good show when you turn off your brain.
-
DrAndreiSmyslov — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 10:48 AM)
Plenty of users have come up with one-in-a-million plausibility excuses for obvious flaws.
Hearsay examples wasn't what I was looking for. You didn't even offer up one example.
Many of those users have rated it 10/10. Pretty easy to fill in the blanks based on that behavior.
I see.
Well then, going by your own logic, we can safely "fill in the blanks" that you think 2001 ASO is flawless?
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten. -
DrAndreiSmyslov — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 11:12 AM)
Completely agree.
However, I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, here's a LONG list of 2001 ASO's flaws
http://www.imdb.com/board/10062622/trivia?tab=gf&ref_=tt_trv_gf
And that doesn't change the fact you assert anyone who gives this show a 10/10 (not me, my rating is only +1 higher than yours) you automatically assume they foolishly think the show is flawless.
Therefore by your own logic, you giving 2001 ASO a 10/10, we can all assume you foolishly think that movie is flawless.
It's a two way street, junior.
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten. -
J-No — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 02:56 PM)
And that doesn't change the fact you assert anyone who gives this show a 10/10 (not me, my rating is only +1 higher than yours) you automatically assume they foolishly think the show is flawless.
My experience with those people here, specifically you, is that once they feel pressured into abruptly and conveniently admitting it isn't flawless, they relent and even suggest they have explicitly pointed out flaws elsewhere. Otherwise, they/you continue with their ways of acting as though it is indeed flawless, as evidenced by their unwavering defense disregarding important factors like rationality, likelihood, plausibility, etc. -
DrAndreiSmyslov — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 04:31 PM)
My experience with those people here, specifically you, is that once they feel pressured into abruptly and conveniently admitting it isn't flawless, they relent and even suggest they have explicitly pointed out flaws elsewhere.
And yet you still have yet to provide one example.
You have convinced yourself that if anyone even slightly questions your whining over the minutia you have made up out of thin air for this show, then all of a sudden they are brainwashed by the duffers.
You're cute kid, have fun with your fantasy.
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten. -
J-No — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 05:08 PM)
You have convinced yourself that if anyone even slightly questions your whining over the minutia you have made up out of thin air for this show, then all of a sudden they are brainwashed by the duffers.
And you are in bed with the duffers, whining louder than anyone because you don't know any better and lack critical analysis skills. I'm fine with my abilities. How about you?
You're cute kid, have fun with your fantasy.
In my fantasy, you actually have credibility. Pure fantasy, I know.
LMAO!! -
DrAndreiSmyslov — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 05:17 PM)
by J-No (Fri Sep 9 2016 17:08:07)
You and others here don't boohoo about the show to my satisfaction! Therefore I have decided anyone who doesn't match my volume of tears must be sleeping with the Duffers!
All right people listen up!
You better get in line with Junior's demands! I will be keeping an eye on you. I'm junior's new sheriff in town, if I see any of you even hinting you like this show, there will be hell to pay!
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten. -
J-No — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 03:16 AM)
Do things like typing out an ENTIRE cast list to display your intellect. Consistently give in to staunch overrationalizationsyou owe it to the filmmakers. When you have nothing constructive to say to someone, or someone provides valid commentary or criticism you can't understand, call that meanie a cry baby or a troll.
Follow these suggestions, and people will neither laugh at you nor ignore you. They may even scoff if someone suggests you're a moronic simpleton.
Until then, back into the cage. -
Gregolas01 — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 09:32 PM)
J-No, I'm interested in what you are considering to be flaws with the show.
I rated the show highly based not on the technical aspects of it, but my enjoyment while watching it. I don't like many television shows these days, so when I find something I do like, I like it a lot.
That said, this show has its flaws, sure, but most of them are easily dismissed if you take them at face value and enjoy the show. For instance, there's a thread on this board where someone says they can't enjoy the show because the bikes aren't right. But that's not a flaw with the story. A flaw with the show? Maybe, but not with the story. Either way, it's not a documentary. The universe of Stranger Things simply has more modern bikes in their 1983 than our universe did. If you are watching the show for 80s nostalgia and have extensive knowledge of early 80s bicycles, I guess that ruins the show for you. If you're watching for the story, I just don't see how something like that is that big of a problem.
But when you mention "factors like rationality, likelihood, plausibility, etc." I'm curious what you're referring to. Are these actual flaws in the story? Or just characters acting in a way you wouldn't have them to? It sounds like you're referring to either character actions or story events. If you're referring to either of those, I have a hard time seeing where rationality, likelihood, or plausibility would be flaws with the story as opposed to, say, a personal distaste for the story itself. If it's unlikely that event x would happen, and yet it does happen, that's just what the story is about whether you like it or not. If you're referring to the story contradicting itself or failing to adequately explain itself or something, then I could agree.
Having said all that, maybe the people you say are acting like the show is flawless just have a different attitude about what a flaw is and how much the flaws do or do not ruin the show. I'm not trying to contradict you or take a side, just offering a different pov. This is the sort of discussion I'm interested in if you care to discuss further.