good show when you turn off your brain.
-
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. -
J-No — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 02:00 AM)
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.
If you're admitting to recognizing flaws, but dismissing them from your analysis, why would anyone view your opinion as complete or relevant? A complete opinion isn't one that's been honed to fit some kind of end result you're looking to achieve. That implies bias, ignorance, and/or lack of ability. Being observant and enjoying a show aren't mutually exclusive.
If you 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.
There's a scene early on with the Wheeler family at the dinner table, and Mrs. Wheeler's hand is on the baby's seat in one shot, and in the next her hand is casually in front of her on the table, with these different shots alternating over the whole scene. Also, when Nancy and Steve were "getting it on" and there's an abundance of light coming through the blinds, despite that light not being there the shot before, and despite all shots outside the house clearly showing it was well into the night. Post-alley fight, Steve is in the gas station/diner and is putting up a cold Coca-Cola can to his bruised forehead, and the can repeatedly changes. On scenes taken from his left side, he holds the can sideways and it is written in the classic font "Coca-Cola". On scenes taken from the right side, he is holding the can vertically and it reads "Coke". Product placement may be the reason, but it isn't an excuse for continuity.
Now, do these examples impact the (frankly, rather unoriginal) dialogue, writing, and story? No, and to you maybe it's nitpicking. To me, it's sloppy directing and editing, and a complete, well-rounded opinion can't selectively dismiss these factors when evaluating the overall production. There's a difference between outstanding, first-rate, average, and flawed production values.
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?
Anachronism example: Jonathan was really ahead of the curve by name-dropping The Smiths for that mixtape he gave Will. That scene quite possibly occurs while their father still lives with them, at least a year before the series opens in November of 1983. So, Jonathan is into The Smiths six months or more before their first single is even released. That's one savvy rural Midwestern high-schooler that's either hanging out in Manchester-UK or frequenting really clued-in record stores. Now, seeing as there were airplanes and ocean liners, maybe Jonathan was indeed jamming over to Manchester because he was tight with members of The Smiths and their scene. Or, Hawkins had stores, so why not an edgy record store with bootlegged copies of unreleased tracks by The Smiths? You see how all of this is possible, but that buying into it is conveniently dismissing rationality, likelihood, probability, and plausibility? More examples below for your convenience.
Writing and story examples:
Chapter One: Will tries to call 911 but the call doesn't go through. He then drops the phone, and the scene shows it swinging from the cradle. The next morning, Joyce goes to use the phone and it's sitting on the cradle as if nothing was wrong. How did it get there? Jonathan told Joyce he didn't notice anything unusual from the night before or that morning. Did the demigorgon came in the house and hang the phone up?
Nancy decides to leave Jonathan and her only weapon (the bat) behind to crawl through the hole in the tree. The monster just brought a whole deer through the forest in front of her eyes so the best thing to do is to crawl right into what's probably its lair, knowing it's still around, with no protection and without telling her partner? And shortly after, the classic backing-up-slowly-and-stepping-on-a-tree-branch-alerts-the-monster.
The kids explain the concept of a friend to Eleven, but in chapter six (in a flashback) someone uses the word on her and she isn't puzzled.
Chief Hopper asking if the NSA had something to do with this in 1983. The NSA really wasn't well known in the early 80s and there hadn't really been any depiction of the NSA in cinema at that time. Historically, the NSA really didn't have anything to do with stuff like MKULTRA. It would have made far more sense for him to question if the CIA had something to do with it as opposed to the NSA.
Kids jumping into a pool to frolic, or Barb casually running her feet through the water, in pre-winter Indiana. (Well, maybe it was heated? Not plausible enough. I don't need a map for simple point A-to-B explanations, but something like that needs clarification or I'm justified in labeling it as an oversight in production value and quality control.)
How's this for a hypothetical news forecast post- -
DrAndreiSmyslov — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 02:17 AM)
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.If you're admitting to recognizing flaws, but dismissing them from your analysis, why would anyone view your opinion as complete or relevant? A complete opinion isn't one that's been honed to fit some kind of end result you're looking to achieve. That implies bias, ignorance, and/or lack of ability. Being observant and enjoying a show aren't mutually exclusive.
If you 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.There's a scene early on with the Wheeler family at the dinner table, and Mrs. Wheeler's hand is on the baby's seat in one shot, and in the next her hand is casually in front of her on the table, with these different shots alternating over the whole scene. Also, when Nancy and Steve were "getting it on" and there's an abundance of light coming through the blinds, despite that light not being there the shot before, and despite all shots outside the house clearly showing it was well into the night. Post-alley fight, Steve is in the gas station/diner and is putting up a cold Coca-Cola can to his bruised forehead, and the can repeatedly changes. On scenes taken from his left side, he holds the can sideways and it is written in the classic font "Coca-Cola". On scenes taken from the right side, he is holding the can vertically and it reads "Coke". Product placement may be the reason, but it isn't an excuse for continuity.
Now, do these examples impact the (frankly, rather unoriginal) dialogue, writing, and story? No, and to you maybe it's nitpicking. To me, it's sloppy directing and editing, and a complete, well-rounded opinion can't selectively dismiss these factors when evaluating the overall production. There's a difference between outstanding, first-rate, average, and flawed production values.
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?Anachronism example: Jonathan was really ahead of the curve by name-dropping The Smiths for that mixtape he gave Will. That scene quite possibly occurs while their father still lives with them, at least a year before the series opens in November of 1983. So, Jonathan is into The Smiths six months or more before their first single is even released. That's one savvy rural Midwestern high-schooler that's either hanging out in Manchester-UK or frequenting really clued-in record stores. Now, seeing as there were airplanes and ocean liners, maybe Jonathan was indeed jamming over to Manchester because he was tight with members of The Smiths and their scene. Or, Hawkins had stores, so why not an edgy record store with bootlegged copies of unreleased tracks by The Smiths? You see how all of this is possible, but that buying into it is conveniently dismissing rationality, likelihood, probability, and plausibility? More examples below for your convenience.
Writing and story examples:
Chapter One: Will tries to call 911 but the call doesn't go through. He then drops the phone, and the scene shows it swinging from the cradle. The next morning, Joyce goes to use the phone and it's sitting on the cradle as if nothing was wrong. How did it get there? Jonathan told Joyce he didn't notice anything unusual from the night before or that morning. Did the demigorgon came in the house and hang the phone up?
Nancy decides to leave Jonathan and her only weapon (the bat) behind to crawl through the hole in the tree. The monster just brought a whole deer through the forest in front of her eyes so the best thing to do is to crawl right into what's probably its lair, knowing it's still around, with no protection and without telling her partner? And shortly after, the classic backing-up-slowly-and-stepping-on-a-tree-branch-alerts-the-monster.
The kids explain the concept of a friend to Eleven, but in chapter six (in a flashback) someone uses the word on her and she isn't puzzled.
Chief Hopper asking if the NSA had something to do with this in 1983. The NSA really wasn't well known in the early 80s and there hadn't really been any depiction of the NSA in cinema at that time. Historically, the NSA really didn't have anything to do with stuff like MKULTRA. It would have made far more sense for him to question if the CIA had something to do with it as opposed to the NSA.
Kids jumping into a pool to frolic, or Barb casually running her feet through the water, in pre-winter Indiana. (Well, maybe it was heated? Not plausible enough. I don't need a map for simple point A-to-B explanations, but something like that needs clarification or I'm justified in labeling it as an oversight in production value and quality control.)
How's this for a hypothetical news forecast post-Wil