Realistically do you still think Milvn will breakup in the first couple of episodes? I feel like the fabdom is focusing on fanon so much at this point that they are missing canon and actual narrative on the show. It seems very unlikely to me for Mvln's breakup taking place in first couple of episodes. But the fandom are still stuk in their previous thoughts and cannot seem to think differently at all and never even consider the possibility of mlvn breakup happening way later on in the next season. Most of the Byler's analyses about El's character has turned out to be wrong. El doesnt seem to be done with the relationship. She still loves Mike (or thinks she does) and she drew strength from his monologue. A mildvn breakup right into S5 does not make any sense canon narrative wise. We can argue that the show was different that the script, while i agree with it to an extent i reaaaly think people are trying way too hard to discredit the writers intention and the script here. El was not angry at Mike. She was sad about Max and Hawkins' situation. 🤷♀️
What i am saying is that i feel like most Bylers are misinterpetating what is happening with the narrative here and it leads to unrealistic and baseless expectations for the characters and S5 regarding how Mlvn vs Byler will take place. And i am greatly sorry but i dont think Mike lied in his monologue, like at all. And the situation reads like "Mike loved el romantically but they wont be together bc of incompitability". El is not even still over Mike. And people expect her to be like "i breakup with you bye" right into S5. Mike still has underlining feelings for El. Like... all i am saying is people shouldnt base their expectations on headcanons and fanon misinterpretations.
Lastly, while i really would like a more detailed gay coming of age and sexuality storyline for Mike, realistically going by canon i dont think its happening. Sorry. They will mostly focus on Will's sexuality and coming of age it seems like and Mike will mostly have a "realization" arc where he realizes El and him are not fit for each other and then he decides to be with Will.
Based on the show’s trend of doing break-ups (or at least implied break-ups) early in the season, yes I do think it’s likely that the audience will at least have the impression that Mike and El are broken up early in s5.
That’s based on a technique they have done repeatedly, whereas the assumption that they will break-up midseason is based on what exactly? The Duffers saying that s5 is jumping right back into the action?
I mean, if anything shouldn’t that be an indication that the arcs heavily built up in s4, that were left deliberately unresolved, are going to be dealt with in a timely manner, as opposed to being put on pause and then squished into mid s5, when we’re arguably going to have even more stuff the characters are dealing with? Like, them literally fighting for their lives?
When it comes to Mike’s monologue giving El strength according to the script, this is actually really easy to explain and so I will!
For starters, they did not disclose El's feelings about the monologue in the Piggyback script, bc they released it knowing it would go public, at least two years before s5 is set to actually come out. They would not just throw in a huge spoiler like that, seeing as it was intentionally left unaddressed in s4, with the intention to be addressed in early s5. That’s the whole thing about s4 kind of leaving things so shaky and uncertain, with s5 jumping us right back into that, bc there was just so much set up for all of those dominos to inevitably fall.
To understand Mike’s monologue and its impact on El better, it might help to recall the memory of El’s birth and how her mother’s love is what gave her the strength to defeat Henry the first time in 79’.
I mean look at the lighting of that scene, it’s probably the brightest fucking lighting we’ve ever seen in the entire series (you know what light means... pure, genuine, true love…). And it’s because strength from love is much more powerful than strength from anger. That’s something she is literally throwing back in Henry’s face that day of the massacre, going against what he told her to do and instead using the memory of her mother’s love to beat him.
During Mike’s monologue, we see El using anger to give her strength to finally break free and stop Vecna, all orchestrated by events that Henry has had a role in impacting, meaning he was actively going up against her this second time, all while knowing that in order to actually beat her, she needed to be vulnerable and unable to use love as strength, with her only option being anger. And so what we see is anger about Mike still woefully misunderstanding what she had tried to explain to him earlier in the season, along with watching her best friend be murdered in front of her. And look at the lighting of that scene, she's literally seeing red. The atmosphere is eerily uncertain at best.
This monologue was SOOO necessary for the narrative in order to keep the public away from considering Byler. Because they already don’t want to consider it as it is, and that monologue gives them an excuse not to. You saw how they reacted to the piggyback script? Like it was this huge sigh of relief for them? Meaning that they were having doubts…
The thing is, I have considered the possibility of a mid-season Milkvan break-up. I’ve talked about how waiting until mid-season, something that would be unprecedented bc they’ve never done it before, would be odd considering we will be dealing with vastly different concerns and conflicts by that point.
For them to hold off settling a break-up, that was built up all of s4 (arguably since s3), until mid-s5, would fall flat. If anything jumping right into the action means all the major stuff built-up, but left unaddressed in s4, is what we’re jumping back into.
They need to address those things so that they can move on to the aftermath of all of that and then beyond that. 5 episodes of ignoring that, and then 4 episodes of it happening and processing all of it AND dealing with endgame right as the finale is coming to a close, would be hard to juggle and make satisfying.
The reason they like this approach so much, is because it allows the audience to root for the other option in the love triangle. And with Will getting home-wrecker allegations as it is, a milkvan break-up is extremely necessary this time around as well, especially with byler being endgame and them really wanting us to root for them finally.
How can we do that if the Duffer’s break their own trend of early break-ups and in turn make it difficult for us to root for byler, all while leading on milkvan’s unnecessarily even longer (with no intention of going that route), making it even more unlikely for viewers to accept Byler endgame?
They’ve been building up to this inevitable break-up since s3, with s4 ending in a way that made it sort of obvious El is not happy with Mike and with Mike clearly struggling with something.
Are we just going ignore the implications of the inevitable painting reveal or the fact that Mike called El ‘his’ superhero (the most insulting thing he could do honestly, least of all during a love confession) at the end of s4, and have that confrontation be stretched out? For what? El hasn’t even responded to it or told us her side at all? She told Mike she missed him and that’s it… That’s all we’ve got. Like, let her speak and actually say how she feels about their fight in her room and the events at Surfer Boy and everything leading up to this inevitable moment for them.
While Mike and El didn’t outright break up in s4, there was heavy implications of it, and that was for a reason. They wanted us to watch those Will and Mike scenes throughout the season and see something more. Even though it didn’t end with a kiss between them, nor them officially getting together, they still did it because they wanted us to interpret those scenes as romantic comfortably. That's also why they kept Mike and El seperate at the end of s4, because they wanted us to look at Mike and Will in a way that made us go 🫣🫣🫣 at the very least.
Now, if s5 is leading to Byler endgame, just imagine how much more important it is to make it really clear that Mike and El aren’t happening?
Another even more important reason to have break-ups early in a season in general, is to allow the overall season to have a vibe that is cohesive as it’s own entity. Major stuff happens at the beginning and major stuff happens at the end, with the middle making up the overall vibe and feeling they want us to subscribe to the whole time, with certain pairings being constant that time more than the end/beginning. It makes more sense for us to root for byler most of the season, the whole middle, and for the first time at the end now as well, while letting go of El and Mike early on, even if it’s ambiguous like it was in the previous season. Personally I think the prospects of a dump your ass parallel are high… (can we do something interesting and fun like speculate how the break up would go down? Will it be angsty? Will it be lighthearted? Like I want to see all of those hot takes bc that's actually something that is more fun to think about than the 'when').
I know some people are here because they love romances or love queer romances and just enjoy shipping in general, but I’m genuinely here bc Byler makes sense based on all that stuff you would probably consider to be reaching. That stuff is the best part to me. So, if you don’t like others doing that, then consider muting those that you deem as people ‘misinterpreting the narrative’, again, according to you.
At the end of the day you can believe whatever you want to believe.
This idea that it’s okay to tell other people they are wrong and have baseless claims, all while ignoring the actual evidence they are presenting… Like I mean this just comes off like Milkvan’s telling Bylers they’re delusional for considering Mike and Will as being a possibility at all. If you have to constantly use, it’s not that deep as your core argument after being presented with evidence, while only yourself giving maybe one or two reasons at most for why your interpretation makes the most sense, then you’re probably not actually open to considering things based on evidence. You want to believe what you want to believe and you're projecting onto others for not following along with it.
Especially when it comes to the whole Mike having a coming of age story or whatever, where some fans have tried to make the argument that there is nothing to support that, when that actually couldn’t be further from the truth. Bylers have provided heaps of evidence. If all of that is not enough for you, that’s something that you have to contend with at this time. Just like us believing what we believe based on evidence we’ve gathered is our concern and something we have to deal with, not you. No need to apologize! Just try to worry about your own interpretation of things and feeling confident in that, but without having to tear down others' because they don’t subscribe to yours interpretation of things.
Because I feel like it would honestly be a lot more humiliating to insist other peoples theories are wrong and they’re only going to embarrass themselves in the end, only for that person saying that to end up being wrong… Everyone is making theories and everyone is bound to be wrong about some or even most. That's okay. That's natural. That's sort of an unwritten part in the agreement we all agree to by participating in this theorizing in fandom experience.
When it comes to Mike again and his arc, I always say this, but it really comes down to this more than anything.
Finn is 2nd top billed among the kids. He used to be THE top billed among the kids for s1-3, but then he got bumped down behind Millie in s4. There is a major possibility, that Noah is going to be ranked up, with him going from being paired up with Sadie, under Gaten and Caleb, to be bumped up under Finn with them sharing a title card. Though it’s unlikely they would rank Finn down under Noah, who was not even in the opening credits of s1, while he was the first name that season and the following two, meaning Finn's character Mike needs to live up to that top billed spot right behind Millie. He needs to have an arc on his own that is equally as substantial as Will and El's arcs, and separate from them just like theirs will have aspects that are separate from Mike as well.
Because Mike was the protagonist of the first season, he HAS to be important again in a similar vein in the end for the show to work as an overall five part story. When people go back to rewatch after s5, they are going to be met with Mike front and center. That will only be satisfying if we get genuine insight into his character in the final season, beyond the surface level.
Quite honestly, ALL of the kids deserve something deeper than what you are implying for Mike, and so applying that to him, the og protagonist, is just so absurd to me. If anyone is going to come out with a surprising arc we’re not expecting, it’s Mike. The audience is already not expecting Will to actually get the boy, that's the aspect that they aren't prepared for for Will, and so what about Mike's unexpected reveal?
Literally most of the audience doesn’t even think there is the slightest possibility Mike could be queer. You don’t think that warrants some addressing and unpacking…? You know… because he never really unpacked…?
I feel like people hear me say Mike is going to be important in s5 and go oh so you don’t think Will is the main character?? And it’s like?? Honestly my answer is yes and no. I think Will is literally the spine, the heart, or whatever you want to call it. In Finn's own words, he is the reason that everything happens and he is the most important character arguably, because of how important he is in terms of all of these events taking place throughout the series.
However, Mike is at the forefront from the very beginning and we arguably see everything from his eyes in s1 and 2 more than anyone else. But that goes away in s3-4. And that felt extremely intentional based on what is about to go down (byler endgame). You can tell that by doing this, they are trying to lead up to a reveal that brings him back to his original place in the story for the audience to see him as his most authentic self again, and with answers for why we lost that insight in between.
I could count up at least 20 Easter eggs hinting at Mike being in danger/targeted, which goes all the way back to the first episode of the series.
This isn't even considering, that another trend they’re likely to bring back in s5, bc if they don’t they’d be breaking a series long trend, is Mike being late. He starts every season late. And so, what is Mike going to be late for this time? Could it have something to do with all of the unknowns about him that are yet to be addressed?
I think that sometimes we say that something isn’t going to happen because we don’t want it to. A lot of this stuff I’m saying happening isn’t based on feelings, it’s based on actual evidence.
If you don’t want certain things to happen because of x, y, z, you can just say that is the case instead of making arguments that there is nothing supporting it, when that’s not actually true?
Like nothing? Nothing at all? Baseless? Like, be serious rn.
ST5 is very likely going to give off s1-2 vibes. While Mike is going to be less in the background compared to s3-4, Will AND El are still going to have equal, if not more attention than him, bc I do believe that their bond is what is going to also be a part of saving Hawkins.
The ending is going to be surprising bc those primary color-coded bitches are the answer to it all. If me saying that upsets anyone because it goes against their interpretation of things, I'm sorry too I guess!
56 notes
·
View notes
please help me- i used to be pretty smart but i’m having so much trouble grasping the concept of diegetic vs non-diegetic bdsm!
gfkjldghfd okay first of all I'm sorry for the confusion, if you're not finding anything on the phrase it's because I made it up and absolutely nobody but me ever uses it, but I haven't found a better way to express what I'm trying to say so I keep using it. but now you've given me an excuse to ramble on about some shit that is only relevant to me and my deeply inefficient way of talking and by god I'm going to take it.
SO. the way diegetic and non-diegetic are normally used is to talk about music and sound design in movies/tv shows. in case you aren't familiar with that concept, here's a rundown:
diegetic sound is sound that happens within the world of the movie/show and can be acknowledged by the characters, like a song playing on the stereo during a driving scene, or sung on stage in Phantom of the Opera. it's also most other sounds that happen in a movie, like the sounds of traffic in a city scene, or a thunderclap, or a marching band passing by. or one of the three stock horse sounds they use in every movie with a horse in it even though horses don't really vocalize much in real life, but that's beside the point, the horse is supposed to be actually making that noise within the movie's world and the characters can hear it whinnying.
non-diegetic sound is any sound that doesn't exist in the world of the movie/show and can't be perceived by the characters. this includes things like laugh tracks and most soundtrack music. when Duel of Fates plays in Star Wars during the lightsaber fight for dramatic effect, that's non-diegetic. it exists to the audience, but the characters don't know their fight is being backed by sick ass music and, sadly, can't hear it.
the lines can get blurry between the two, you've probably seen the film trope where the clearly non-diegetic music in the title sequence fades out to the same music, now diegetic and playing from the character's car stereo. and then there are things like Phantom of the Opera as mentioned above, where the soundtrack is also part of the plot, but Phantom of the Opera does also have segments of non-diegetic music: the Phantom probably does not have an entire orchestra and some guy with an electric guitar hiding down in his sewer just waiting for someone to break into song, but both of those show up in the songs they sing down there.
now, on to how I apply this to bdsm in fiction.
if I'm referring to diegetic bdsm what I mean is that the bdsm is acknowledged for what it is in-world. the characters themselves are roleplaying whatever scenarios their scenes involve and are operating with knowledge of real life rules/safety practices. if there's cnc depicted, it will be apparent at some point, usually right away, that both characters actually are fully consenting and it's all just a planned scene, and you'll often see on-screen negotiation and aftercare, and elements of the story may involve the kink community wherever the characters are. Love and Leashes is a great example of this, 50 Shades and Bonding are terrible examples of this, but they all feature characters that know they're doing bdsm and are intentional about it.
if I'm talking about non-diegetic bdsm, I'm referring to a story that portrays certain kinks without the direct acknowledgement that the characters are doing bdsm. this would be something like Captive Prince, or Phantom of the Opera again, or the vast majority of bodice ripper type stories where an innocent woman is kidnapped by a pirate king or something and totally doesn't want to be ravished but then it turns out he's so cool and sexy and good at ravishing that she decides she's into it and becomes his pirate consort or whatever it is that happens at the end of those books. the characters don't know they're playing out a cnc or D/s fantasy, and in-universe it's often straight up noncon or dubcon rather than cnc at all. the thing about entirely non-diegetic bdsm is that it's almost always Problematic™ in some way if you're not willing to meet the story where it's at, but as long as you're not judging it by the standards of diegetic bdsm, it's just providing the reader the same thing that a partner in a scene would: the illusion of whatever risk or taboo floats your boat, sometimes to extremes that can't be replicated in real life due to safety, practicality, physics, the law, vampires not being real, etc. it's consensual by default because it's already pretend; the characters are vehicles for the story and not actually people who can be hurt, and the reader chose to pick up the book and is aware that nothing in it is real, so it's all good.
this difference is where people tend to get hung up in the discourse, from what I've observed. which is why I started using this phrasing, because I think it's very crucial to be able to differentiate which one you're talking about if you try to have a conversation with someone about the portrayal of bdsm in media. it would also, frankly, be useful for tagging, because sometimes when you're in the mood for non-diegetic bodice ripper shit you'd call the police over in real life, it can get really annoying to read paragraphs of negotiation and check-ins that break the illusion of the scene and so on, and the opposite can be jarring too.
it's very possible to blur these together the same way Phantom of the Opera blurs its diegetic and non-diegetic music as well. this leaves you even more open to being misunderstood by people reading in bad faith, but it can also be really fun to play with. @not-poignant writes fantastic fanfic, novels, and original serials on ao3 that pull this off really well, if you're okay with some dark shit in your fiction I would highly recommend their work. some of it does get really fucking dark in places though, just like. be advised. read the tags and all that.
but yeah, spontaneous writer plug aside, that's what I mean.
16K notes
·
View notes