M and T's relationship is pretty sad and.... (ENDING SPOILERS)

#1cloudropisPosted 9/26/2013 10:41:38 AM
... held up by a tiny little string. In the C ending they all get along and well, but notice the A and B ending. In the Kill Michael one he quickly asks if Trevor asked Franklin to do that and, if that is so, they could just team-up against him. Still, it'd be normal for him (or anyone) to be so freaking paranoid about a resentful psycho, so it may be passable for him to say such a thing..
But, if you take too long to kill Trevor as Franklin in the other ending, in probably the darkest scene in the game, Michael himself sets his old pal ablaze saying he has had enough of that lunatic maniac. It all feels like their friendship is basically over even in the C ending, and all that "drunk Trevor tries to hug Michael" stuff is just.. Fake, and they'd just kill each other at the next serious debate. Since the game is a tad short I never expected them to return best buddies by the end of the game (it wouldn't even make sense), but this? This is two feet away from mutual murdering. I found this pretty sad.
#2ClunyPosted 9/26/2013 10:49:05 AM
Like Trevor said Micheal doesn't have the balls to do it on his own so instead he compromises like he tends to do. He'll probably try to get him killed again if given the opportunity.
#3lookaseagulPosted 9/26/2013 11:07:29 AM
SPOILERS

Trevor said that in the graveyard and then failed to pull the trigger himself. If their relationship was done they wouldn't be fighting as much really, one would just be dead.
---
"Prepare yourself for a pride obliterating *****slap."-Inignot
#4MadellePosted 9/26/2013 11:35:42 AM
I felt like the Deathwish mission didn't fit very well narratively. They wrapped up their issues with each other a little too neatly for my tastes and I didn't find it credible at all. Either of the character deaths fit in much better with the narrative.

A lot of the tension comes from the fact that Michael (at least from Michael) tried to have Trevor killed 10 years ago, only Dave hit Brad instead. He was supposed to kill Trevor. That's why Michael is so paranoid about Trevor wanting to kill him. Though whether Trevor realises this is left ambiguous. To Michael, Trevor is an uncontrollable rabid dog. To Michael control is very important. To Trevor, Michael is a back-stabbing snake. In some ways, he is childlike in his approach to friendship and has a highr egard for loyalty and in some way even honesty. Even so, there is an instance where he comes close to killing Franklin in a temper tantrum for laughing at him. Both are right and they are both deluding themselves about somehow being purer than the other. There's so much baggage there that there's no way it all wraps up neatly with a tight little bow.
---
"In the depths of winter I finally found in myself an invincible summer" ~Albert Camus
#5cloudropis(Topic Creator)Posted 9/26/2013 12:01:38 PM
Cluny posted...
Like Trevor said Micheal doesn't have the balls to do it on his own so instead he compromises like he tends to do. He'll probably try to get him killed again if given the opportunity.


This is... Unsettling, because it fits well with Michael's personality. He tries to think of himself of a good guy who made a couple of mistakes and tries to justify them, he'll probably find an excuse to kill Trevor and live with it.

Madelle posted...
A lot of the tension comes from the fact that Michael (at least from Michael) tried to have Trevor killed 10 years ago


WAT

When is this spoken of? I remember Michael worried that Trevor might think that the whole North Yankton heist was a trap for the team and that he already made a pact with the FIB, and I think I remember well that Michael assured that it wasn't this way, they negotiated only after the failed heist. But if this is the case... Well, I really hope not, because I like Michael as a character and that would make him less likable in my book. Still a bad person mind you, but a worse character IMO.
#6TinCynicPosted 9/26/2013 12:04:29 PM
cloudropis posted...
Cluny posted...
Like Trevor said Micheal doesn't have the balls to do it on his own so instead he compromises like he tends to do. He'll probably try to get him killed again if given the opportunity.


This is... Unsettling, because it fits well with Michael's personality. He tries to think of himself of a good guy who made a couple of mistakes and tries to justify them, he'll probably find an excuse to kill Trevor and live with it.

Madelle posted...
A lot of the tension comes from the fact that Michael (at least from Michael) tried to have Trevor killed 10 years ago


WAT

When is this spoken of? I remember Michael worried that Trevor might think that the whole North Yankton heist was a trap for the team and that he already made a pact with the FIB, and I think I remember well that Michael assured that it wasn't this way, they negotiated only after the failed heist. But if this is the case... Well, I really hope not, because I like Michael as a character and that would make him less likable in my book. Still a bad person mind you, but a worse character IMO.


Nobody but Michael was supposed to make it out of the North Yankton ambush alive. Trevor was supposed to be killed by either the police or FIB Agent Norton. (Or at the very least end up in prison.)
#7generalhsPosted 9/26/2013 12:10:16 PM
Madelle posted...
To Michael control is very important. To Trevor, Michael is a back-stabbing snake. In some ways, he is childlike in his approach to friendship and has a highr egard for loyalty and in some way even honesty.


Actually, control seems pretty important to Trevor as well. Look at his relationships with Wade and Ron. He is the boss who always gets his way around them. Trevor HATES it when people don't act the way he expects them to and loves to be the dominant one, like with Floyd.
#8Weiland101Posted 9/26/2013 12:13:39 PM
If Michael and Trevor hang out post-game it adds a bit on to their relationship. A bit of closure really.
#9MadellePosted 9/26/2013 1:14:46 PM
cloudropis posted...
Cluny posted...
Like Trevor said Micheal doesn't have the balls to do it on his own so instead he compromises like he tends to do. He'll probably try to get him killed again if given the opportunity.


This is... Unsettling, because it fits well with Michael's personality. He tries to think of himself of a good guy who made a couple of mistakes and tries to justify them, he'll probably find an excuse to kill Trevor and live with it.

Madelle posted...
A lot of the tension comes from the fact that Michael (at least from Michael) tried to have Trevor killed 10 years ago


WAT

When is this spoken of? I remember Michael worried that Trevor might think that the whole North Yankton heist was a trap for the team and that he already made a pact with the FIB, and I think I remember well that Michael assured that it wasn't this way, they negotiated only after the failed heist. But if this is the case... Well, I really hope not, because I like Michael as a character and that would make him less likable in my book. Still a bad person mind you, but a worse character IMO.


At one point (I don't remember exactly when unfortunately, but I'm fairly sure it was early in the game), Michael mentions that the wrong person got killed 10 years ago. At the time, you don't have the full information on what happened those 10 years ago, but on your second playthrough the meaning is quite obvious. Michael's denial that there was an arrangement prior to the heist is a lie. He lies to just about everyone but Dave. It is directly mentioned in dialogue between him and Dave and in his flashback conversation with Amanda during the drive to Yankton that the heist was indeed a set-up from the start.

This is also why during the heist at the very start when Trevor says "There'll be time for mourning later", Michael replies something along the lines of "You bet there will be". There is a lot of foreshadowing etc. to pick up on in repeated playthroughs.
---
"In the depths of winter I finally found in myself an invincible summer" ~Albert Camus
#10cloudropis(Topic Creator)Posted 9/26/2013 1:51:10 PM
Madelle posted...
cloudropis posted...
Cluny posted...
Like Trevor said Micheal doesn't have the balls to do it on his own so instead he compromises like he tends to do. He'll probably try to get him killed again if given the opportunity.


This is... Unsettling, because it fits well with Michael's personality. He tries to think of himself of a good guy who made a couple of mistakes and tries to justify them, he'll probably find an excuse to kill Trevor and live with it.

Madelle posted...
A lot of the tension comes from the fact that Michael (at least from Michael) tried to have Trevor killed 10 years ago


WAT

When is this spoken of? I remember Michael worried that Trevor might think that the whole North Yankton heist was a trap for the team and that he already made a pact with the FIB, and I think I remember well that Michael assured that it wasn't this way, they negotiated only after the failed heist. But if this is the case... Well, I really hope not, because I like Michael as a character and that would make him less likable in my book. Still a bad person mind you, but a worse character IMO.


At one point (I don't remember exactly when unfortunately, but I'm fairly sure it was early in the game), Michael mentions that the wrong person got killed 10 years ago. At the time, you don't have the full information on what happened those 10 years ago, but on your second playthrough the meaning is quite obvious. Michael's denial that there was an arrangement prior to the heist is a lie. He lies to just about everyone but Dave. It is directly mentioned in dialogue between him and Dave and in his flashback conversation with Amanda during the drive to Yankton that the heist was indeed a set-up from the start.

This is also why during the heist at the very start when Trevor says "There'll be time for mourning later", Michael replies something along the lines of "You bet there will be". There is a lot of foreshadowing etc. to pick up on in repeated playthroughs.


I thought about all this dialogue until now, and it can be read both ways: North Yankton flashbacks may be post-heist time as well, and Michael may have been humorous with the "wrong person killed" line because Trevor is much more of an hassle than Braid and it would have been better for a stray bullet to kill him instead. I think I'll watch all the important cutscene again, it may very well be all foreshadowing like you said (and probabily it is, just the other lines can be interpreted in other ways to). Thank you for opening my eyes, this game is harsh with the story. You're used to GTA's main protagonist being a-holes, but GTA V makes you care about them, helped by the fact you directly control them.