onlymelonlyy

[onlymelonlyy]

i want what milkvans are on

[onlymelonlyy]

”i love you on your bad days🥺” “she didn’t look fine 😒”

[onlymelonlyy]

”i love you on your bad days🥺” “she didn’t look fine 😒”

[onlymelonlyy]

Rip Will and Max you would've loved going into ikea showrooms and pretending to be in a crumbling marriage

[onlymelonlyy]

Tell me this is a joke

bro he can't even see her

[onlymelonlyy]

Oh will honey… good luck

[onlymelonlyy]

Okay idk why I'm about to do this but,

If this post gets 5,000 notes by July 10th then I will record myself singing The byler all I want for Christmas parody and put it on YouTube, and make my all I want for Christmas is a demo dog t-shirt into an all I want for Christmas is byler Cannon t-shirt.

Good luck.

[onlymelonlyy]

BYLER BRAINROT PLEADE SET ME FREE HGGSGSGGVB BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYKER HHBV BYLLER BYLWR BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER BYLER

[onlymelonlyy]

Arguments I think we should stop using for Byler and why:

Let me know if you have any thoughts about these! This post isn't made to give anyone byler doubt btw omg, my intention is to actually cure it, because I feel like some of these arguments are made as an overcompensation as a result of doubt so-

"Why do people say that two boys falling in love in the 80s is unrealistic? This show is about monsters and a different dimension!"

This argument is pretty much always a joke, which i don't mind, but using it as a genuine rebuttal isn't going to get us anywhere. People in general are far more likely to believe the impossible--things like monsters and super powers--than the improbable--things like two boys in the 80s falling in love. I feel like, instead, we should be focusing in on the fact that two boys falling in love in the 80s is an important thing to represent because it was improbable and "unrealistic". The reason why it feels so unrealistic to happen is because there is actually very little representation of it happening successfully, therefore, if we see more representation of it, it won't be seen as unrealistic anymore. Also, I don't believe that the audience really understands that what they're watching is not supposed to be a shot for shot realistic protrayal of real life. This isn't just about monsters and shit, this show is about love. Yes it's cheesy, but it's not unrealistic for a show about love - which portrays unique loving relationships like platonic love between a random guy and a lesbian - to portray a queer love story which honestly isn't even that hard to wrap one's head around.

"Mike didn't care about El until she pointed to Will's photo. He only cared about her because she helped find Will."

Okay this one is wayyy more nuanced than just him only caring about her because of Will. He is a heroic human being, and this is supposed to be portrayed by him taking her into his home, not out of romantic love, but just out of goodness of character. He is a very sweet person at the beginning of S1 because he's curious about El and acts different to Lucas and Dustin. Although, there are definitely things to show that he doesn't love her romantically here, like him trying to get rid of her and get her back to her family or something. I think the argument above in bold actually is an overcompensation for how he acts around her in S1. He treats her like a friend when showing her around, but Bylers might be afraid that looks too romantic. Don't worry guys, I really think it's Mike being himself. Acting friendly and nice around El is just part of his character to me. He also decides to not have her talk to his mom when she says she's in trouble, so it's not all about Will. However!!! He does decide to commit to hiding her and begins to place her on a pedestal when she starts to make an effort to find Will.

"Mike and El are on bad terms at the end of S4 so they won't be together in S5."

This argument was also used at the end of S3 (see the byler slides), saying that technically, Mike and El weren't actually together by the end of S3. Then they were together in S4. Here's the thing. This show isn't all about telling and not showing. It's about the opposite. Just because they didn't tell the audience "we're back together now!!!" doesn't mean that they aren't. At the end of S3, for example, El going "I love you too" implies that they are back together and that their relationship is now going to be more grown-up unlike in S3. Because of the love monologue at the end of S4, I can genuinely see Mike and El being back together at the beginning of S5. I can see them actually saying I love you to each other a la Steve and Nancy S2. Like, come on guys, isn't our whole argument that you can say I love you to someone and not actually be telling the truth? Also, Finn has confirmed that Mike and El will be together "going into" season 5, and the time skip between March 1986 and Nov. 1987 shows to me that they are still going to be together, and that they are saying I love you because El would not be staying in that relationship if he continues not to say it. More problems in their relationship are going to be revealed, beyond him being able to say I love you or not.

"This actor ships Byler so Byler endgame."

Uh oh,,,, if you start saying this, you can easily get a rebuttal from a Milkvan saying that so and so ships Milkvan, so... I honestly think that people saying they like Byler as a ship can be somewhat seen as a little hint they could possibly be endgame but tbh, it's not a full proof. To me, proof from the actors comes from what they don't say about Byler. They don't treat it like Stonathan, Ronance and Steddie. They treat it like a possibility, like a spoiler. The other queer ships of ST are treated like cool things that would have been interesting if they had happened. Byler is never treated as something that would have been cool. It's something that could happen. My confidence comes from when the actors are more ambiguous about Byler than when they're completely, utterly on board with it. Except for Noah, because he's definitely allowed to ship it, because his character is literally in love with Mike.

[onlymelonlyy]

holy fuck when I was rewatching the van scene I realised that Jonathan appears when Will tells a LIE…

And you know when Jonathan also appears randomly?…

When Mike tells El that he loves her.

TLDR: Mike and Will were both lying in their big speech’s.

[onlymelonlyy]

i love how in the same season, they had dustin and suzie singing together, lucas and max singing together, and mike and el-

oh waiiiit guys

[onlymelonlyy]

oh my sweet summer child

[onlymelonlyy]

I feel like this might be an unpopular opinion but here we go:

I’d actually be a little disappointed if the happy memory that saves Mike and/or Will from Vecna turns out to be the swing set memory, simply because imo it destroys the actual meaning behind Mike’s sentiment in the shed in s2.

The act of asking Will to be his friend is not what makes that memory so cherished and powerful. Them being five years old, it being the first day of kindergarten, the swing set. None of that is important. The actual act and moment of Mike asking Will to be his friend is not Mike’s best memory because it’s only in retrospect that he feels like it’s the best thing he’s ever done. It’s only after he’s experienced years of his life with Will in it that he decides for himself that asking Will to be his friend is the best thing he’s ever done because by doing so he let Will into his life. Will makes Mike’s life better by simply being in it. That’s the true meaning behind Mike’s words! Mike thinks Will is the best thing in his life and that’s why he’s so so so so grateful for having asked him to be his friend. That’s why it’s the best thing he’s ever done.

It’s about the connection they’ve crafted throughout the years they’ve spent together and how much it means to both of them, not about a moment where they didn’t know yet how much they’ll mean to each other one day. And therefore I personally think that it’d be way more power- and meaningful for Mike and/or Will to be saved by a shared memory from years into their friendship, and not from a moment where they didn’t even know each other yet.

[onlymelonlyy]

what kind of comment is this… genuinely wtf😭 “they deserve what’s coming” are they like, okay??

[onlymelonlyy]

Thinking abt this....

[onlymelonlyy]

Let's do a quick comparison of El's and Will's first and last scenes...

First shot of season 4:

(El painting Hopper's figurine for her diorama vs Will making a romantic painting for Mike)

Last one on one scene of season 4:

What we know of season 5:

In conclusion, once again, El's personal arc is about family more than romance and her relationship with Hopper seems to be what the writers are focusing on. Will's arc is about romantic love and his feelings for Mike. This kinda spells out how the ending of the love triangle, don't you think? Why would the writers focus on those two pairings in the last season of the show if Mike and El are supposed to be this endgame power couple? Why did Mike promise to be a team and to kill Vecna with his best friend who's secretely in love with him instead of his superhero girlfriend? Where exactly is the supposed "main couple of the show"?

[onlymelonlyy]

Let's do a quick comparison of El's and Will's first and last scenes...

First shot of season 4:

(El painting Hopper's figurine for her diorama vs Will making a romantic painting for Mike)

Last one on one scene of season 4:

What we know of season 5:

In conclusion, once again, El's personal arc is about family more than romance and her relationship with Hopper seems to be what the writers are focusing on. Will's arc is about romantic love and his feelings for Mike. This kinda spells out how the ending of the love triangle, don't you think? Why would the writers focus on those two pairings in the last season of the show if Mike and El are supposed to be this endgame power couple? Why did Mike promise to be a team and to kill Vecna with his best friend who's secretely in love with him instead of his superhero girlfriend? Where exactly is the supposed "main couple of the show"?