#this is not a critique of mike

[gayofthefae]

Max signed her letter to Billy "love". Brenner told El he loved her. What does that say about Mike. What are they trying to say for how easy it SHOULD be.

They are employing everything they have to say "this isn't about El, there has to be something big holding him back". Big and unique. Not your classic slapped together fear of vulnerability plot line.

[ki11tr4p]

Like c’mon what were they expecting?

[stalactites]

i've never hated a writer/director like i hate mike flanagan. i think about his work for two seconds and i feel such rage the only alleviation is walking into the sea forever and ever.

[ringospuppy]

Sketch of Michael's nudie suit but if it served cunt.(Sorry it's bad quality, description of outfit under cut)

(amercian flag underwear and cowboy boots have a higher heel. The suit jacket is cropped more and instead of the peacock on the sleeves I just did peacock feathers fanned out behind him. Added tassels to the sleeves, as well as on the hip of the pants. M.N initial belt buckle and the hat is the same. Pants are the same except it's those cutout cowboy pants revealing the American flag underwear)

[pixelkip]

Some thoughts on the entire thing with Mike. Or the Mikes rather.

Ok. I will preface this with saying I LOVED the entire.. THING with the Mikes. Catswing and Airwaves go hard, the fight is super fun, the minigames are super fun, the characters are loveable and absolutely hilarious, i enjoyed everything about it.

However, I do kinda have complicated feelings about how toby approached the topic of Mike and I just kinda want to ramble about it.

Long ass ramble under the cut

Obviously it's one big reference to fan theories and the culture around making up your own versions of characters that you know exist but know nothing about. And on one hand, it's a cool tribute.

I honestly think the dynamic between battat and the other 2 really is trying to say something about fan culture- Battat is the kind of theorist that looks at all the speculative fanworks and interpretations that are taking their own liberties and just trying to have fun with it and goes "that's ridiculous, that could never be true, MY interpretation is the ONLY right one because I care about the LORE unlike these other guys". But of course, his idea isn't any more likely to be right than anyone else's, because he has just about as much information as everyone else.

I think it makes battat a really well done parody of fan culture tbh, his obsessive theorizing and frustration over the lack of answers in and of itself comes off as warranted and pretty cathartic, but the way he treats his fellow mikes as a result is not. I found him kinda relatable honestly, and it sorta felt like a much-needed jab at how I've sometimes felt about other people's interpretations lol. It's a nice reminder to not be a dick about that sort of thing. I think that is honestly the strongest part of how the mikes are written.

The problem comes with the well... complete lack of any kind of answers for who Mike is. Like, as fun as this is as a tribute and a commentary on fan culture, he still built up Mike as this mystery that he damn well knew fans really wanted answers to. He intentionally played into it too, just look at spamton sweepstakes.

I don't really want to speculate too much on whether this is a "he had ideas for Mike and retconned them/decided not to expand on them due to fan responses" situation or a "he hyped this whole thing up and gave us crumbs intentionally and planned to do something like this to begin with" one. I'd lean towards the latter though considering spamtons response to being asked about Mike in the sweepstakes, saying that the "cathode's crew" didn't know anything about Mike sort of implied he knew about the fake mikes, potentially thought the asker was one of them and didn't want to tell them anything.

Even if he planned to do something like this from the start and he isn't pulling a Sc*tt C*wthon on us, he still DID play into the Mike hype on purpose, hype that went on for 4 YEARS. Potentially even while knowing all along that it was going to lead up to this. His knowledge of the fan culture he would've needed to make this in the first place indicates he KNOWS how much we cared about getting answers and he sidestepped doing that in favor of what we got. What we got isn't necessarily BAD by any means. Like I said, I enjoyed the hell out of it. But I can see why a lot of people would find this very frustrating and might feel (even if this wasn't the intention, and I don't think it was) like they were being made fun of for caring so much about the story, which is the LAST thing you ever want to happen with any piece of art! Especially one like deltarune that is otherwise ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING this level of analysis and speculation.

At least we got tidbits like "mike changed after that other guy left" implying that perhaps the real Mike left and the fakes took over for him when spamton left, so at least that's something. And hell, we still have 3 chpaters left, whos to say we won't get closure on mike later on, even if the chance is slim. Still, as fun as the whole Mike section is, I really wish we'd gotten something more concrete about Mike as well, and I can't entirely blame anyone who's frustrated about how this was handled.

[the-far-bright-center]

"The film’s deeply visual emphasis also plays out in linear and direct relation to the previous prequels: The Phantom Menace is characterized mostly by the warm tones of Tatooine and Naboo, with the majority of scenes occurring in bright sunlight; Attack of the Clones balances evening and late daytime scenes, its palette dominated by the steely grays and blues of Coruscant and Kamino to underline the moral relativity of its central character; finally, Revenge of the Sith plays out predominantly at dusk and at nighttime, frequently situating its characters in political chambers designed according to the film’s “evil” tones of black and red. So too does the style of composition and movement bolster the film’s tonality: even in the midst of their narrative complexities, Menace and Clones are punctuated frequently with rousing set pieces, lending the films an exciting forward momentum. Contrarily, Revenge of the Sith submerges itself in the discomforting particulars of faltering political systems and fatal misunderstandings. The aforementioned opening provides the film’s only sequence of pure “escape,” and even that sequence takes a moment to fester in Anakin’s decaying sense of morality. Much of the film devotes itself to conversations with impossibly high stakes, dialogue delivered in a kind of blunt efficiency that recalls silent cinema; the words are functional, serving only to supplant the audiovisual power on display. When characters speak, they speak broadly and dramatically, leaving no room for confusion: “You’re breaking my heart”; “from my point of view, the Jedi are evil.” The performances also frequently hearken back to older styles: when Palpatine transforms into the treacherous Emperor we remember from Jedi, actor Ian McDiarmid exudes the expressive excess of kabuki theatre, a style lent famous cinematic context by Akira Kurosawa in Throne of Blood (1958) and Ran (1985).

Given the newly expansive potential afforded by digital technology, Lucas is no longer limited to simple filmic references. In Revenge of the Sith, he boldly visualizes his interests in classical mythology and literature; to be sure, the prequels recall the tragedies of Shakespeare, perhaps most evidently in Palpatine’s similarities to Othello’s Iago. However, Lucas digs deeper and further into the past when he depicts Anakin and Obi-Wan Kenobi duelling across the volcanic vistas of Mustafar. When discussing this scene, it is crucial to acknowledge Camille Paglia’s wonderful and laudatory piece in Glittering Images. Indeed, it is in this scene that the film’s awe-striking and unprecedented anachronism totally takes over: painting his images digitally, Lucas taps into our knowledge of Dante, of the legend of Faust, the Christian Hell and the Greek Hades, of the metaphoric burning of Icarus’s wings in the form of Anakin’s smoldering body. Appropriately, John Williams’s score moves further from Korngold-echoing whimsy with each successive prequel, and in Sith it acquires operatic overtones. Never one to divide “high” art from “low,” Lucas draws from every available well of visual representation to craft this uniquely digital genre entertainment, a film that is broadly drawn in its emotional strokes but rigorous in its cinematic grammar. The starkly outlined divisions established by the five preceding films break down in the Mustafar sequence, emphasized by the combatants’ matching lightsabers. It is almost as if we are watching the mythic Star Wars world burning down, an epic downfall of elemental gestures. We can no longer perceive this man, Anakin Skywalker, as an enigmatic monster in a robotic suit; not now that we have seen him weeping with rage at the network of choices and obstacles that led him to hell. If only every myth were graced with such far-ranging moral gradients; Anakin chooses evil, because it seems to him like the only right choice at the time. Now that is tragedy."

[sinclairstarz]

for the cinephile byler truthers. i made the party’s modern au letterboxd accounts

in my head mike wheeler is the film bro cinephile of the party. hes a big brad pitt fan and fincher is his favorite director if you even care.. dirty dancing would be in his top 4 if he was honest. he went to see dune cause hes a scifi nerd, ended up hating it so much and complained about it to will but still gave it 2 stars cause it was pretty. did leave a very mean review. very critical rater but mostly leaves high ratings because he just doesn’t watch things he doesnt wanna see.

alternative movies i considered putting: pulp fiction (5 stars), the killer (1 star), se7en (5 stars), across the spiderverse (5 stars), nope (5 stars) , the batman 2022 (4 stars), once upon a time in hollywood (5 stars), inglorious basterds (5 stars), the matrix (half a star)

the thing is so good and he has a poster of it on his wall in canon so it felt right. it just feels wrong not to do ghostbusters (plus its one of my favorite movies…) and yall need to hear me out on brokeback 😭😭😭 ur telling me he wouldnt bawl his eyes out??? ur wrong. will byers is a jake gyllenhaal lover. he watches dirty dancing a lot for mike, and loves ghibli movies a lot. he cried during rain man. honest rater but doesnt take it too seriously, mostly 4/5 star ratings

alternatives: saltburn (half a star), asteroid city (5 stars), blackkklansman (5 stars), the force awakens (3.5 stars), the perks of being a wallflower (4.5 stars), back to the future (5 stars)

rogue one because lucas has taste. its the best star wars movie, if u care. he would love how fun and goofy ghostbusters 2 is. in my head Wes Anderson is like the party’s claimed director and they all watch his movies together and do marathons because the weirdness, comedy, and emotional commentary is a perfect mix for them. so. bottle rocket. lucas’ favorite wes anderson is the grand budapest hotel if u wanted to know. he rates things pretty highly and isn’t super critical.

alternatives: dodgeball (5 stars), scream 5 (4 stars), the matrix (3 stars), good will hunting (5 stars), jurassic park (5 stars), die hard (5 stars),

likes making lucas watch gone girl on valentines day and telling him shes gonna do that to him next time he annoys her. v for vendetta is her favorite romance movie and shes a big marvel fan (in a cool way. kind of .) but thor ragnarok is probably one of her fav marvels, along with spiderman far from home and iron man. i just know she watches Casino Royale and decided she hated James Bond and then ended up watching all the Daniel Craig Bonds with Mike and loved Skyfall so much. the song is on her playlist and she did cry after No Time To Die.

Alternatives: Superbad (5 stars), baby driver (5 stars), bottoms (5 stars), 10 things i hate about you (3.5 stars), scream (5 stars), kill bill (5 stars), lord of the rings: the return of the king (1.5 stars)

also a bit of a film nerd. i considered giving him a star wars and i know in my heart he’d probably have empire somewhere in his top 4. but star wars is lame and i wanted to give him se7en so he fucking gets se7en. he knows john wick is objectively dumb but he doesnt care hes just here for a good time. the party probably watched saltburn together and all fucking hated it. I just know hes a kurosawa nerd and always goes when the local theatres do very rare special showings of his movies.

alternatives: baby driver (4 stars), the ewok adventure (5 stars) hot fuzz (5 stars) harry potter and the sorcerers stone (4 stars) legally blonde (5 stars) spirited away (5 stars) dazed and confused (5 stars)

she likes movies that make her feel all warm and fuzzy and hopeful. i wanted to give her breakfast club, but i think she’d honestly like sixteen candles more (even though breakfast club’s better). she cried at almost every movie in her top 4 and makes max rewatch juno with her like once a month. she gives most movies 5 stars unless she really hates them, and loves any movie thats fun to watch, even if its bad. she likes movies with pretty girls and fun colors.

alternatives: barbie (5 stars), legally blonde (5 stars), inception (2 stars), heathers (5 stars) pretty in pink (4.5 stars (she was mad andi didn’t end up with ducky)) my neighbor totoro (5 stars)

in conclusion if you haven’t seen They Cloned Tyron (2023) go watch it it deserved the oscar

[willbyersabyss]

the day people understand that parallels are not always comparing things to say they are exactly the same, but often used as a way to highlight how contrasting the situations are, is the day I know peace

[laugtherhyena]

GUESS WHO FINALLY WATCHED THE FNAF MOVIE‼️‼️‼️

[jefaiscequejepeux]

Idiocracy (Mike Judge, 2006)

Un homme et une femme, Joe et Rita, sélectionnés car ce sont des personnes moyennes en termes d'intellect et de physique sont mis en hibernation dans le cadre d'un programme expérimental mais le programme tombe à l'eau et les caissons cryogéniques des deux sont oubliés. Ils se réveillent 5 siècles plus tard dans un monde où, de génération en génération, tout le monde est devenu complètement con car l'idée est que les idiots font plus d'enfants que les gens intelligents. Il essayent donc de revenir dans leur époque.

Ça faisait giga longtemps que j'avais entendu parler de ce film je pensais vraiment passer un bon moment et l'idée du scénario est rigolote, on sent derrière une idée de dénoncer la pollution, la consommation de masse en poussant à l'extrême les tendances vers lesquelles penche déjà la société. Mais le film est pas hyper drôle et un peu chiant ça fait vraiment comédie potache américaine au final on s'ennuie vite. Y a quelques idées rigolotes mais ça casse vraiment pas 3 pattes à un canard. Tout est grotesque c'est une sorte de Retour vers le futur dénué de toute finesse et de toute émotion.

[redlettermediathings]

Mike and Jay are modern day circus clowns. Just uglier and stupider. They are here for you today to talk about movies no one will remember in two months. This is the second half of the top ten horror movies seen by Mike and Jay in the first part of the second half of the year. If you understood that give yourself a pat on the back because I didn't. Point is: Here's a bunch of recently released films that these two old clown-farts will yammer on about giving you their ill-gotten and half-wit opinions on. Mike seems to be the dumber of the two. What kind of man watches the AfrAId movie? What kind of man watches Blumhouse trash when he can be doing things like going to the gym to lose an excess 90 pounds? Wait till he finds out Speak No Evil was distributed by Blumhouse! He'll feel so stupid then! Why no one call it Dumbhouse yet? NO ONE THINKS ODF THAT? Jay likes the Substance because of course he does. Mike likes Oddity because he's easily amused and spooked by creep sauce visuals and boring ass movies. I watched that movie and I was so bored I had to doom scroll on TikTok to keep my self from passing out from boredom. Jay likes to see people suffer and for weird things to come out of their bodies and boobies. Jay also can appreciate a soft-touch art house film (fart house film) that taps into the heart of what it is to be human in this crazy crazy world. Sometimes we need a break from smashing and killing and cutting and violence and have a nice film like I Saw the Substance Glow. But the most disagreeable thing in this video is Jay's love for Trap. Mike also loves Trap, but Mike loves the style of music. Mike is correct on this cringe fest. What a Shamshow. Mike is also right on his other picks and Jay is wrong. So check out these flims everyone. They are pretty good!

[daincrediblegg]

I really can't believe Mike did it to me again. I can't. God damnit. The first watch of Usher is good but the second? OH HOLY COW. And I didn't even feel like I was missing so much the first time. I did a decent job GUESSING some of the plot points long before they occurred. But now it's all like?? OH. OH THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS STILL!!! this was connected to that. It all makes sense. Things that I didn't even realize didn't make sense to me the first time. Seriously. Flanagan Shows. The gift that keeps on giving.

[eggelette]

The Midnight Club

So I finished the Midnight Club and I have to admit, out of all Mike Flanagan's work, its the weakest. However the runt of a pack of wolves is still a wolf, Spoilers ahead.

I think this weakness is unfortunately because we've gotten used to the strength and maturity of his previous shows. The explorations of deep, haunting love and the ramifications of the way we choose to show that love and although the Midnight club had glimpses of this, it wasn't as much depth.

I think two things influence this overall critique. The first is that the stories within the story doesn't always hit the beats of the overall central story, which for season 1 was at least portrayed as Julia Jayne being Shasta. None of the other members of the hospice were involved in the overarching story, except for the ritual for Anya but that's it. They never met Shasta and thought she was weird. We didn't even see the other kids' reactions to Ilonka''s involvement to the ritual. Instead the stories were like vignettes of the characters which I really liked (except Kevin's because it didn't really tell us anything about the character except he likes to be alone, which is fine but inequitable compared to other characters) but I feel like the two weren't cohesive. The last episode was more dedicated to resolving each of the character's which felt rushed and disjointed, and was ultimately also a disservice to Julia Jayne's story and ramifications of being prepared to kill Ilonka, a child she had been slowly manipulating, for her own health. Health is not wealth at the exploitation of others and that whole narrative thread was dropped because it had no room to breathe.

The second is the fact that Ilonka is the biggest Mary Sue of all times. I mean I understand her being a vulnerable desperate teen who is deadset on her notions of healing herself and her own percieved intelligence is in theory, compelling. I just don't think it came across in practise, because never in the narrative is she challenged or questioned for her actions, plans or words. She's always justified and treated as right by her peers- hell, even in the final scene with Kevin he says she's right when she simply isn't. You could read this as two desperate teens consoling each other, but she was wrong both in the way she treated Kevin's ex-girlfriend, and in the ritual for Anya! It would have taken the life of the others if it worked! When Sandra fucked up with Spence she spent an episode actually reflecting and told a story for her redemption (which still hilariously included Angels) while Ilonka dosn't have to earn her redemption, she just walks in while the camera pans on her and boom forgiven. Also a nitpick of mine, is that she has blind faith in Shasta for the ritual, but her concern and doubt rises when she isn't in the centre of the circle? It's not intelligence, but sheer selfishness that raises red flags, and it's fine to have a selfish character but treat them that way.

The closest that came to any kind of obstacle for Ilonka, was when she asked Dr. Stanton if she could keep her whole "i was almost complicit in a murder sacrifice oopsie" a secret to the rest of the hospice and Dr.Stanton was straight up like "I thought you would have wanted to know something like that? :)". I cackled. But no, no narrative consequences. I think my biggest grip with Ilonka is that she was the protagonist when all of the supporting characters were much more interesting. Anya's story, both the one she told and in the episode of "Anya" were highlights, along with Amesh and Natsuki's stories and respective meanings. I loved Sandra, Spence and Cheri. I adored Mark and the Janitor (Flanagan's season 2 post confirmed my suspicions about the latter).

Speaking of season 2, I took a gander at the posts and I don't really think the ideas would have addressed the critique I'm levelling. The janitor as death I absolutely love, along with Spence getting AIDS treatment (and then going off to live with Sandra in a condo as per my headcanon). Even the elderly ghost couple as soulmates, reincarnated in Kevin and Ilonka is super sweet in theory, but Ilonka's Mary Jane status who can do no wrong has soured it. Also season 2 seems it doesn't have much to do with Julia Jayne, which questions why we are spending so much time in season 1 with the rituals and the lore, and the hourglass, and then not even delving deeper into how the most vulnerable people are scammed and exploited seems like a waste. Time that could have gone to the characters.

Surprisingly, I really liked the ending of the Midnight Club, I love how there were touches of collaborative storytelling earlier (with the club describing Anya and Rhett's future together in the Anya episode) and how it culminated in them finishing Imani's story. I thought Amesh adding him and Natsuki to the story (well their OC's) along with Sandra's film noir OC was incredibly endearing. That, along with the appearance of Angel Porn and all the jumpscares really sold me for the teenaged antics of the group, and the whole nature of the found family.

[esonetwork]

The Diary of River Song Series 8 Review | Earth Station Who

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/the-diary-of-river-song-series-8-review-earth-station-who/

The Diary of River Song Series 8 Review | Earth Station Who

Delve into the captivating world of Doctor Who with the Earth Station Who Podcast’s review of the Big Finish Audio’s, “The Diary of River Song” series 8! Join us as we journey alongside the enigmatic River Song through time and space in this thrilling audio adventure. Joined this week by Podcaster Julie Filipek, we explore each riveting chapter of River’s escapades along with Rachel and K9, unraveling the mysteries of her captivating character through Time and Space. Whether you’re a devoted Whovian or a casual listener, our review promises to immerse you in the rich storytelling of Professor River Song and the ever-expanding universe of Doctor Who. Tune in now for an unforgettable journey with the Doctor’s most intriguing companion!

We want to hear from you! Please write to us at feedback@earthstationwho.com. Also, please subscribe and rate the show on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever fine podcasts are found. Feedback is always welcome and much appreciated.

Links Listen to older episodes of the Earth Station Who Podcast ESW on iTunes Earth Station Who on Spotify Earth Station Who on Instagram Earth Station Who on YouTube Make-A-Wish Foundation The ESO Network TeePublic Store The ESO Network Patreon Watchers in The 4th Dimension

Promotion Tales From Hollywoodland

If you would like to leave feedback or comment feel free to email us at feedback@earthstationwho.com

[lune-moon-nuit]

He is completely captivated by him, he has hearts in his eyes, he is completely melting at this moment

mike wheeler + looking at Will in That scene

[owenwillsons]

"if byler is endgame, why are they not canon yet?"

honestly, it's not a bad question. if they are going to be endgame, why wouldn't they have been made canon in season 4? or, at least, why wouldn't they have made mike's feelings explicit earlier? after all, mike's feelings for will, while obvious to bylers, remain subtextual even at the end of season 4. what is the point of making m!leven last for so long despite their obvious relationship troubles only for them to be broken up in season 5?

el and mike lasting for that long is meaningful - and it's not just for the sake of slow burn. each season represents a different facet of their relationship.

season 1: "m!leven is like a first love!"

season 2: "m!leven can survive through long distance!"

season 3: "m!leven is a classic teenage relationship!"

all the above is purposefully deconstructed in season 4. let me explain.

let's not go in order and start with my favourite season - season 2.

season 2: "m!leven can survive through long distance!"

i was clocked into byler from season 1 episode 1, but i can admit when a ship was cute, and m!leven was the cute as hell in season 2. not a coincidence that it's also the season where they spend virtually no time together.

the struggle throughout season 2 is that mike and el are separated. mike tries to reach her every single day - el wants to tell him that she's alive. that very simple tension makes their reunion genuinely heartwarming and one of my favourite scenes in the show.

season 4 has the same problem that is out of their control - distance. you would assume, having seen what distance does in season 2, that we'll see a similar thing play out in season 4.

of course, this doesn't happen. mostly because in season 2, when el is hiding something from him, it's not her choice. in season 4, when el hides the truth from mike, it is entirely of her own will.

in season 2, distance makes the heart grow fonder. el and mike don't spend all that much time alone together in season 1, and most of that time is taken up with trying to find will rather than spending time together. they kiss, of course, but after that they don't have time to find footing on what their relationship really is. all of that is to say that although mike wants el to be alive, more than that, he wants the idea of her to be alive. ignoring the glaring heteronormativity, he likes the idea of having a girlfriend, and he invents a narrative in his head for her.

no need for him to do that in season 4 - el invents the narrative for him! but this has entirely different consequences. unlike mike, the lies in el's narrative has consequences, and we see it play out in unfortunate high definition.

mike isn't exempt from this - he also invents a version of el in his head which is different from both the real el and the el that she invents for him, and it is of her being a superhero. before they reunite, mike talking about el references her powers - and during their fight about 'i love you', mike references it again, which turns out to be a mistake.

so a fact about m!leven established in season 2: the two can survive long distance. the subsequent dismantling of this so-called fact in season 4: the two cannot, in fact, survive long distance.

season 3: "m!leven is a classic teenage relationship!"

milkvans clown on bylers for saying that a teenage relationship is genuinely "toxic", and i will say that for season 3, this critique of byler analysis is valid. why do i say this? because in season 3, the "toxicity" of m!leven is compared to lumax, who we are supposed to take seriously in season 4.

both couples are mostly played for comedy in season 3 - teenage relationships that are not taken seriously for a reason.

their "breakup" isn't real. max compares it to her several breakups with lucas, and we're supposed to laugh it off.

the most serious tension between mike and el's relationship is the fact that mike hasn't said 'i love you' to her face yet - something which is not that serious in a teenage relationship, and is, in fact, played for laughs.

the only time it is truly taken seriously is at the end of season 3 when el says that she has heard mike say it, and she kisses him. leading him to make this face of absolute delight...

...leading into season 4, which deconstructs all these dismissals of m!leven's relationship.

firstly, mike's inability to say 'i love you' to el's face is no longer played as comedy - it is one of the primary tensions within their relationship. he can't write it in a letter and he can't say it to her face, even when el pretty much explicitly asks for it.

i think another layer of tension between the two is that mike still treats it as a teenage relationship, but el needs more than that. mike can sit down and seriously apologise - we see him do it with will. but in this scene, mike's approach to el lacks any subtlety that we know he can have (and we know finn can do as well).

to me, that is the biggest juxtaposition between lumax and m!leven in the jump from season 3 to season 4. lucas and max have a serious conversation from the get-go. despite their miscommunication, both of them take the relationship seriously, even if it makes them act differently. they switch between being silly teenagers into taking their relationship seriously - mike and el can't.

until...

ah yes, the love confession. let's talk about it.

on the surface, that completes the arc, right? he said 'i love you' to el to her face and we can all go home now? even if we take the love confession at complete face value, ignoring what i believe are lies and straight up piggybacking from will's monologue, i have two problems with that.

firstly, as many have pointed out - where's the conversation after? the two of them barely interact after this scene, except for when el is leaning her head on mike's shoulder in the hospital. if they are endgame, you would normally get this big, dramatic scene, and then a quieter, more private scene with the two of them with mike confirming everything he said with apologies, and a kiss between the two of them. instead, we get mike telling will that she's barely talked to him since they got back to hawkins. the arc is not over.

secondly - and this may be more of a personal opinion - but weird time for that arc to end. within the season, sure, but within the show?if i was writing the endgame ship, i would save the dramatic love confession for the final scene of the show, not the season. have the troubles last for one more season, and get that satisfying resolution in el's final fight, and make the first 'i love you' mean that much more. you get me?

all of that to say... it isn't over yet. we have proof that mike can say 'i love you' to el in the dramatic moments, but can he say 'i love you' and mean it in the quiet moments too?

overall, season 3 presents m!leven as a classic teenage relationship. season 4 shows that they can't be anything more.

let's go back to the beginning.

season 1: "m!leven is like a first love!"

season 1 is the best stranger things season because, unlike the other seasons, it had nothing to prove. the fact that it works as a standalone season allowed it to become a cultural sensation almost overnight.

that is also why it is harder to talk about when discussing intentional overarching arcs. while i'm sure the duffers had a plan for the show's potential renewal, they also had to keep in mind that it could've been a one-season wonder. that being said, there were things established - and there is no better place to look than the montauk show bible - aka, the pitch booklet for the original show. so from the beginning, were they established to be like a first love?

"if mike is the elliot of our show, eleven is our e.t."

obviously, this comparison isn't exactly the most romantic. while an initial pitch, this parallel is seen in the final product with mike hiding el and eventually dressing her up. but maybe this is unfair, because the booklet also says...

"he has never had a first kiss, much less a girlfriend...he will discover a courage he didn't know he had. by the end, he will even kiss a girl."

i do think that even within a potential one-season show, there was an intention of portraying an awkward but cute first kiss and first relationship. i will note, however, that nancy's description explicitly says, "with [jonathan's] help, she will experience love for the first time", saying the l-word that mike's description is missing.

in season 4, the love confession begins with references to season 1.

"i feel like my life started that day we found you in the woods...and i knew right then and there, in that moment, that i loved you"

this feels like a complete retcon of reality - which is crazy because in season 1, there are other better m!leven moments that can be referenced? their first kiss, mike giving his watch, mike doing el's makeup, el coming out in the dress and mike calling her pretty for the first time...

then they show the moment - and mike does not look in love.

this is the only flashback they show. compare that to max's several flashbacks with lucas when she is trying to escape vecna, and that seems purposeful.

your first thought might be "well, it was easier for mike to say the first time he saw her because love at first sight". but that's exactly it - he said what was easy to say. he didn't actually put the most effort into thinking of the real first time he fell in love with her - which is also a problem, because that shouldn't be an effort. he should just know.

i don't think mike was deliberately lying. el clearly needed someone to say something, and will was encouraging him to say something. love at first sight is a well-known trope...and that's the problem. if he's inventing a narrative for what their relationship looks like, it's an easy thing to sprinkle in because it's his idea of an ideal relationship.

max didn't fall in love with lucas at first sight, and neither did nancy and jonathan or joyce and hopper. it's okay if el and mike didn't fall in love at first sight - but the fact that mike says it when it is factually untrue is meaningful.

so, unlike the other seasons, season 4 is the season that tells us that mike and el are each other's first loves, fated at first sight - but if we go back to season 1, it shows us that they did not fall in love at first sight. if mike isn't telling the truth there, what else is he lying about?