things that are strange

also, have you noticed the weird change in mike's mood?

like just moments ago he's sitting there all hopeful and stupid, dreaming about waterfalls and side quests.

and el is looking at him like she's done with his bullshit.

and then suddenly in the next scene he looks like he was crying and he's sniffing behind joyce here.

and el says she'll bring will home and looks at mike kinda knowingly and smiles in reassurance.

what the hell is this smile? like???

when i watched it for the first time in december i thought hmmm, something happened between those two scenes and they must show it to us in the finale, because why else there is such a sudden shift of mood?

I agree that one of the thousands of reasons 5 made no sense was because they were constantly contradicting themselves without any onscreen explanation or reasoning, in between correctly saying that nothing made any gd sense about 20 times.

(these aren't exact quotes, but you get what scenes I'm talking about)

Joyce: It's too dangerous. Remember the last time he took you over?

Also Joyce: Let's hook him directly into Vecna without getting a second opinion on it or waiting for help.

*btw Joyce at least had a little bit of reason here for this horrifically bad idea, because Will kept asking her to trust him and let him help.

Dustin: Nancy just shot it. If it blows up its the end of everything.

Also Dustin for no understandable reason: And after we do Steve's plan, let's blow it up.

Will: How obvious? How did you know she wanted to...date?

Also Will for no reason or actual onscreen conversation to make this make sense: I know he doesn't feel the way I do, he's just my Tammy.

El to Mike: This isn't one of your stories, you can't just write the ending.

Hi, this is for all of my conformitygate people who may have never seen this megathread of answers that Eric Robles gave to discuss the process of creating Tales from 85. I know some people dislike this show's existence (I think you should give it a chance, personally, as it has amazing lighting design, is kinda fun and DOES have some interesting Byler moments).

Anyway. I added screenshots of all of the questions/answers that I deemed possibly relevant to any extent and isn't just random questions not pertaining to the show itself.

He says some interesting things in his answers.

The Duffers worked along side them for a while throughout the writing process

Other main staff writers for the original show were in the writers room for this show to guide them.

They began writing this show in early 2022, and the voice actors did all of their voice work for both seasons in 2023.

The fact that the Duffers specifically did not want this show to use The MF or Vecna at all in the story (though they do say "The Mindflayer" once in dialogue)

They used "Hawkins lab science" and "Upside Down matter" to create the monsters

(Joyce: "What happens when my boy is gone?")

Soooo, this is the newspaper reporting the Creel murders from 15th March 1959...

They modelled this layout from a real newspaper actually from 15th March 1959, but just tweaked the headlines slightly, probs for copyright reasons, and changed names to make them "more Hawkins".

The "2 Dead As Tornadoes Strike in Arkansas" headline is replaced with "3 Dead As Police Probe Grisly Scene".

"UAR Reports Iraq Jets Attack Town" is replaced with "UAR Leaders On Notice in Syria"

"Auto Mishap Breaks Pole" is replaced with "Auto Blunder To Blame For Outage"

"Russians May Choose War: Fulbright" is replaced with "Moscow May Choose War: Dulles"

"Allies Appalled At Move: Withdrawal Of French Fleet Blow to NATO" is replaced with "French Pulls Out Of NATO Amid Rising..."

BASICALLY, the point I'm trying to get across - every single newspaper heading is more or less describing the same type of event, with some tweaks to the word for copyright reasons.

BUT! The ST newspaper has a headline: "President Packs Shotgun, Putter" - but the article in the real 1959 newspaper doesn't actually have an article about president Eisenhower at all.

The real article that's in the place of the Eisenhower piece is all about forgotten birthdays:

I can not help but think that they must have intended to include this one in the original newspaper we see in-show, but removed it because it would've been too obvious of an Easter Egg.

Like. Way. Too. Obvious.

The first and main dumbification of a ST character is the one Mi*evens did, and continue to do, to Mike Wheeler in long ass paragraphs dedicated to arguing against their ship’s toxicity and explaining why a teenager apparently can’t say “I love you” to his girlfriend, who is indeed not asking for much or “pulling away,” and why said girlfriend, who was raised in a lab and has been fighting for her life ever since, somehow knows for certain what and who true love is.

I aspire to reach the intricate level of mental gymnastics required to sidestep every hint or argument that could possibly make anyone question or look too closely at Mike Wheeler’s character. Such beautiful immunity to uncomfortable questions would surely make my life peaceful indeed.

And this is coming from someone who didn’t care about Byler until last year and simply despised whatever harmful, codependent thing some of y’all were romanticising.

Honorable mention to those who think themselves more interesting for being irritated by love and shipping: that very character you insist is so much more complex and interesting outside a romantic context is literally called the “heart” of a show that has been described as being about “love.” He’s also the first one to jump into a relationship and make it everyone’s problem for seasons, all while being continuously agitated and flustered around his best friend.

Obviously, there’s more to him than romance, but if you refuse to acknowledge these things that have been very closely attached to his character from the beginning, you probably won’t actually be defending his complexity but mischaracterising him to make a point.

looking at this post just made me think, all of sudden, of how much the lighting and the seating arrangement reminded me of the Fellowship of the Ring

In particular, @erikiara80 talked about Jonathan's open-hearted support of Will (and I agree, more please!). But this

is just giving