Enjoyed the series but what, no original ideas?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Stranger Things
jpjohnson_2000 — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 11:36 AM)
The series was pretty good but the constant homages (rip-offs) to various King, Spielberg and Carpenter works was getting to be a bit much. I like to odd "I see what you did there" moment as much as the other person but this began to be more like a patchwork of scenes from movies that many of us liked. I hope season two will be more original.
-
MonoEnojado — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 11:04 AM)
That's one of the many, many dumb things I noticed about the show.
Sure, the show is fun, but there are also lots of character decisions that make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Think for example in episode 5, I think.
At the end, when Nancy notices the "portal" in the tree Why would anyone decide to crawl into such a weird looking place? Why not just call Jonathan and tell him what she's found?
The same goes for Hopper, when he's at the lab, or when he opens Will's fake body (remember he's not entirely sure that's not a real body in the first place). Or when the bullies make Mike jump off the cliff and Eleven saves him, it's clear she had been watching long before he jumped, so why not interfere before that? Probably just so that we get to see that cool scene of Mike floating.
Again, the show is kinda fun, but as other user said "it's good when you turn off your brain". -
pieman-barker — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 07:05 AM)
I disagree
Yeah I also went "you wouldn't do that" when Nancy went into the tree but then I thought about it some more. We know the portals affect people, they lose the ability to hear when near the portal material. Think Hop in both the barn and the lab and Nancy in the woods. If it can fundamentally change a physical attribute what's to say it doesn't draw people in. This happens in nature all the time where bait is laid to capture prey.
Watch Hop again with the body, that look on his face when he puts his hand down on the body. Hop used to be a big city cop and probably in Nam (he's the right age) doubt that he hasn't touch a corpse before. Sure he's still reticent because it's a kid he knows, a kid of a woman he appears to know very well but he's suspicious enough to make the cut.
You answered the Mike one yourself
-
user08004820 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 12:32 PM)
I personally don't like it when movies explain everything. To enjoy films and series I think one should give the work the benefit of a doubt and focus on the story instead of the plot. At least that is how I enjoy TV&movies the most.
Unless its a sci-fi or action B-movie, then it is most enjoyable to just make fun of it with a friend. -
-
chrisjdel — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 01:00 PM)
Also after Hopper is caught in the facility they just take him home!?! Albeit they bug his house, surely they wouldn't risk him leaving with the knowledge of what he saw?
In a few days' time this little hick town has seen one missing child, two if they already know about Barb, a suicide, and probably one or two of those six locals who ended up disappearing in the woods. And they can't be sure who else Hopper may have shared the information with that led him to break into their lab. They also
know
the creature's death toll is only going to go up every day it isn't successfully killed or contained. A large cluster of mysterious deaths that includes the Chief of Police would draw outside attention and outside investigators to their quiet little town.
I think they may have been hoping the booze and drugs on the table might convince Hopper he imagined the whole thing. Not all that likely, but worth a try. Right? Letting him go and keeping him under surveillance might reveal what turned him on to Hawkins Lab. And given his talent for detective work, maybe they were hoping he'd find their lost little girl for them. Assassination is a precision tool, a scalpel rather than a baseball bat. You take out one or two people to keep things from getting out of hand. Once you're past that stage, and your target list is multiplying rapidly, you have to switch tactics. There are other approaches to making things happen your way. -
andyh1982 — 9 years ago(September 23, 2016 05:00 PM)
I agree, and I struggled to see why so many people I know recommended it so highly. I meanL it was good; the acting was good, it was enjoyable. But it was the complete opposite of "groundbreaking", every other scene felt like an homage or rip-off of something or other. Even "Home Alone" came up with the traps they set for the creature
I thought it got a bit tiresome, but some good scenes and some good acting saved it.
Although I'd watch a second series, I'm hardly on the edge of my seat. -
ccr1633 — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 10:42 AM)
Fair criticisms, but if you like John Carpenter, The Clash, HP Lovecraft, and early 80s Spielberg then this show is a wet dream of great influences. What's novel is that Stranger Things managed to work with these obvious influences and create something engaging and of high quality. They've shown the vastly inferior JJ Abrams how to do this right, and, in my opinion, their characters of suburbia are much less contrived and more realistic than what the ever cloying Spielberg belched out in ET, Close Encounters, Poltergeist, etc.
-
bubafin — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 11:30 AM)
To be fair, having an extra 6 hours to do it helps flesh out pretty much anything. What I found great was how they didnt over do it at all. They kept things interesting and it never got "old" feeling. Even if it feels like you have seen it, it still was engaging. And still is, after a half dozen views, maybe mre.