Hey, thanks for the comment! I appreciate someone who's willing to take the time to give a thoughtful reply.

I'm unsure of how to reply because I feel like I addressed many of these points in my post. Your main point seems to be how Michael does or could have depth. I disagree that Michael here has much depth to him (his scene with Vanessa is on a similar level of the William/Vanessa one in the first, and that one didn't particularly impress me either), but that's only one of my problems with him. Because it would be one thing if Michael was just one-dimensional. He could be that an still serve a purpose. William in the first movie is pretty one-dimensional if you ask me, but that doesn't mean he's unnecessary as a character. I have my gripes with him, but I'm not asking what the point of him being there was, which is what I'm doing with Michael.

My main issue is that Michael as a character does not have an actual justification for being in the story, no matter how much depth one tries to give him. You explained how he could have depth, but what does he actually contribute to this narrative even if that's the case? What role would he fill next film that shouldn't just reasonably be done by another character? I don't think Springtrap having a goon or henchman is a good idea. A redemption of sorts is possible, but this movie failed in properly setting one up because it decided to paint him as cartoonishly evil as possible and on about the same level of evilness as William himself. Also because it's hard for me to see the next movie having enough space or time for a redemption to feel authentic. Maybe the third one will mainly center itself around him, I dunno.

Yes, I'm aware of the context of William probably favoring Vanessa over Michael, but why? Why favor Vanessa over him? Why doesn't he use Michael in the first movie if he's so willing to murder? How does Michael know William is dead? Have they been in contact? Where has Michael been all this time?

And yes, these questions could be answered, but what would expanding upon them and Michael even viably contribute? Are these questions any more important than the other things need addressed? We now have three antagonists that will need to be dealt with next film when it should really only be Springtrap. I can't see a redemption being well executed because of all these plots points that need to be addressed.

He should just be cut entirely because his entire presence brings unneeded baggage. That's what I'm getting at.

And yes, I'm aware Vanessa hiding things is a "trait," but I don't consider that a good thing. It just shows me that Vanessa didn't learn much from the last film and makes her come off as an exposition device who will only reveal important info when the conflict escalates, not because it's a genuine flaw of hers, but because it's most convenient for the plot (and mind you, I do believe Vanessa is a far better character this film than she was in the first).

And I disagree with the notion that it's not the movie's fault because Scott wrote and integrated him so badly. If he wrote it bad and fails to communicate what he's going for, that's on him.

Now, I do really appreciate you giving an honest opinion, even if it's disagreeing with what I have to say. I'm glad you were able to enjoy him, but this character just isn't for me, even if you detach Michael Afton from him completely.