Why the Survival Logbook is NOT evidence that Michael doesn’t regret the Bite of ‘83
So recently there’s been this wave of people trying to prove that Game Michael is Pure Evil because of the movie.
Which…boy do I have thoughts on that. (Thoughts that I may or may not have spent two entire hours of my precious free time typing up a long analysis post on only for Tumblr to delete my draft)
I will say however that I am NOT a Movie Michael hater! I have grown quite fond of that little freak and think he has lots of potential that I hope is explored more in the 3rd movie. However I do not think that his existence means that Game!Michael is this pure evil monster (I don’t even think Movie!Michael is pure evil, something I would’ve discussed in my other post if tumblr hadn’t deleted it and therefore made me lose any motivation to retype it)
But anyways because of Movie Michael’s existence, an entire army of EvilMike believers think that they can now just make stuff up about his character in the games and claim that it was true all along. Just to be clear I’m not talking about people who think MikeAccomplice is canon. I’m not entirely opposed to MikeAccomplice or even to the idea that Michael could be evil in general. Victims of the abuse that Mike experienced being William’s son often don’t react in ways that people would find palatable and it’s completely within his character to become sort of unhealthily attached to William and his legacy similar to what we see from Movie Michael. However that’s not what was happening in the games in my opinion.
With all that being said, this post was made for the express purpose of discussing one particular aspect of their argument which I find rather ridiculous which is the sentiment that Michael supposedly “doesn’t regret” his actions against his brother in the infamous Bite of ‘83 incident, and their usage of one particular line found in the Survival Logbook in order to “prove” it. This being the infamous “He tripped and fell on Freddy’s teeth” line
Now I could go into a whole rant interpreting this line and why I think it is extremely unlikely it proves that Michael doesn’t regret the bite and I probably will later. But I’m going to start out by saying that to be totally honest it truly does not matter what he meant by this because no matter what interpretation you have of this line it does not and cannot override the fact that we have pretty much undeniable proof that he does in fact regret his actions. This being his apology on the 6th night of FNAF 4
Now I have made a genuine effort throughout this post to be as cool and analytical as possible but with all due respect I find I cannot keep my cool much longer because of how truly baffled I am that people just ignore, or worse, completely dismiss this when they talk about Michael’s supposed lack of guilt. What (And I mean this with the utmost respect) in the actual Darkest Pit of Hell would have been his reason to lie here?????? His brother is literally in a coma (about to die mind you) he doesn’t even know if he can actually hear him and yet some people have the audacity to claim this could’ve been an insincere apology. Like, HUH?!?!!!!! Why would he do that?!!!!??!? If Michael weren’t guilty, faking an apology would do absolutely nothing for him in this scenario there’s no reason to manipulate someone who cannot hear you and is going to die in like 2 seconds that’s literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. And also if Michael didn’t regret what he did then what on earth is the reason to even put that line in the game?????? And yet I’ve seen multiple people on TikTok/Twitter etc. claim that Michael was lying when he said this but then those same people turn around and use one☝️Singular Line from the Survival Logbook to “prove” their point that Michael supposedly doesn’t regret the bite???????
Ah yes the Survival Logbook the book where almost everything Michael writes in it is either a sarcastic quip or a silly doodle this is your ironclad source of his villainy
Yes of course because surely any man who doodles hearts in the margins of his notebooks must have nothing but pure evil in his soul
All jokes aside it is frankly impossible to give the Survival Logbook more weight than the FNAF 4 cutscene because objectively the Logbook has way more ways that you could interpret than the FNAF 4 apology which is pretty straightforward
Don’t believe me? Here are several valid alternate interpretations of the infamous “tripped and fell on Freddy’s teeth” line that don’t involve Michael not regretting the bite:
1. The line isn’t even about the Bite of ‘83. This theory is based upon the fact that the prompt specifically mentions Freddy and not Fredbear who was the cause of the Bite of ‘83. Additionally, the wording of “My child said Freddy bit him” implies that the child lived to tell the tale. Which is different from ‘83 because the Crying Child actually perished in the bite. However, although this theory is a possibility the prompt is similar enough to the Bite that it’s very unlikely it didn’t drudge up memories within Michael even if that’s not what the prompt originally intended. So although this one is a possibility I think there are other better interpretations.
2. The joke is at Michael’s expense. If we take the context away and just look at the joke itself we have a very common joke in media that I like to call the “ridiculous excuse” joke. Like its name suggests to the name, the punchline of the joke is often the fact that it’s such a ridiculous excuse that nobody in their right mind would ever believe it. Often the teller of the joke is aware of this fact and poking fun at the perpetrator. A variation of this joke is most commonly seen in comedies or romances (romance being a genre that Michael canonically enjoys. Or at least he enjoys certain romance media)
To show the joke in action let’s create an imaginary scenario where Vlad’s distressed mistress Clara sees him kissing another woman (*GASP*) Vlad, being the ultimate gaslighter, obviously denies it to which Clara would state sarcastically:
“Ah yes, you didn’t kiss her did you? You slipped and fell onto her lips?”
You see? The point of the joke is that “Vlad” is clearly in the wrong. The excuse is ridiculous. Of COURSE nobody believes it.
This is the same thing with Michael the idea of a child simply “tripping and falling on Freddy’s teeth” is an inherently ridiculous excuse. Of COURSE Michael doesn’t actually believe it.
3. Michael uses dark humor to cope with his trauma. We can see hints of Michael’s penchant for dark humor sprinkled throughout the logbook such as the little “HA! HA!!”s that he writes in the corners (next to the puppet which he is seemingly terrified of given other information about him that we have i.e. You’re the Band)
And also seen when a prompt asks where he sees himself in 5 years and he answers it by a drawing of a grave
And just given his sarcastic tone and attitude towards being a security guard in general that we see him exhibit in the logbook it seems pretty on brand for him to make a joke about the most traumatic experience of his life. I also don’t think that him making a dark joke about his trauma is a reason to villainize him because dark humor is actually a very common coping mechanism that people use to deal with their traumatic experiences.
4. Michael is mocking Fazbear Entertainment and the way they tried to cover up his brother’s death. This one has a lot of evidence because Michael can be seen undermining FazEnt pretty consistently throughout the Logbook. I mean the reason we even have the name ‘Survival Logbook’ is because Michael scratches out the name ‘Security’ and writes ‘Survival’ instead
And this is FAR from the only time we see him do this
(There’s more than this but I hit my picture limit)
In fact it seems a good percentage of the things he writes/draws can be taken as a jab at FazEnt.
And this wouldn’t be the first time it relates to the bite as well. Take a look at this page where the prompt asks to create a new logo for a rebrand after disaster strikes to which Michael draws this
So what we have here is a drawing of Freddy looking incredibly sinister and covered in blood.
It’s also important to note that the same wording of ‘PR Disaster’ is used in both prompts drawing a connection between this logo drawing and the ‘Fell on Freddy’s teeth’ line
This HAS to be a reference to the bite in fact I would argue that it’s even less vague than the tripped and fell on Freddy’s teeth line. It’s very clear that Michael isn’t just going to let them brush his brothers death under the rug he’s once again drawing attention to the ugly truth of Fazbear Entertainment and the violence it produces that it tries to just pretend doesn’t exist. The corruption that nobody seems to notice except for him.
This isn’t Michael trying to explain the bite away otherwise he wouldn’t have drawn the logo. This is Michael mocking FazEnt for sweeping it under the rug by giving an answer that is, as stated before in interpretation 2, obviously a sarcastic joke at their expense.
That is now 4 separate explanations for that line that don’t involve Michael not feeling guilt for the bite. So you see there’s no possible way it can be used as a better source than the FNAF 4 Night 6 cutscene because there are plenty of other explanations to be had here whereas there aren’t any other explanations for the FNAF 4 apology that make a lot of since except for that he must have been truthful in his apology.
I was thinking about William's post based on that scene from The Simpsons, and it made me reflect on how, at least in this universe, the child version of Michael and the young father William look quite a bit like Bart and Homer. So while I was watching The Simpsons, I saw this scene and thought, "Michael must have been upset about something, and William had an idea to cheer him up." And what is a better father-son moment than showing their butt’s in front of his house, a street that William knows Edwin drives every day, and laughing of his reaction?
I love torturing Edwin 💔 changed a bit the og request just to fit it in the comic, sorry-
This has gotten decent engagement, so you guys are getting hit with my movie Afton siblings thoughts (and some kind of general personal opinions about the movie characterizations):
I think the fans I'm seeing treat these characters like they have to be 1:1 replicas of their game counterparts are missing the point. These aren't the same characters, and a lot clearly have their roles swapped.
I think the Michael I'm seeing a lot of people want from the movies is boring as fuck because none of you seem to acknowledge he's playing the role of Elizabeth here. He is the child dedicating his life to doing what his father wants. Fulfilling his purpose in the hopes of making his father proud, when there's likely no way that is happening. Not being favored by William seems to be a Michael constant, but I think that's a fair thing to keep. William is not a good father anyway, so who cares.
In the case of Vanessa, she clearly has never agreed with what their father wants of them. She is a reluctant follower coerced by her father into partaking in this fucked up family of murderers, something which has been going on since childhood and has given her a ton of fucked up familial trauma. By the end of the first movie she does end up breaking free and fighting against her father, nearly at the cost of her life, and we see her continually push against being a part of his plans in the second. She does not want to be a pawn in her father's game. She wants to be free and wants to be good finally.
May I argue, for a second, that the Puppet's possession of Vanessa is eerily similar to Michael in the games being puppeted by Ennard? I'm not gonna linger on this long because admittedly I find this element of the movie Puppet to be Lame As Fuck, but like. It's there. Loss of one's bodily autonomy to be controlled by something with malicioud intent. Someone else in my notes here also pointed out Charlotte being to Vanessa in the movies as Evan/ Dave is to Michael in the books. And obviously with roles being shifted the fine details of these things change, but it's a good point. You have all the setup you need for Vanessa to be a really compelling retelling of what fans most often believe to be game Michael's story.
So, okay, with this all explained: why the fuck do you guys want the game Michael story retold from the guy clearly being set up to have a different arc. Why are you guys BLATANTLY IGNORING the woman who is actually displaying the arc you want? I do not give a fuck that she isn't the one named Michael Afton, because this is far from the first example of a role swap in this adaptation!
As much as theoriests are gonna try and clickbait this, the Puppet was NOT the vengeful spirit in the games! Instead, she and Cassidy ended up swapping places in the movies! This is not Scott telling us we were wrong about the Puppet's role, we weren't (unless you thought she was a perfect guardian, which she wasn't), we are just getting a different story in these movies. I know the FNaF theorist community is a torture labyrinth where nobody can come up with anything without mentioning the books every other point, but while these things can give us more insight to what remains consistent, these are still alternate universes. Character's names matching do not mean they're the same character, and even characters seeming to be the same as another timeline doesn't mean they play the same role or are at all representative of their game counterparts.
I think this is what is fucking so many of you up and not letting you open your mind to these movies bein a fun reinterpretation if the first three games. You can prefer a certain continuity/ your headcanons, sure, but please do that while understanding these are their own characters. When I see people say they want Michael redeemed so he can play a similar role to game Michael all I see is someone not understanding what the movies are trying to do. Like I can't say I don't get it, but I still think you're wrong.
And also it's misogynistic to write off Vanessa in favor of Michael and I'm not gonna be nice about it. We have had this woman be important for two movies now, this second one LITERALLY focusing the most on her and her clear struggles with what her father has done both in general AND to her, and you guys want to focus on the guy who was barely present and when he was had the energy of a wet paper towel that could blow away in the wind. Be serious. Take in what I said about Vanessa clearly being set up to be what people would want out of game Michael and try to think critically on why we need that a second time but this time it's the man you want redeemed because he has the name of your game continuity blorbo. And also I hope Michael dies. Thank you.
It's the middle of the night as I type this on mobile, if there are any typos please forgive me. If it's bad enough just comment and I'll clarify.
I looooooove the lack of apologism IN CANON with William's character. I love that someone who's genuinely horrible and hurt people constantly isn't portrayed as sympathetic, isn't romanticized, and his actions aren't justified. No shortcuts to make him a more "digestible" character to the audience.
William was a leech, sucking on MCM and the life and death of innocent children. He was a grown man who knew what he was doing. Michael on the other hand was just a kid who DIDN'T know what he was doing and didn't mean to cause his brother's death.
I like that instead of making William redeemable, we are instead given a different character related to him, who's also committed a grave sin, to be the one to be redeemed. A character who's metaphorically and literally a reflection of his father.
Also love love the fact that William and his desperate quest for immortality is portrayed as pathetic, not cool and admirable. Even when he's Springtrap, you have to remember that he's a stinking old corpse inside of a rotten goofy mascot character suit. This deader than dead man is clinging to life by his fingernails and it is NOT PRETTY (insert Scraptrap image here).
Oh, and there's even that audio of him in UCN, the one that plays in OMC's lake, where he's screaming for Mike and Henry. Pathetic.
It's as a switch either Michael Afton is a horrible monster not deserving of any forgiveness or he's a little angel who did nothing wrong and that it was all an accident and there's no in between 💀🙏
ONG i swear someone posted something about this on twt this morning, fnaf fans dont understand the concept of people being morally grey 😭
even when someone is actually a GOOD person, the community finds some say to demonize them like crazy, its insane help
genuinely some ppl cant bare to admit their favorite character isnt the greatest person, like some william afton fans want to defend him so bad, like how do you even enjoy him if you take away all his flaws bro. theyre the same people trying to paint mike as evil incarnate too like whatt did we play the same games
same with michael afton fans, its a bit less common but there are so many people who try really hard to overly justify the bad things he's done and it feels like theyre infantilizing him sometimes??? like yeah what he did was an accident, but we can at least admit it *was* out of malicious intent (but definitely not with the intent of causing something permanent ofc) he didn't 'accidentally' put his own brother's head in an animatronic's mouth, ive seen so much fan content where he's written as his perfect, misunderstood kid who never bullied his brother and like. i get that you want to see the best in this guy but he is a much better character with a more impactful arc if you look at him as someone who changed for the better rather than someone who has never done anything wrong, but thats just imho i guess 😭
you guys ever think about the fact that mike's story in fnaf1-6 has no happy ending.
he's the abused child of a serial killer. he's so afraid of his father. he's so afraid of becoming his father. but it's already too late for that. he looks like him, sounds like him, and he's even a killer like him too. (it doesn't matter that the bite was an accident. not to mike.)
so he drags himself around following his father's instructions while Very Obviously wanting to die the entire time. one day his little sister (who he couldn't protect, who haunts him just like his brother does) offers him a chance to die for her happiness. he takes it without a word.
but its just another failure. he doesn't understand. he wanted to die, he wanted to be good. but now he knows he has to go to the source. he has to wipe out every trace of evil, not just himself. and when he finally does catch afton, finally avenges those poor children and rights someone elses wrongs, he lets himself die too - in the same way he kills his monster of a father - because to mike, he's just as evil and cruel. even though he's not. and never was.
his "happy ending" is him putting himself down like he always wanted. no one ever manages to convince him he's not the monster he thinks he is. he dies thinking it's the only way he will ever know peace, and that it's the only thing he deserves.
we see throughout the games + novels just everything mike went through. how much he regretted an outcome he never wanted in the first place, how he dedicated his life and death to protecting the innocent. that he was funny and understandably bitter and even more understandably kind of paranoid. that he liked bubble gum and pickles and drawing stupid comics in his free time. and throughout every moment of every game his goal was just to die because he thought it was what he deserved.
I know in canon William has silver-gray eyes and Michael has blue eyes. but I love to flip it in my head bc like
William with blue eyes: The association of blue eyes with innocence feeds into descriptions of him as a charming, personable family man and the last person you'd expect to be a serial killer. Also blue contrasts really nicely with yellow, which is great for a character who often wears yellow (due to the spring Bonnie suit and also the fact that it complements purple as well). Makes his design seem very "kid-friendly" with fun bright contrasting colors.
Michael with gray eyes: gray as in morally gray, reflecting the way I think the people of Hurricane see him as "troubled" and potentially dangerous after the bite of 83. Seen as intense, unusual, stormy. Also, gray eyes are a mutation of blue eyes where the color is dulled out--mirroring Michael and his dad's dynamic where Michael is just like his dad, but more disappointing. Also also, gray as in depression, emotional exhaustion, etc.
Goddamn it. Why must you drag me back in. (I never left, I just never talk about it anymore lol)
Anyways. This post has to do with a specific character from the FNAF 2 movie. If you have not seen the film at this point— why are you here? Go watch it. It gives the vibe of being a newcomer being explained the FNAF lore. If you have or unfortunately got subjected by some other idiot spoiling it for you, welcome!
SO…..
Michael Afton. let’s talk about him.
If you don’t know me, you can call me commodore
formerly I was known as a “mikehead”— someone who talked about the character of Michael Afton from FNAF way too much. To the point where it nearly would redefine insanity. A long time ago, I used to have a blog and an old account that had really in depth explorations on the characters of the franchise. This was started back in high school and further on was continued when I was 18-19 years old. I used to write essays, and I mean essays. I had full on thoughts about Michael’s character development, his personality, his mannerisms. It was still kind of lazy but it was fun while it lasted.
Anywho! This post has a lot to talk about Michael Afton’s debut in the film’s space as this evil fella played by Freddy Carter. Personal thoughts? I liked it. Perfect casting. I always had the personal belief that Michael looked creepy af so the actor was an A+ in my book. His characterization— I didn’t really mind either, it is an alternate take and I was off put by it a bit but generally it went well. It fits the really broken narrative we had going on. My gripe is primarily with how people took it. Particularly using it as evidence that Michael was evil and I mean EVIL evil, not like the evil I’m thinking where he’s just desperate for love from his father and is just doing shady shit by doing it, not the “I’m gonna continue my dad’s legacy” evil, where he doesn’t regret killing his brother. THAT kinda evil, the evil I don’t think translates to Michael in the games very well. I happen to know because I might as well have been a professor in Michael-ology when I was in the peak of this fandom. It just doesn’t fit. Not entirely.
Please note, the movies are a separate timeline, in the same way that “the silver eyes” trilogy was. While yes, it may add some context, it is not an accurate telling to the story from the games, it is an alternate take.
Anyways here’s my look at things, from my perspective as someone who looked at this character for years.
I kind of have the belief that Michael in the films is actually a Michael that wasn’t affected by a bite of 83’ because (and to put it quite bluntly) there probably wasn’t a bite of 83’. Hence why he isn’t in the distinct category of being morally grey like in the games due to having not having that very important moment.
An important moment like that, however did happen in the film but it wasn’t Michael AFTON that experienced it, it was Michael SCHMIDT who experienced his brother getting ripped away from him and would go onto blame himself for that tragedy. In turn, having nightmares about it. Without that development, Michael Afton was likely kept under William’s sphere of influence and neither would question it. I still do believe he was likely abused and is doing it out of obligation (as seen in carter’s acting) so it isn’t entirely out of willingness.
Michael in the games, from my understanding of the material we know about him seemingly is more to be more in the dark than his film counterpart. Of course, he still worked for his father but his mentioned kinship to Clara from Immortal & Restless from the logbook (as well as doodles he so beautifully left); it implies that he not only sees these things and thinks it’s crazy but he doesn’t really like Fazbear Entertainment as a company.
You see, when I heard him in the film say that he’s continuing the legacy of William Afton, I already noticed that is a huge difference. You see, William Afton’s Legacy isn’t just killing kids, William Afton’s Legacy is Fazbear Entertainment as well. This is not very discussed about, but William, in multiple iterations— genuinely, in his own sick demented way; loves Freddy Fazbear’s. He finds it as a sentimental piece to him. However, as mentioned before, in the logbook; Michael does not share that sentiment.
Throughout the logbook, you not only see him write snarky responses to the company questions, you also see drawings of a figure (likely supposed to represent Michael) locking Freddy away in a jail or destroying Freddy with superpowers. It essentially hits you multiple times in the face that Michael does not share that same love for the company, he genuinely doesn’t like or care about the company— he literally makes fun of it.
(Oh and before anyone asks about the freddy bite response, saying it’s proof he’s evil. No, it’s not. Like I said, time and time again before, he does NOT take the questions seriously. At the very least, the general questions. Not to mention there are parts of the book that imply he has a dark sense of humor, he literally drew a grave under a question about his future. Realistically, it’s a coping mechanism. At most, he was being insensitive but it still could be seen as a way to grieve in his position.)
So that makes me feel like Michael in the games, not only is a unknowing participant in William’s research (at least to an extent because I DO think he’s aware his father is looking into this but doesn’t know the nature of it) but is different enough that he isn’t an exact copy of his father. Like I said, he genuinely thinks Freddy Fazbear’s is a joke unlike William who has been depicted to love it like a second family or a second home.
In conclusion; I don’t think Michael in the movie fully depicts Michael in the games, only one piece to his character— his wanting to be approved by his father and the sense of obligation to do tasks for him to get it. The other parts, likely were split into characters such as Schmidt and Vanessa. My argument behind this— is that Scott isn’t really a great writer.
NO offense to Scott but every book and any FNAF lore that was completely written, that included Scott, also included a secondary writer like Kira Breed Wrisley or Seth Cuddeback for the first movie.
So, My theory is that he didn’t know how to write Michael, someone who is so morally complex and with this really over the top backstory— that he thought it was easier for him and the other people he worked with; to make the choice to split Michael into three characters; all of them representing a piece of his story. It is as simple as that.
Mike Schmidt represents his guilt over his brother, being haunted by that very single day
the Man he shares the name with, Michael represents his desire to be loved by his father and the obligation to do his work
While, Vanessa represents his moral dilemma, his conflict and the inevitable turn against his father
the "that was easier than i thought it would be" line implies that william knows mike is good at surviving the fnaf nightshift scenario. he possibly learned this in fnaf3, sure, but i like the idea of him knowing mike blazed through those maxmode nights (twice! on first try!) better.
and this is made even more fun by afton probably sucking at surviving the nightshifts and being a pissbaby who is scared of the monsters he's created, considering how he demanded to be switched to the dayshift the second the animatronics started moving around at night in fnaf2. and how he never worked the nightshift ever again and chose to work as a technician in the fnaf1 location instead (if he's dave from maintenance, that is)
It's as a switch either Michael Afton is a horrible monster not deserving of any forgiveness or he's a little angel who did nothing wrong and that it was all an accident and there's no in between 💀🙏
ONG i swear someone posted something about this on twt this morning, fnaf fans dont understand the concept of people being morally grey 😭
even when someone is actually a GOOD person, the community finds some say to demonize them like crazy, its insane help
genuinely some ppl cant bare to admit their favorite character isnt the greatest person, like some william afton fans want to defend him so bad, like how do you even enjoy him if you take away all his flaws bro. theyre the same people trying to paint mike as evil incarnate too like whatt did we play the same games
same with michael afton fans, its a bit less common but there are so many people who try really hard to overly justify the bad things he's done and it feels like theyre infantilizing him sometimes??? like yeah what he did was an accident, but we can at least admit it *was* out of malicious intent (but definitely not with the intent of causing something permanent ofc) he didn't 'accidentally' put his own brother's head in an animatronic's mouth, ive seen so much fan content where he's written as his perfect, misunderstood kid who never bullied his brother and like. i get that you want to see the best in this guy but he is a much better character with a more impactful arc if you look at him as someone who changed for the better rather than someone who has never done anything wrong, but thats just imho i guess 😭
i am michael afton's #1 fan. i LOVED what they are doing with him. hear me out. its because michael afton in the movie, mike schmidt, and vanessa afton are the same character. theyre parts of a whole. michael afton in the games is the three of them TOGETHER he has the same baggage as the three and they are making it make sense by splitting him. the three of them are like fanon interpretations of game michael afton. it RULES. it rules. Everyone shut up
jacobvanloon
janainaart
titsay
izzy806
origamiaround
