good show when you turn off your brain.
-
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 -
soothsayerh3 — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 02:32 AM)
I enjoyed reading your criticisms and would like to read some more but in my opinion only a few of them hold water and are so minor that meh, who cares. The one where he leaves the phone hanging is huge though.
-
J-No — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 03:32 AM)
Thank you.
I think as a whole they are indeed major in a sum-of-its parts fashion. And this was only a top-of-my-head sample, outside of the growing anachronism section that I've tallied and saved for kicks.
Who cares? Well, I look at all aspects of a production so, yeah, I care. Again, this was only a sample.
All in all, I think there is enough to like about this genuinely entertaining series. The areas of improvements just seem so obvious, and my great/classic stamp is just a little harder to earn. -
Gregolas01 — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 08:19 AM)
J-No, thanks for the reply. It's currently Saturday morning and i have 3 kids in my hair so i don't know how much time or concentration I have to give a proper reply at the moment. My apologies for that. But here goes:
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.
View my opinion as incomplete or irrelevant if you want. I'm okay with that. It's just a tv show we're talking about. But there's simply not enough perfect things in this world not to overlook a few flaws in something I otherwise enjoy. It's also fine to point out those flaws and ask for something better next season. Maybe forgiving the flaws in an enjoyable show is just one of my flaws. And i'm okay with that, too.
And you're right. Being observant and enjoying a show aren't mutually exclusive. That's why I'm able to forgive the flaws I do see. Because I can notice those, and still enjoy the show.
As for the many examples you listed, those are some great examples. The strongest one in my opinion is the one about the phone being hung up. That should have been fixed.
As for the hands not being in the right place and the coke can turning, I usually try not to observe those. Again, maybe a flaw of mine, but I just assume people are fidgety between shots and I'm okay with it. It would be different if it were a prop moving without being interacted with.
As for the stuff that shouldn't be there because it's not the right year, again, it's not a documentary. I didn't look at it as a show that was trying to exactly recreate a single week in our universes 1983, but a show that was trying to give a very strong 1980s vibe to their universe. If i can accept that an alternate dimension monster is able to enter the world of Stranger Things, I can also accept that the Smiths became popular a year or two earlier. That doesn't affect the story for me at all. Although, since such a big part of the show is the 80s nostalgia, I can see the relevance in pointing these things out and discussing them. I just don't see why anyone should let them ruin the story.
I don't know which elements would not have been on a periodic table in 1983, so I wouldn't have caught that, but if i had, it wouldn't have affected the story for me. Again, that's more about creating the atmosphere of a classroom. Did the world of Stranger Things discover these elements sooner than we did in our universe? Or is this poor production value? It doesn't affect the story, so I don't really care. I'm willing to forgive.
Other things, like seeing modern day satellites etc, can all fall under the idea of the universe of Stranger Things being slightly more advanced than ours, or, since they don't affect the story itself, they can be forgiven. Another sacrifice to a small first season budget, perhaps. Again, hopefully they'll fix things like that next season with a bigger budget.
What you're doing by pointing these things out, whether its called nitpicking or not, is certainly a valid way to critique and enjoy the show. But for those who enjoyed the story and are willing to overlook those flaws, isn't that also a valid way to enjoy the show? -
Gregolas01 — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 10:25 AM)
By the way, the biggest flaw I found was Steves ability to hold the monster off with a baseball bat while the guys with guns had no affect. If only those guys had held their guns by the barrel and beat the monster with the stock, They'd probably all have survived to the second season.
-
Gregolas01 — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 11:10 AM)
the biggest flaw I found
Actually that's not even true. I also don't like how they introduced a theory about how the monster comes when it smells blood but were very inconsistent with the application of that idea. It didn't come after El when she bled and Mike's little sister was in Will's room alone not bleeding when it tried to come for her. In fact, when it came for Mike's little sister and Joyce grabbed her, i'm not sure why the monster went away. When it came for Jonathan and Nancy, it didn't leave because Steve showed up. Neither this example or the one I mentioned above completely ruined the show for me, but they were flaws that hurt it a bit and less easily forgivable than the use of the wrong bike or a too modern periodic table. Hopefully that's the sort of thing they'll fix next season.