every other character in the games other than William, were actual developed characters rather than just concepts and plot devices. I often see people complain about characters whose entire personalities largely exist only in fanon but tbh I think fnaf characters RELY on that. I think all these story relevent but blank slate characters are great for creatives in the fan base to put their own spins on the characters through fan art, web comics, fan games or whatever else, but at the same time it also sucks that the canon material about such characters is so lackluster that the consumption of fan made content surrounding them is almost required for an audience to be attached to them
