MovieChat Forums > Burn Notice (2007) Discussion > Did anyone else notice Mike is an ass?

Did anyone else notice Mike is an ass?

posted 8 years ago by sandycub
7 replies | jump to latest

This has always been a favorite series of mine. I am now rewatching from the beginning again and it's standing out more and more how much of a selfish ass Michael was. Fi and Sam were always there no matter what Michael wanted or how much danger they might be in. But for Michael any time he wants something, whether it's for a case or about his burn notice he expects them to drop whatever to do whst he wants. But if they say they need help, it's always "now isn't a good time". I mean sure he does end up helping but he is pretty selfish.

[–] Carolinagirl35 8 years ago

I just finished it and yes sometimes I thought he did do that, and no one seemed bothered by it. It really bugged me when Ayn from prion needed help and he would not help Fi and then comes in at the last minute and takes over. Really annoyed me.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Well, the show WAS about Mike....

I mean, Sam was supposed to be spying on him for the Feds and Fiona was also there to keep an eye on him.

[–] Arbuckle_T_Boone 8 years ago

I think it went both ways. There were numerous situations where Sam and Fiona pulled Mike into something when they knew he was in either no position to help or could end up in even more trouble by helping.

There were also quite a few times where Sam and to a lesser extent Fiona pulled him into a job that they claimed was easy money or would only take an hour and it nearly gets him killed.

I do think he became an ass towards the end by not seeing that the government is an enemy and he should have nothing to do with them. He should have joined James' organization.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

I do think he became an ass towards the end by not seeing that the government is an enemy and he should have nothing to do with them. He should have joined James' organization.

I'm not a fan of big government, but Jame's organization is more dangerous than the government. He's someone who acts without constraints or anyone to question his motives.

That is always a bad thing.

[–] Arbuckle_T_Boone 8 years ago

I don't see the difference. The US government does the same thing. No one asked me or the rest of the country if we wanted to try and overthrow Assad and the legally elected government by arming terrorists and starting a war in Syria.

The consequences of that have caused an invasion of Europe and too a leseer extent the US and Australia.

Now we have the same maniacs demanding a war with Russia. James came across as having better morals than our government.

No one in the media questions the motives of these warmongers so I don't see the difference other than James doing what he thought was right and the US government trying to destroy civilization.

[–] MurphAndTheMagicTones 8 years ago

The difference is one person vs an entire entity. An entity's motives typically have a broader scope. Putting the Shah of Iran in power was about getting oil back in the 1950s and he bit us in the ass, as did Saddam Hussein. But invasions don't occur merely for the sake of invasions.

Bush Jr. didn't go into Iraq to finish the job his father couldn't. He went in there because he was conned by intel that a mobile chemical weapons lab was there. We can Monday morning quarterback this until we're blue in the face. But an entity like ours is always about one of three things: 1) cleaning up a prior mess, 2) preventing what is considered a current or greater disaster, and 3) whatever is in the best interests of the country.

Putin's the same way. Trump will be easier to handle than Hillary would have been. It was in Russia's best interests that Trump won the election.

---
"I have no more campaigns to run. I know, because I won both of them."---Barack Obama

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Pretty much agree with that.