‘ .. ℒ 𐘃 stancy's stan 🇵🇸 ✿ ─

So that’s what you call distinguishing between the actors and the characters they play in the show?! WTF?! How does the fact that some cast members are a couple in real life stop them from playing couples with other people?! And if it’s disrespectful, I guess Charlie (the actor who plays Jonathan) is being disrespectful too, seeing as he’s also Team Steve/Stancy!?

@dreamfinder83

So that’s what you call distinguishing between the actors and the characters they play in the show?! WTF?! How does the fact that some cast members are a couple in real life stop them from playing couples with other people?! And if it’s disrespectful, I guess Charlie (the actor who plays Jonathan) is being disrespectful too, seeing as he’s also Team Steve/Stancy!?

@dreamfinder83

indulgent steve's pov of ch 1 from extraordinary time midair. christmas in june anyone??

Based on the function of a script in film and television production, it is important to distinguish between production instructions and audience interpretation. A screenplay is primarily a working document designed to guide actors, directors, and the production team. It contains dialogue, scene descriptions, action lines, and occasional character directions that help shape the performance before filming takes place.

Because of this function, script notes should not automatically be treated as direct evidence of a character's inner psychology or definitive personality traits. Rather, they serve as production tools that assist actors and directors in constructing a scene.

The action line Steve "showing off" provides a useful example. Within the context of a screenplay, "showing off" is an acting direction that communicates a general behavior or attitude that the actor should portray. It does not necessarily provide a complete explanation of Steve's motivation, emotional state, or psychological condition. The phrase could be interpreted in several ways, including confidence, playfulness, flirtation, attention-seeking behavior, or insecurity. The script itself does not establish one interpretation as unquestionably correct.

Furthermore, audiences do not experience the screenplay directly. What viewers ultimately analyze is the finished audiovisual text, which is shaped by acting choices, directing, cinematography, editing, music, and narrative context. Therefore, any interpretation of a character should be supported not only by script excerpts but also by what is actually presented on screen.

This distinction becomes particularly relevant in fandom discussions. For example, the phrase "Jonathan who?" (Even though we know that this could actually be a fake script, because after I looked into it again, there are two possibilities: genuine or fake, but the disclaimer from here can also be used as an example. I also didn't find a photo of the script though iykyk) appearing in a script for Nancy should not necessarily be read as a literal statement of Nancy's internal thoughts. Like many screenplay annotations, it functions as a shorthand production note intended to communicate tone, emphasis, or performance. Treating such notes as direct access to a character's mind risks confusing production language with narrative evidence.

As another example, maybe here Eddie looks like he could be said to be jealous or anything else. But in this case we don't read the script like we read a novel.

Consequently, while scripts can provide valuable contextual information, they should not be regarded as definitive proof of a character's intentions, emotions, or personality. Script notes are best understood as production guidance rather than objective psychological descriptions. Character analysis should therefore prioritize the final on-screen performance and the broader narrative context in which the scene appears.

"steve felt more for nancy than she did him" → "nancy never felt anything for him" so she did feel something then? if you were able to measure it?

"it was always one-sided" → "nancy only fell for his looks and the feeling she got by rebelling" so the feelings were in fact mutual then?

on one hand, they're saying stancy doesn't have tangible moments in season 4 and immediately following it up with those were stupid moments. TO WHOM???

Let's say for the sake of argument that Jonathan had turned out to be right in his accusations and Steve really had unironically been competing for Nancy's affections (accusations which have already been debunked): I still wouldn't be rooting for Jonathan to be with Nancy because of the way he was acting, and because of how much of Jancy's relationship (whether intentional in the writing or not) had become toxic by that point.

Prior to season 5, I was VERY CLEAR that if the Duffer Brothers chose to go the direction of Jonathan continuing to lie to Nancy for the year-and-a-half between S4-S5, I was NOT going to be sympathetic towards him. Not only does that destroy any integrity Jonathan once had as a character, but it's also just manipulative on Jonathan's part to string Nancy along in a relationship he didn't want to be in anymore (to the point he was already planning to "slow-motion break-up" with her back in Lenora) because Jonathan's ego couldn't handle the idea of Nancy still having feelings for Steve and possibly going back to him. It is MIND-BOGGLING that the Duffer Brothers honestly thought this was a good direction to take Jonathan's character (especially given how Jonathan was already receiving criticisms for becoming dead-weight by S4), to say nothing about people who were irked about Jonathan's snide comment towards Steve in "The Piggyback" and the lack of growth Jonathan demonstrated that season by continuing to be dishonest with Nancy. It's equally mind-boggling that fans not only don't seem to have a problem with how Jonathan acted, but actively defend Jonathan's behavior and act like he was still the "right choice" for Nancy (God, do I loathe that phrase 🤮).

If we're really going down the list of issues with Jonathan from the last season, this is a guy who repeatedly lied to his girlfriend for 19 months, had a history of projecting his issues/insecurities onto Nancy to the point it was personally beginning to negatively impact Nancy and wear her down (something we see during their argument in "Shock Jock," but was also present in the tie-in novel One Way or Another where Nancy describes it as feeling like she has "to console his [Jonathan's] ego"), was more interested in getting into a one-sided macho competition with her Ex instead of actually being an attentive and supporting boyfriend to Nancy (You're the one who pointed out that Jonathan spent more time hating on Steve than loving Nancy), purposefully made zero effort to get along with Steve and looked for any petty excuse to tear him down or tell him to "piss-off" (something that's also spelled-out in OWOA), couldn't bother to go visit Nancy in the hospital to offer comfort when her parents were in critical condition (even though we had a whole scene of Nancy breaking down in the restroom to demonstrate that she needed emotional support in that moment), got an engagement ring to propose to Nancy because he saw Steve as "mating competition" and not because he genuinely wanted to be married to Nancy (which is extremely disrespectful towards Nancy on so many levels), continued to pick petty fights with Steve about how to proceed in the Upside Down when Steve was offering suggestions (to the point Nancy finally had to step in on Steve's behalf), made the entire situation in the Upside Down all about him and his paranoia that Nancy was pulling away and wanted to be with Steve (to the point Nancy finally lost patience with Jonathan and had to remind him several times that they were here on a mission to rescue Holly), demanded that Nancy be honest with him when he had repeatedly refused to be honest with her for months (Nancy at least got the opportunity to call Jonathan out on his hypocrisy in that instance), was revealed to have gotten rid of her pink sweater (I've seen a few fans speculate it was the pink sweater Nancy wore in S1 when she was dating Steve, which adds a whole new layer of ick to his motivations for discarding it behind her back), claimed that he hated reading Nancy's articles and blamed her for it by disingenuously claiming Nancy only wants to hear that they're good (even though we've seen Nancy is capable of taking constructive criticism, like she did with Murray in season 2 over exposing Hawkins Lab, and Robin in season 4 and OWOA when it came to their respective investigations), and was only willing to finally fess up when Jonathan thought both him and Nancy were on the brink of death and he had nothing to gain anymore by continuing the deception.

At best, that is extremely emotionally immature behavior suggesting that Jonathan should not be in a romantic relationship (and that is me being generous in this interpretation), and at worst, it's signs of a toxic personality on his part. There is a reason I've referred to Jonathan as an Entitled "Nice Guy" in the vein of characters like Ross Geller, Xander Harris, and Hoyt Fortenberry: Because that's EXACTLY how he comes off. Unlike Steve, Jonathan DID treat Nancy as a prize in their relationship, and ultimately became the "selfish chauvinistic meathead" that he accused Steve of being (It really speaks to how most individuals in this fandom have zero media literacy skills that they couldn't figure out how Jonathan was projecting hard onto Steve in that scene because Jonathan didn't want to take responsibility for his own behavior 🙄).

Either way, Jonathan was a shitty boyfriend, and his relationship with Nancy was a dysfunctional mess that shouldn't be emulated. Blaming it all on Steve at this point is just a lazy and cowardly way for fans to deflect from the many problems with Jonathan as a character and Jancy as a relationship that were present from the very beginning of the show.

“Not only does that destroy any integrity Jonathan once had as a character, but it's also just manipulative on  Jonathan's part to string Nancy along in a relationship he didn't want to be in anymore (to the point he was already planning to "slow-motion break-up" with her back in Lenora) because Jonathan's ego couldn't handle the idea of Nancy still having feelings for Steve and possibly going back to him.”

This right here. Jonathan hated Steve more than he ever loved Nancy...if he ever truly loved her at all. And this goes all the way back to season 1.

I don't understand how people ignore that Jonathan wanted to use distance as a slow-motion breakup with Nancy, only to change his mind once Steve was back in the picture. I have a lot of speculative thoughts about this, but I feel the text makes it pretty clear: the issues Jonathan has with Steve are one-sided and stem from class jealousy.

He is insecure! Painfully so! Even in season 1, he dismissed Steve to Nancy while getting defensive about THE PICTURES HE TOOK OF HER UNDRESSING WITHOUT HER CONSENT. Jonathan is SO aware of his class status and where he stands on the social ladder, more so than Steve or Nancy ever are, and it bothers him, because deep down, he wants the financial stability they both have.

This is Jonathan's wound, really. It's what motivates his worldview. To feel better about himself, he has made Steve into his antithesis—someone he has to prove himself superior to in order to soothe his own ego.

Season 5 is the culmination of all that! An unresolved issue from season 1 that was hinted at is still festering in season 4.

But it doesn’t get addressed, and it doesn't help that the show's writing paints poverty as a virtue, so he gets away with his shitty behavior!

 “It is MIND-BOGGLING that the Duffer Brothers honestly thought this was a good direction to take Jonathan's character (especially given how Jonathan was already receiving criticisms for becoming dead-weight by S4), to say nothing about people who were irked about Jonathan's snide comment towards Steve in "The Piggyback" and the lack of growth Jonathan demonstrated that season by continuing to be dishonest with Nancy.”

Okay, I was honestly totally okay with this direction at the end of season 4. If they had followed through in season 5 and actually called him out, it would've been a great character arc for Jonathan! Taking him from a stagnant character to a dynamic one, forcing him to expand his worldview and challenge his internal philosophy about people like Steve and Nancy.

I was team Jonathan up until the season finale, where they had STEVE APOLOGIZE TO JONATHAN.

That is my Joker moment, ngl. Because you're 100% correct! What were they thinking?!?!?!!?

You named it all! He was awful. Truly freaking awful to Nancy as a boyfriend.

And look, I'm going to make an incendiary remark here: I do believe that if you're chill with Jancy or you ship it, you don't actually care about Nancy as a character. The text could not be clearer about how these two were miserable together. How Jonathan's character dragged Nancy down, and she was never given a chance to complete the arc she was owed. You don’t spend pretty much 3 seasons on how they AREN’T good for each other. And think, wow, she picked the right guy.

“There is a reason I've referred to Jonathan as an Entitled "Nice Guy" in the vein of characters like Ross Geller, Xander Harris, and Hoyt Fortenberry: Because that's EXACTLY how he comes off. Unlike Steve, Jonathan DID treat Nancy as a prize in their relationship, and ultimately became the "selfish chauvinistic meathead" that he accused Steve of being (It really speaks to how most individuals in this fandom have zero media literacy skills that they couldn't figure out how Jonathan was projecting hard onto Steve in that scene because Jonathan didn't want to take responsibility for his own behavior 🙄).”

Huh, isn't it funny how, like Xander, Jonathan is an author insert, and they're both pretty much "Nice Guys"? That's not weird at all.

What's sad is that the fandom at large refuses to acknowledge this aspect. Because he's poor or parentified or whatever sad white boy excuse they have ready in the barrel to absolve Jonathan of his crappy behavior. Like, the dude was projecting so hard in the van because Steve poked at his fragile ego! And people just ignore it.

I don't know if it's a lack of media literacy or willful ignorance because they're in sunk-cost-fallacy mode about Jancy... But either way, it's like, come on!

“Either way, Jonathan was a shitty boyfriend, and his relationship with Nancy was a dysfunctional mess that shouldn't be emulated. Blaming it all on Steve at this point is just a lazy and cowardly way for fans to deflect from the many problems with Jonathan as a character and Jancy as a relationship that were present from the very beginning of the show.”