[callmemaybe]

Cant believe she stupid enough to get scammed like this though.
Hate Michael for taking advantage.

[funcat650]

Originally Posted by maurice45

BIB: he is evil

I honestly don't know why Jean trusts him though...they're pretty muc telling us that she's thick. Which I think is a bas thing.

What does BIB stand for?

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by funcat650

What does BIB stand for?

Bit in bold. I find his multi-faceted personality interesting to watch, which is why I like him.

[cooler]

Originally Posted by callmemaybe

Cant believe she stupid enough to get scammed like this though.
Hate Michael for taking advantage.

Michael has never revealed his dark side to her though so why would she suspect he's conning her? Also, the fact he's engaged to a multi millionaire makes it even more bizzarre that Jean would come to the conclusion that he's conning her.

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by cooler

Michael has never revealed his dark side to her though so why would she suspect he's conning her? Also, the fact he's engaged to a multi millionaire makes it even more bizzarre that Jean would come to the conclusion that he's conning her.

Not to mention the fact that Jean's character is written as a completely gullible individual, prone to believing what people tell her. Just like when Phil was able to convince her that she didn't see Andrew at the station.

[monalisa62003]

Originally Posted by maurice45

Not to mention the fact that Jean's character is written as a completely gullible individual, prone to believing what people tell her. Just like when Phil was able to convince her that she didn't see Andrew at the station.

why did andrew never say that he saw her? surely he would've remembered this?

and talking about plotholes - shirley never realized she didnt delete the phone message!

oops i know this is off-topic but meh lol

[callmemaybe]

Originally Posted by cooler

Michael has never revealed his dark side to her though so why would she suspect he's conning her? Also, the fact he's engaged to a multi millionaire makes it even more bizzarre that Jean would come to the conclusion that he's conning her.

True. But I dont know why she's even giving him money..if he's married to someone who has money why would he go around asking her..and why would she give him the money?

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by callmemaybe

True. But I dont know why she's even giving him money..if he's married to someone who has money why would he go around asking her..and why would she give him the money?

She is gullible. She thinks Michael's doing her and Alfie a favour by investing the money. Michael said "Alfie's struggling. Give me the money, I'll invest it and you'll have even more money!" - being Jean, she bought this.

[Red Lips]

Originally Posted by maurice45

She is gullible. She thinks Michael's doing her and Alfie a favour by investing the money. Michael said "Alfie's struggling. Give me the money, I'll invest it and you'll have even more money!" - being Jean, she bought this.

To be fair, she has consistently been this gullible . She believed Phil when he persuaded her that she hadn't seen Phil. She was also persuaded by Alfie and Kat to take the blame for Mo's benefit fraud.

I think the way Michael has wormed his way into getting her to trust him is very interesting. It has been a slow build-up over a couple of months. Initially, when he was being nice to her and was sticking up for her, I thought he was showing a more caring side of his personality (possibly because of his mother 'issues') , but I now think that it was all part of his evil master plan !

[haphash]

The storyline is very odd. Jean is way too trusting for a woman of her age and Michael is despicable. The strangest thing is that Janine hasn't sussed out that Michael is broke. How on earth has she missed that one?

[Red Lips]

Originally Posted by haphash

The storyline is very odd. Jean is way too trusting for a woman of her age and Michael is despicable. The strangest thing is that Janine hasn't sussed out that Michael is broke. How on earth has she missed that one?

BIB I find that astonishing aswell. Janine is a calculating, intuitive type of person who can pretty much suss everyuthing out. The way she has accepted Michael's explanations is odd particularly as she knows what he is like.

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by Red Lips

BIB I find that astonishing aswell. Janine is a calculating, intuitive type of person who can pretty much suss everyuthing out. The way she has accepted Michael's explanations is odd particularly as she knows what he is like.

She knows Michael is broke, she almost dumped him because of that once. But she also knows that he, too, in manipulative and calculating and will somehow be able to get his hands on the money. Cue Michael scamming Jean. And it's not like Janine really cares abut Jean either, not after the whole Ryan/Stacey stuff.

[blue_angel]

I think Michael is a proper little Iago.

Brilliantly manipulative and I adore his little soliloquies!

[Jayma]

Originally Posted by Red Lips

To be fair, she has consistently been this gullible . She believed Phil when he persuaded her that she hadn't seen Phil. She was also persuaded by Alfie and Kat to take the blame for Mo's benefit fraud.

I think the way Michael has wormed his way into getting her to trust him is very interesting. It has been a slow build-up over a couple of months. Initially, when he was being nice to her and was sticking up for her, I thought he was showing a more caring side of his personality (possibly because of his mother 'issues') , but I now think that it was all part of his evil master plan !

Michael is also very impulsive, he's a chancer and doesn't always have a longterm master plan. He tends to react in extreme ways when he feels (rightly or wrongly) that he's been wronged. He's quite tunnel visioned in that way.

For example, he had years to exact 'revenge' on his dad, but only did so when his dad turned up into his life uninvited and Michael felt put out to see his dad interacting so comfortably with all the people in what Michael saw as 'his world'. I can remember him warning his dad to leave, saying 'These are my people'. He tried to pay his dad to leave (in the days when it was convenient for the storyline to have Michael loaded), but when Eddie didn't leave, Michael decided to punish him.

Also with Janine, Steve John Shepherd has said it wasn't about the money at first. Michael was highly insulted by the pre-nup insistance by her, which she announced straight after he proposed so romantically to her and had laid his feelings bare. That's when he decided to 'punish' her by trying to ensure the prenup is unenforceable. He did have genuine feelings for her. She pursued him, it wasn't he other way round.

And with Jean, It is entirely possible that Michael does care for her on some level. He seemed very genuine when he rescued her at the nightclub a few months back. Again though, the tunnel vision has set in because Janine is pressurising him to contribute to the wedding, so he sees what he's doing to Jean as necessary to achieve his own ends. We know he cares for Alfie, but he's still prepared to take his money too. He is a deeply flawed character - SJS thinks he's psychopathic, but I find him highly fascinating.

[Red Lips]

Originally Posted by Jayma

Michael is also very impulsive, he's a chancer and doesn't always have a longterm master plan. He tends to react in extreme ways when he feels (rightly or wrongly) that he's been wronged. He's quite tunnel visioned in that way.

For example, he had years to exact 'revenge' on his dad, but only did so when his dad turned up into his life uninvited and Michael felt put out to see his dad interacting so comfortably with all the people in what Michael saw as 'his world'. I can remember him warning his dad to leave, saying 'These are my people'. He tried to pay his dad to leave (in the days when it was convenient for the storyline to have Michael loaded), but when Eddie didn't leave, Michael decided to punish him.

Also with Janine, Steve John Shepherd has said it wasn't about the money at first. Michael was highly insulted by the pre-nup insistance by her, which she announced straight after he proposed so romantically to her and had laid his feelings bare. That's when he decided to 'punish' her by trying to ensure the prenup is unenforceable. He did have genuine feelings for her. She pursued him, it wasn't he other way round.

And with Jean, It is entirely possible that Michael does care for her on some level. He seemed very genuine when he rescued her at the nightclub a few months back. Again though, the tunnel vision has set in because Janine is pressurising him to contribute to the wedding, so he sees what he's doing to Jean as necessary to achieve his own ends. We know he cares for Alfie, but he's still prepared to take his money too. He is a deeply flawed character - SJS thinks he's psychopathic, but I find him highly fascinating.

It's interesting reading your take on it.

I agree that Michael is a deeply flawed character. Aswell as being calculating and manipulative he also has a highly sensitive side. After he discovered the reasons as to why his father had hidden his mothers suicide, Michael was very quick in forgiving his father. He was so desperate for the love and affection that he became totally oblivious to Eddie Moon's swindle and he lost all his money. Again recently he seemed genuinely upset that Jack didn't want to be his best man (totally forgetting everything he had done to Jack!).

Michael has no moral compass which clearly blurs all his boundaries.

[PrincessPerfect]

Originally Posted by Jayma

Michael is also very impulsive, he's a chancer and doesn't always have a longterm master plan. He tends to react in extreme ways when he feels (rightly or wrongly) that he's been wronged. He's quite tunnel visioned in that way.

For example, he had years to exact 'revenge' on his dad, but only did so when his dad turned up into his life uninvited and Michael felt put out to see his dad interacting so comfortably with all the people in what Michael saw as 'his world'. I can remember him warning his dad to leave, saying 'These are my people'. He tried to pay his dad to leave (in the days when it was convenient for the storyline to have Michael loaded), but when Eddie didn't leave, Michael decided to punish him.

Also with Janine, Steve John Shepherd has said it wasn't about the money at first. Michael was highly insulted by the pre-nup insistance by her, which she announced straight after he proposed so romantically to her and had laid his feelings bare. That's when he decided to 'punish' her by trying to ensure the prenup is unenforceable. He did have genuine feelings for her. She pursued him, it wasn't he other way round.

And with Jean, It is entirely possible that Michael does care for her on some level. He seemed very genuine when he rescued her at the nightclub a few months back. Again though, the tunnel vision has set in because Janine is pressurising him to contribute to the wedding, so he sees what he's doing to Jean as necessary to achieve his own ends. We know he cares for Alfie, but he's still prepared to take his money too. He is a deeply flawed character - SJS thinks he's psychopathic, but I find him highly fascinating.

Excellent analysis.

I do consider Michael Moon as one of my favourite characters. Not only is he one of the more interesting EE characters, but he's pretty fit too!

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerfect

Excellent analysis.

I do consider Michael Moon as one of my favourite characters. Not only is one of the more interesting EE characters, but he's pretty fit too!

Michael & Dennis - what would you do if you had to pick between the two?

[PrincessPerfect]

Originally Posted by maurice45

Michael & Dennis - what would you do if you had to pick between the two?

Oh no - don't ask that of me!


I can't pick!

[trixitrots]

Originally Posted by maurice45

Not a fan of Michael Moon the Matchstick Manipulator?

First laugh of a very long day. Thank you very much

[Victoria Sponge]

Originally Posted by funcat650

Can anyone of his fans please tell what they see in him.

He looks filthy.

[Jayma]

Originally Posted by Red Lips

It's interesting reading your take on it.

I agree that Michael is a deeply flawed character. Aswell as being calculating and manipulative he also has a highly sensitive side. After he discovered the reasons as to why his father had hidden his mothers suicide, Michael was very quick in forgiving his father. He was so desperate for the love and affection that he became totally oblivious to Eddie Moon's swindle and he lost all his money. Again recently he seemed genuinely upset that Jack didn't want to be his best man (totally forgetting everything he had done to Jack!).

Michael has no moral compass which clearly blurs all his boundaries.

Yes, I think it's his vulnerability as well as his obvious flaws that makes him such an interesting character to watch. Definitely not one-dimensional.

Originally Posted by PrincessPerfect

Excellent analysis.

I do consider Michael Moon as one of my favourite characters. Not only is he one of the more interesting EE characters, but he's pretty fit too!

Thanks - I could happily waffle about him for most of the day. Always good to meet another Michael appreciator - you're most welcome to join us on his appreciation thread, where he is widely regarded as being both interesting and fit!

[cooler]

How is Michael broke? I know Eddie robbed him last year, but he still runs the boxing club with Jack doesn't he? Surely all the earnings don't get poured back into the business.

[PrincessPerfect]

Originally Posted by Jayma

Yes, I think it's his vulnerability as well as his obvious flaws that makes him such an interesting character to watch. Definitely not one-dimensional.



Thanks - I could happily waffle about him for most of the day. Always good to meet another Michael appreciator - you're most welcome to join us on his appreciation thread, where he is widely regarded as being both interesting and fit!

Thanks!

Looking over at Mr Moon's appreciation thread, he's more popular than you would think on the face of it! There's been comparsions between Michael and Archie, but I think they are fundementally different characters, although they are both pyschopaths; although MM is more three dimensional than Archie. Whereas Archie, for the large part was quite one-dimensional in his ''evil'' and his creation was based on EE producers thinking up what could be evil personified and put into a character, Michael's control and manipulation is influenced highly by his senstitive side. Like Janine, he'll keep the barriers up, and if when his feelings are laid bare, feels rejected that will be a strong sensor to turn on the ''control'' mode, in the event of any vunerability. It's sad that Charlie Brooks is leaving for a break, as I would have liked to have explored their relationship more, as they are simlar in many ways. MM has a vunerable core, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out over the coming months. I think SJS plays Michael brillantly though. In essence, he achieves what Jake Wood has with Max - which is making an audience love and hate a character at the same time.

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by cooler

How is Michael broke? I know Eddie robbed him last year, but he still runs the boxing club with Jack doesn't he? Surely all the earnings don't get poured back into the business.

THAT, my friend, is one of the great unanswered questions of EE, a similar one being "where did the rest of Roxy's money go?"

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by PrincessPerfect

Thanks!

Looking over at Mr Moon's appreciation thread, he's more popular than you would think on the face of it! There's been comparsions between Michael and Archie, but I think they are fundementally different characters, although they are both pyschopaths; although MM is more three dimensional than Archie. Whereas Archie, for the large part was quite one-dimensional in his ''evil'' and his creation was based on EE producers thinking up what could be evil personified and put into a character, Michael's control and manipulation is influenced highly by his senstitive side. Like Janine, he'll keep the barriers up, and if when his feelings are laid bare, feels rejected that will be a strong sensor to turn on the ''control'' mode, in the event of any vunerability. It's sad that Charlie Brooks is leaving for a break, as I would have liked to have explored their relationship more, as they are simlar in many ways. MM has a vunerable core, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out over the coming months. I think SJS plays Michael brillantly though. In essence, he achieves what Jake Wood has with Max - which is making an audience love and hate a character at the same time.

While I agree with this, I do tend to think of Archie in the way Michael goes about manipulating people. His "nasty streak" too, is rather similar to Archies. While the reasoning behind Michael's behaviour is different to Archie's, the effects are still strikingly similar. They are both drawn to people they need to manipulate and control (I don't doubt for a second that Michael would take control of Janine if he ever got a chance).

What makes Michael different to Archie, as you pointed out, is his sensitive side. He's essentially seeking his father's approval, as well as a woman to love him. But because he's so damaged, he probably wouldn't know HOW to commit, IMO. The only time I have ever seen him show any signs of "love" for a woman, it was Kat. I'm still not 100% sure what that was though.

Michael's approach to certain people is also quite similar to Archie. The scene where Ronnie rejected his advances and he lashed out by calling her "damaged" was a prime example. I'm sure he said those things because, especially to someone as proud as Michael, rejection hurts, but I'm sure this could be classed as psychological warfare. He was drawn to Ronnie and knew how her mind works so he manipulated her, just like Archie. He also messed around with Danielle's locket, planting it in Tommy's pram to convince everyone Ronnie had gone mad, just as Archie hid Danielle's locket to convince Ronnie that she was lying.

Another possible example would be the way he spoke to Rainie in the gardens. Such vile comments directed towards someone vulnerable, like Rainie, were rather similar to the way Archie treated Stacey. And while Archie forced himself on Stacey, Michael tried to force himself on Ronnie.

The bottom line is, yes, they are two very different personalities. Archie is an example of someone who's incapable of love, almost indestructible in a way, because there wasn't a lot anyone could hold over him. The man never once expressed any guilt or remorse for his actions, except on his dying day. He lived for power, control and his own selfish desires. Michael's cruel streak is just a defence mechanism. There has to be a side to him that knows and fully understands what he is doing, and feels a pang of guilt about this, the moral voice is drowned out by a much stronger desire for power and control. This makes him somewhat similar to Archie.

(Sorry to drone on...I'm in zombie mode and just kept on typing )