Knowing a fic author through AO3 is like attending someoneâs thesis presentation and politely clapping at the end, knowing a fic author through this hellsite is like going over to their house at 3AM to watch them eat mayonnaise out of a jar
Sometimes I look at a thesis presentation and I go âI know exactly how much mayonnaise you had to eat out of the jar at 3 am to pull this shit offâ
ALSO ODYSSEUS LITERALLY JUST GOES TO TROY HE JUST GOESSSSSSSS they donât even TRY to put baby telemachus in the paper shredder he just dips without a fuss. they change odysseus hanging the maids to penelope kicking melantho out for girlboss reasons and they TOOK AWAY MY BAG OF WIND #mybagofwind they also took away the dipshit that falls off of circeâs roof and dies. deeply shallow meaningless movie.
"we cut the nobody scene from the odyssey" "we cut the religious trauma and parental abuse from carrie" i'm starting to think that studios barely funding original films is starting to have an effect where directors make up a story and then slap an IP on it in order to sell. or maybe some bitches just can't read anymore idk it's one or the other
and I made this within 5 minutes of returning. so I think that sums up my thoughts on it. (though im willing to rant more if ppl want it. cause I have COMPLAINTS)
hearing anything about the nolan odyssey is so funny. it's like "they cut the extremely important and infamous nobody scene" "the cyclops is a giant puppet that they put in an actual historical cave + gave circe animatronics for her pig transformation instead of cgi" "they dumped plastic skeletons in an environmentally protected location they were not supposed to be in" "they recreated ancient greek instruments in order to have an accurate score" "all of odysseus's agency is basically gone" "anne hathaway actually learned how to weave ancient looms" "the women in this movie are treated like shit" "they actually buried actors alive to get those underworld shots" "did you see what the fuck zendaya was fucking wearing holy shit you can't DO THAT, MA'AM" "what do you mean there was a legitimate epic the musical reference" "NOT A SINGLE FUCKING GREEK WAS CAST IN THIS MOVIE"
like did nolan have two guys standing at his side at all times whispering ideas in his ear and one told the truth and the other told lies and they didnt tell him which was which until they wrapped production cause
sure it was a big cinematic movie, travis scott wasn't even that out of place, included good moments (plucking the bow, argos, eurycleia recognizing the scar on his foot, hades, sinon/antinous, eumaeus, tom holland) but come on. all that symbolism of beheading athena everything grim and serious all bark no bite.
the imax marketing is the cherry on top really pissing me off, a massive movie with an endless budget and all the names of hollywood and the "proper way for it to be viewed" isn't even accessible to most people.
imbeciles on the internet are complaining about the casting of elliot and lupita (mind you there is not a single greek actor in the cast, in what world is odysseus a caucasian matt damon) when they could be hating for valid reasons. such as the mischaracterization of women and erasure of their stories.
if nolan wanted to make a historical war movie then that's what he should have done. why take the mythological out of the damn myth.
hey. you have to love your trans brothers of color okay. and your trans sisters of color. and your nonbinary siblings of color. you have to okay. its simply non-optional
Steve and Dustin running into each other while trying to sneak into Jonathan and El's rooms and Steve starts to lecture Dustin on how to properly sneak in without getting caught when Mike sticks his head out of Will's bedroom window to tell the to shut up because he's trying to sleep
i honestly think byler stands as one of the most blatant cases of queerbaiting the industry has produced in the last decade. and i donât say that lightly. this isnât a case of fans âreading too much into itâ or projecting subtext where none exists. this is a case where the text itself deliberately builds a queer emotional arc, frames it with all the cinematic language of a romantic storyline, and then cannibalises that arc to reinforce a straight couple that was already structurally unstable.
they took a queer characterâs feelings, his longing, his emotional labour, his narrative vulnerability, and used them as scaffolding for a relationship he isnât even part of. they lifted willâs emotional beats, his confessions, his heartbreak, and simply stamped elâs name on top like it was an interchangeable sticker. from a craft perspective, itâs not just sloppy; itâs narratively unethical. it treats queer interiority as a tool rather than a story. it treats a queer characterâs pain as a convenient emotional engine for a heterosexual romance that couldnât sustain itself on its own terms.
and the thing is, this isnât subtle. itâs not buried in symbolism or blink and youâll miss it gestures. itâs right there in the blocking, the framing, the colour theory, the dialogue, the emotional pacing. itâs the kind of thing youâd pause in a lecture hall and say, âokay, class, hereâs what happens when a show wants the cultural capital of queer representation without committing to the narrative responsibility of actually following through.â
itâs genuinely one of the worst cases of queerbaiting iâve seen in mainstream tv, not because the queerness wasnât explicit, but because it was explicit, and then it was repurposed to prop up a straight romance that the writers were too afraid to let fail on its own merits
setting aside the glaringly obvious subtext, it's the marketing and pr that truly made this a historical queerbait. the duffer brothers had every opportunity to clear the air and be honest with their queer audience, but they led everybody on with ambiguous answers so the show's viewership wouldn't decline. i have no doubt the actors were told to do the same, with noah schnapp saying that the byler fandom would be "satisfied" with the finale and that viral clip of caleb mclaughlin bylering out.
byler was marketed as a ship. point blank. in interviews it was presented as a "will they-won't they" and the only clear answer anyone could give was "i guess you'll just have to watch the show". the st writers account on twitter posted countless mysterious tweets, most of which remained unexplained by s5.
"let's start a new party. you and me." is a famous quote from the st writers twitter that was theorized to be about byler. never got a follow-up. they also hinted at mike writing will letters. that led nowhere. the entire promo surrounding s5 was littered with byler easter eggs: the "for will" cassette tape, the curated playlists, mike's funko-pop holding will's painting, none of it played any role in s5.
the duffer brothers, noah and finn all promised that everything would pay off, going so far as to lie into their queer audience's faces, saying that the painting was relevant when there was no mention of it at all, only a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" shot of it hanging on mike's wall in the epilogue. mike still thinks it was commissioned by his presumably dead girlfriend. mike has no idea that the painting represents will's love for him. why is mike's funko-pop holding that damn painting.
stranger things official social media accounts everywhere depicted mike and will as a couple. official accounts compared byler to canon couples such as lumax and jopper. the only people trying to convince byler fans that they were delusional was the straight, mileven-loving audience.
byler was never misinterpreted subtext or delusion. it was the duffers masquerading as outcasts, promising the queer audience that this was a show for them, for the outcasts and the freaks, when all it did was cater to the GA: the cishet majority.
it's impossible to play it off as "reading too much into it" when the duffer brothers genuinely were the ones misleading and openly lying to their queer audience. and now they're pretending they never did that and calling outraged byler fans "noise".
by trying to adhere to the GA's expectations, they failed the demographic they insisted they were making the show for. and now even their intended cishet audience is noticing their shitty writing. they were afraid that making a queer ship canon could be a career-ending move, but turns out their horrible writing is gonna do that anyway.
This post will be focusing on problematic tropes (more so than the many plot holes).Prior to this, I thought some of these writing choices were intentional subtext and symbolism for a greater plot point (and that these tropes would later be subverted) . This wasn't the case. I'm mentioning these tropes now: for people to grasp why we shouldn't reward the Duffers in their future projects. And how normalizing these tropes (in main stream shows) will negatively impact future story telling for the worse.
Fridging trope: El embodies this as her death is used as a catalyst for various male character's development in the finale. The Duffers saying El was never going to be with the gang in the end , because she "represents the magic of childhood" for the boys is just sad. Because yes-characters can represent something but writers need to understand they're MORE than just a symbol of something (they're also a person/character in the narrative). The fact she also represents "the magic of childhood" of all things is awfully portrayed since Jane herself never even had a real childhood - and because of the writers , she's also deprived of an adulthood .
In s5, bringing back Kali (one of the only brown girls in the show) to essentially just make her suffer and die. They brought her back: k*lled her found family , had her tortured by the gov again, and then she's shot by the gov. God forbid, a brown girl shoots her white oppressors (the writers have to k*ll her the same way she offed her abusers). Kali targeting her ab*sers was portrayed as morally questionable/nuanced in the show. But white Jim & Nancy mowing down random soldiers with bullets, or El killing a bunch of American/soviet soldiers was just to make them look 'bad ass'. The audience never has to question their morality for doing so- only Kali's. If you believe mike's theory: that would mean they just used Kali to save and give the white heroine a happy ending (which is gross optics in and of itself).
If you believe that El died along with Kali (this is also problematic). They couldn't let El/Kali : the victims of government oppression and abuse get a "happy ending" . In fact both die due to the government .What an uplifting message during these fraught political times. Remember Hopperâs speech where the whole point was Kali/El shouldnât have to off themselves since they deserve a happy ending (despite life being unfair to them constantly)? What was the point? Idk , if you don't die , off yourself if life has been cruel.Killing El / kali to stop the "cycle " isnât empowering at all. Itâs a harmful and dangerous message to ab*se survivors!!!
Had Erica and Lucas in s4 be in a scene comparable to police brutality . Even having Jason point a gun at Lucas. And having poor Erica be tackled by a man (talked about it more thoroughly here) .The writers didnât have the guts to meaningfully touch on how prevalent racism was in the 80s - so without doing so it just felt like they were exploiting black trauma for suspense. Without even thinking of how that would negatively affect or trigger black viewers. They also made Billy racist but not explicitly so. Arguably so fans could still thirst after Billy and deny his racism -and possible so they could keep their racist fans within the G.A. They could have called out the deniers after s2 via an interview a long time ago. And in s3 they gave Billy a redemption arc when his racism wasn't even rectified in s3 (they just ignored it)? Tbf , Lucas was very much likable and level headed for most of the seasons (Iâll give them that) . And I also appreciate how intelligent and affluent they made both Lucas & Erica . But, I did find some aspects of Ericaâs portrayal problematic since the very beginning- she always seemed to embody the âsapphire/sassy trope.â And Erica's actress has verbally implied she's had qualms with Erica embodying the " sassy black woman" trope (although subtly).
After the finale the Duffers also claimed that "no one is concerned about Erica" cause she's "so tough". Can we stop the adultification/masculinization of young black girls? It's awful and problematic. Isn't her character in middle school (it would be normal to be concerned for her cause she's a literal child)?! I hope Priah gets better roles in the future.
They never addressed what happened to Argyle, when they could of just said a random one liner saying he left the city before the military check points were set-up. They also didn't even give the actor a heads-up that he would not be returning for s5. It just shows to me that once again they don't care about the majority of their poc characters or even actors .Similar to Erica , Argyle could also fall into another problematic trope: the "hispanic stoner trope".
QUEER REP: QUEER BAITING A COUPLE. They constantly compared Mike/ Will to canon couples for 5 seasons just to foreshadow unrequited love . And they used byler in marketing/social media constantly. Will said that if he lost mike he'd want it to be done like "ripping off a bandaid" (the writers didn't give the queer viewers that). They dragged us along even in the finale, cause they wanted our viewership and engagement to make money. They repeat the tired old trope of : gay best friend needs to gets over straight bff (who is in love with the main heroine). Then have the gay friend lie to prop up and fix that straight pairing (while establishing the cyarno trope with the painting but never addressing it) . And in that season , they have him literally 3rd wheel the straight couple just to make him suffer (and use him as a punching bag for the whole series).Because a lot of straight writers subconsciously romanticize queer pain (and think it adds depth to their writing) .
Then they force said gay character to come out because he was coerced to by the villain . While the show never even uses the word "gay" for either Robin or Will . Then the sapphic couple also gets together/break up OFF SCREEN (while all the straight couples get actual development or closure) . They also have the show take place during the aids epidemic with no mentions of it, and ignore the fact that 'anti gay propaganda' was prolific in the 80s . If Duffers want to talk about ârealismâ to justify Will getting rejected : it's not "realistic", for a room full of straight people to all be accepting of Will in the 80s . Letâs talk about how the Duffers barely reference homophobia in the 80s- so the straight audience doesnât feel too bad about their own subconscious biases and LONG history of discriminatory practices ! THAT'S NOT "REALISTIC"-it's HISTORICAL REVISIONISM. The straight G.A bullied the queer fanbase for years (because queer viewers wanted better queer rep and fell for the queer bait). Those bullies never have to reflect on their actions (they're rewarded). They also didn't even give Will an actual 'rejection': he just rejects himself which is almost worse. Then he gets a 0.5s scene with a nameless guy -wow how revolutionary . "Gay epilogue bf/gf" is also another problematic gay trope.
Because an epilogue bf is a "tokenistic nod rather than meaningful inclusion" of a romantic gay relationship . Will getting rejected is just remnants of the Usa's Hays code: which made it illegal for films, tv and books to have a queer character in them unless they die , have an unrequited love, or a sad ending . This is also why shows do subtle queer coding even today (it was how writers back then got around the law to give their queer characters a happy ending) . The coding in ST was for queer readers to pick up on , while straight viewers would not . And that's why straight viewers today will say we're "delusional " : queer coding is now primarily weaponized by straight writers for marketing purposes. They know queer coding is usually only noticed by queer viewers . And they use this to their advantage when 'baiting' a queer couple, and not following through. They take advantage of the queer viewers, but also use their straight / heteronormative viewers as a shield (since they know they'll defend them in the end) .
Using sa/csa imagery with the monsters just for shock value. And as an âallegoryâ again cause they didnât have the guts to address the subject (just like they didnât have the guts to address homophobia or racism thoroughly or meaningful ) .They just triggered a bunch of sa victims for nothing , and for multiple seasons . As a gay csa victim this really pisses me off.
This is disgusting because there was no narrative reason to do this. It's not like they even tried to explore how and why THIS specifically would traumatize Will. They just did it for shock value and to torture their gay character some more. Don't even get me started on the sa imagery for poor Heather. They doubled down on this imagery in s5 with other kids too- for again seemingly no narrative reason. Or maybe for more nefarious reasons...
Have Karen (who is in her 40s) almost hook up with a teenage (18y old) Billy . And she doesnât even call it off cause of his age but because âshe has a family.â In a lot of ways Karen was the goat but that choice did ruin her character for me. Couldnât she at least tell Billy: âyou're much too young for me. I don't want to take advantage of you" in addition to her 'having a family' comment? Also having Murray encourage teenagers to bang was weird. I'm SIDE EYE-ing the Duffers forever . Especially cause they also added superfluous csa imagery and forced us to watch kids make out in s3.
In the Wheeler family, this questionable behavior isn't just from Karen . In s1, we have El (who didnât initially know what a friend was ) ask Mike if heâd be her brother or friend at the snowball-and then he kisses her. In s2 we see a gifted boy (who talks about "ectotherms") be "IN LOVE" with a girl who was just learning how to tell time and what âcompromiseâ means . Then in s3, Mike just makes out with her constantly despite El having to ask Max âhow do I know what I like?â And in s3 she didn't even know what Illinois was (even after going to Chicago in s2). But... there was no (morally questionable) power imbalance between the 2 .Nope...not SUPER Creepy at all . No real world implications. I'm probably overthinking it : it's not like men in real life have weird fantasies about taking advantage of naive -impressionable girls with less knowledge of the real world than them so they can manipulate and groom them into a relationship (laughs nervously).
In real life, Mike would have been jumped for taking advantage of such a girl. Yeah, she matured and grew later on (but them dating, especially in the early seasons was always creepy and morally questionable). Myself (and others) have been saying for years: she needed friends, family , and socialization before she jumped head-first into a romantic relationship.
The worst part is the Duffers placed a child in an old problematic sci-fi/fantasy trope called "born sexy yesterday" . No , I'm not saying she was sexy for people who love twisting my words. The trope has been around for decades but the term was only recently coined by youtuber 'pop culture detective' . (I'd recommend watching their video about it ) . The trope is usually about "a main heroine who has superpowers , but is mentally stunted like a child (and has little to no exposure to the outside world) . Her male love interest is often a normal (or nerdy) human man who teaches her about the real world and grooms her into a relationship ."
One alarming thing I learned from 'pop culture detective's" video was that an element of the trope involves the woman innocently undressing in front of a group of men cause she doesn't understand the social rules (this is usually done for gross fan-service) . This made my heart stop cause El did attempt to undress in front of the boys in the 1st episode. Initially, I though that it was to indicate how little privacy at the lab she had (or worse) . Now I'm just side eyeing the writers who wrote this (especially given how infamous Hollywood is toward child actors)...
The Duffers didn't subvert the trope: by showing how problematic Mike/El were together and letting El break it off . But instead they doubled-down on romanticizing their relationship .And worst of all: they used a child for the trope, which is EVEN WORSE than the initial problematic trope itself!!!!!! Mike was also clearly their self insert so it's even creepier .
Compared Mileven to to El & Brenner, El& hopper and El& Henry (post with proofs here) . But then they sell mileven as a romantic fantasy despite Mike STILL not being able to say âI love youâ back to her in s5. You suck, Wheeler . The fact Elâs whole life has been controlled by men who thought they knew what was best for her. And then they made El's sacrifice revolve around her (not great) bf is just gross and frankly unearned. Especially given how little positive development we saw of their relationship. She literally said in s4 Mike didn't "understand" her , but then in s5 claims Mike was the only one who "understood" her. It was so obvious men wrote this line to fulfill their (Mike) self-insert fantasy. GROSS. El deserved to live and have fulfilling relationships and bonds with other women. Especially when men took away her mother, aunt, "sister", childhood, and even her ability to express her femininity.
Mileven was also compared to Ted/karen. And even without El , Mike still conforms with his Ted glasses and ends up like his father who is oblivious to the world around him: hanging up the painting that he still thinks El commissioned . "You're just blind that a girl's not grossed out by you." At least El & Will are away from Ted 2.0 .
Mike falls for the false fantasy of El (that Will made). Just like in the end, Mike writes her in his fantasy: as a mage who is in a far away land with waterfalls. Even when El herself said about this fantasy :â life isnât like one of your campaigns, you canât write the ending.â And he proceeds to do just that (re-write HER ending and everyone else's)! Just like the Duffers , Mike didn't see the real her, only a fantasy of her. To them she was just a a symbol of "childhood magic "(like the characters in Mike's childhood game). Ick. Mike also doesnât move on like everyone else , and the party seemingly drifts apart and heâs alone like he always feared. He never becomes "Mike the brave" in the finale either ,unlike Holly the heroic or even Will the sorcerer who said he'll no longer be "afraid". And Mike is left with "regrets", that he said he wanted to prevent. How weirdly (and unintentionally) bleak for a self-insert character? Divorce get to you Ross?
Having an open ending can theoretically work. But if El dying and El surviving both have GAPING PLOT HOLES. It's just poor writing.
Have almost all the character spy and stalk a love interest. Jonathan using the camera on Nancy , Lucas using binoculars to spy on max, Steve spying on a girl he was into in s3 with binoculars, El /Max spying on Mike & Lucas after their breakup Aka: stalking for love trope.
Why did the characters spying on one another parallel the hyper-surveillance of the us gov, or the spying of the mindflayer? Duffers probably: "no reason, we just do parallels for fun with no deep thematics behind it." They also had Jonathan throw out Nancy's sweater cause it was pink . SMH duffersâ incel energy unfairly affecting Jonathanâs character. Some aspects of how the women were written were done well. But, sometimes subconscious misogyny seemed to seep through -by the duffers or another writer . Besides Kali/El's endings being evidence of that. Why was Tina "the worst" in the family, when Derick was clearly the menace before his redemption arc? Was it necessary to have the children call Holly a b*tch, strangle her, and throw her down the stairs? I could go on...
It also felt weirdly mean spirited and cruel to have Karen just stay with Ted (and not have a divorce). Especially , when her whole arc revolved around the fact that she was miserable with him. But since the Duffers romanticized problematic relationships, I shouldnât be surprised that their final message is âjust suck it up and stay in the miserable marriageâ . Especially if one of the creators is bitter that his wife divorced him (while s5 was being written).
I have mixed feelings about this next one, because they tortured Max for s2-5 . And frankly I would have preferred if Max just broke the curse in s4 , like Will broke the m.f's control in s2. So, I'm glad she got her happy ending in s5 . I get that realistically : her bones healed, and her atrophied muscles healed too (even though they ignored the fact that Max would realistically be on a feeding tube and IV while in the hospital). But , the fact vecna's curse was broken so her blindness is just gone... I'm curious how some other viewers with disabilities felt about this? Lucas even claimed Mike was "blind" because of a girl. So Max being "blind" was possibly a call back. You could argue Max being physically fine in the end is part of the "throwing off the disability" trope.
They play Hopperâs explosive anger as a joke even in the finale (haha, so cute that heâs yelling at Joyceâs son for making a simple camera mistake.) Letâs have Joyce get with a guy with anger issues even though she already divorced a guy who would yell and insult her sons . Hopper had some great characterization even in the finale but they flanderized and tried to make his anger issues comical from s3 and beyond . The way he talked to her in s3 was appalling . Hopper in s3 is made into a male power fantasy : an angry , gun slinger , who was based off of magnum pi and other macho men from that era of tv/film . Joyce doesnât get with nerdy, sweet, emotionally intelligent bob whose had a crush on her since high school (he is brutally killed looking at her with love ). "Nice guys can't win": all cause the nerdy Duffers didn't pull in high school.
So instead she gets with the macho archetype from the era . Even when Murray in s3 pointed out that Jim reminded her of Lonnie . Why even have him say this if we're supposed to want them together??? Duffers really struggle to write healthy relationships.
Also Hopper (the white burly cop) saying he wanted to "kill" Kali (the petite brown woman) was SO DISGUSTING. The optics were very problematic, especially in today's political climate. And at that point in the story (from Hopper's pov) all she did was call him out for lying . He even insulted her ,to her face, when she tried to calmly talk to him. It was just really awful to watch- especially cause Kali didn't make it in the end.
Have Murray go through military checkpoints, and be the one that drives aid & food into a fenced-in town under military occupation . When Brett Gelman is a racist Zionist who supported the Military siege , occupation, bombing, and blocking of aid and food for Gazans (who have been trapped in a fenced in city since the 1970s) .
And Palestinians outside of Gaza also have to use different roads and go through various military checkpoints unlike their Israeli counterparts (as part of the 70+ year apartheid). Having the kids literally escape the occupying military force by going into tunnels (was a choice when israel uses the fact Gaza has tunnels as an excuse to bomb hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, etc). And having Murray blow up a military helicopter by throwing a grenade (while palestinian kids are often arrested for simply throwing rocks at Israeli tanks is interesting). But, I guess none of these characters are "terr*rists of the state" or get arrested for decades without trial like Palestinians do . Even when the characters in ST actually kill a bunch of soldiers- they're not deemed as "terr*rists". HMMMMMMMM wonder why? Also look how "realism" is randomly gone again (guess it's only important for gay suffering and k*lling off ab*sed women). It could be a coincidence. Or , at best, it's one of the other writers taking a dig at Brett Gelman. As his character isn't from Hawkins, but gets to go through the Hawkins' military checkpoint with ease -unlike the trapped Hawkins citizens . Similar to how Israelies are able to go through military checkpoints in occupied Palestine with ease unlike their Palestinian counterparts) .
And if not, they're using the plight of Palestinian trauma as window dressing for their show (or even worse mocking the people who wanted to boycott s5 due to their 2 actors' comments against Palestine).
In s3, they essentially do cold-war propaganda by making the soviet communists cartoonishly evil (a common media trope in the 80s). All while Erica is used as a conservative mouth piece: who praises American Capitalism . And she is described as a genius "political junkie" (after she claims America is a meritocracy and people get payed based on their contributions to society). Ok... respectfully don't agree with that take tbh.
Ignore the fact that at this exact same time Regan as president popularized "trickle down economics" (otherwise known as Reganomics) : which is the cause of most of our economic issues today . He also cut & reduced funding for many of our social-programs by running on a campaign that used a racist dog whistle against black women .
So yeah, maybe i'm too sensitive and overthinking it (unlike the Duffers, apparently). But having the (possibly) white conservative writers make her say this whole spiel : feels very icky, and a bit tone death given the political climate at that time. Jonathan tbf does an "anti-capitalist" movie in the finale. But it rings hollow, when the stranger things creators are seemingly very pro-capitalist. Down to the obnoxious product placements, the merch, spin off shows/books/comics/food/toys etc. After the finale, the Duffers even started offering a writing class of all things, which is only available through a subscription platform (again cause they can never have enough money apparently). They think : THEY deserve all that money for THEIR contribution to society (don't blow up their ego more, and let them take your money while looking down on you)!!!!
The Duffers claim itâs a show for outcasts but at the end of the day- itâs just a show for nerdy white Incels or men .
It has a veneer of progressiveness, but it isnât in actuality. They claim the show is against "conformity" but ironically falls into many of the conformist tropes and writing conventions that have been critiqued as harmful for decades. It uses marginalized people and women to get browning points. But, It's not progressive at it's core (it's regressive)! It didn't challenge many of the out-dated (and harmful) tropes we don't want to see in media today. IF ANYTHING THEY BROUGHT BACK MANY PROBLEMATIC TROPES.
You could also argue the show is subtle & insidious : historical revisionism.
A few years ago Iâd give them more credit with the symbolism , parallels, music choices, set design, foreshadowing, etc (which usually amounted to nothing). I thought some of the problematic writing was intentional subtext and symbolism for a greater reveal (or that most of these tropes would later be subverted or explained as problematic in the narrative ) . But that finale along with all the plot holes, and poor writing choices, made me question the entire series as a whole. To be fair a lot of redeeming aspects of the show may have been attributable to less famous writers of the show, directors/producers, set designers, costume designers , music composers, etc . Some of the highest rated episodes weren't written by the Duffers (or had other writers reeling in the Duffers problematic elements). The s5 writer's strike probably didn't help. And midway through s5 they got rid of one of their female writers /co executive producers (Kate Tefry) who was involved since s1 .Instead of helping finish s5, she worked on the spin-off play instead (which could explain the nose dive s5 took ):
I also do sort of believe in divorce gate: the conspiracy theory about Leigh Janiak (Ross' ex wife) maybe being a ghost writer. She's a screenwriter and director (who has worked on Ross' other projects).The divorce filing occurred after part 1. Leigh also made the 'fear street trilogy': it was diverse, set in the 90s, had a straight bait instead of a queer-bait, and had the main character save her gf from possession/death. Love was the cure. It also had a bunch of st easterggs down to a bleeding nostril to allude to the supernatural, and staring 3 actresses from ST. Maya Hawke's character even worked at a video store. Leigh complained that "queer subtext is not the same as real representation" and that she despised when writers would do queer subtext but never follow through (explaining it was one of the reasons she made fear street). Hmm. The duffers were also sued for allegedly stealing others' work twice (so I would not be surprised if they stole creative work or ideas from Rossâ wife as well). The first lawsuit, filed by filmmaker Charlie Kessler in 2018, claimed the Duffers stole his idea from his 2012 short film Montauk (after he pitched it to them at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2014).The second lawsuit, filed in 2020 by Irish Rover Entertainment, alleged that the show was based on an unpublished script called Totem written by Jeffrey Kennedy, with similarities in plot, characters, and concept art. This lawsuit was settled out of court in 2023.
Regardless of whether those rumors are true . We should not reward or normalize the Duffers writing in Hollywood : they do harmful/regressive tropes and messaging, use easterggs/call backs that have no deeper meaning, and can't complete a story without many plot holes and ret-cons. They even normalized short seasons which take much longer to make! Shows shortly before st's initial airing had 25+ (45 minute) episodes per season . Which were created in less time and with similar or better quality. That's not even getting into all the rumors/ allegations of the Duffers mistreating their staff...
I know some may disagree with my takes here , but I just wanted to get my grievances out so I never have to think of this awful series again.*Feel free to add to this list of issues in reblogs or comments.
prguitarman
stormborns
yousharknotpass
blakekathryn
dailybridgerton
