@MykytaHavryliuk якщо вам цікаво подивитися ще один крутий дизайн, то хочу поділитися із вами своєю улюбленою мисткинею що часто Живчика малювала (в неї навіть є комікси із ним офігенські)
її дизайн мені ну дууууже подобається (і там не лише Живчик, а й інші фрукти)
https://t.co/1so3NAeccY
@viesibles I didn’t know where this one is from or who’s this phrase is and I though it was Mike’s phrase at first
And honestly? Even coming from Mike it would have been SO MUCH MORE BUZZING than whatever we see in the show 🥲 damn
“ukrainians are overreacting” no.
that’s just you who don’t really care about russian warcrimes because two fictional gays are more important to you.
in 2026 mentioning russia not in a war context should be disgraceful.
i'm sorry that i keep talking about this but i genuinely can't let it go.
mike's love confession in s4 does not happen organically. it only happens because it's triggered by a sequence of external factors: will's monologue framing mike as 'the heart', will's verbal and physical encouragement and the fact that el was literally fighting for her life. on top of that, mike lies about 'love at first sight', a lie the narrative never questions again even though the audience knows it's false.
when mike later faces the possibility of losing el again and will is not present, he can't say 'i love you' at all, not even as el tells him she's choosing to die and refuses to be convinced not to. this establishes that the s4 confession was not an expression of stable romantic certainty, but the result of all the external factors i listed. and i'm sorry, but el fighting for her life just wasn't enough for him to say it.
to top it all off, they end s4 with mike and el still on rocky terms despite the "confession" and they frame their main couples (jancy, jopper, and byler) separate from el.
then in the beginning of s5 we find out will and mike have been living together for 18 months and they have will ask robin how she knew vickie wanted to date her. robin explains there were signals between them until it was obvious and will asks 'how obvious?'. robin explains how the snowball turned to an avalanche and will looks away surprised like he's processing and replaying memories in his head, which then immediately leads him to flirt with mike.
not only do we have mike and will doing the signals that robin described both before and after her speech, but even if it wasn't supposed to be mike, we never see those signals between will and anyone else on our screen, which means that whole scene didn't just not pay off, but was used to queerbait. you don't write a character in love with another character and have him go through all this story for at least 3 seasons with no pay off. regardless of whether it's byler or another pair, it makes no narrative sense whatsoever.
to get back to the painting and the lie, by refusing to address it, the show creates a complete illusion of mike and el's relationship and gaslights the audience into thinking it's some great love when mike can't say i love you to el, el has felt unloved by mike, and mike believes el loves him more than she actually does. but what we're actually shown is that mike and will have a deeper, better understanding of each other and that the way they love each other is exactly what the other one craves and needs.
they introduced chekhov's gun and then threw it away because they knew it could only lead to one logical conclusion: byler. and then they used it REPEATEDLY in the marketing of the show.
so when mfs say "there was no queerbait" and "there was no setup", disrespectfully, idk wtf they're talking about.