This wasn't good

This wasn't good

Other urls found in this thread:

bloody-disgusting.com/news/3419833/animatronic-test-video-stranger-things-demogorgon-practical-effects-heaven/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

ok

No it wasn't. Was a pile of shit.

It was a cookie cutter, very predictable and stupid in the end. Can't believe it got so popular, it literally didn't bring anything new

...

It actually was

childhood fantasies in a new brand can

But muh 80s

I thought it was good. Debate me

The first 2-3 episodes were.

I liked it

>"villains" weren't competent
>main characters weren't interesting
>the whole premise was poorly executed
>the ending was absolute trash

It didn't even feel like 80s, you overhyped this shit and made me waste the whole day on watching it.

It amazes me that anyone on Sup Forums actually thought it was good. I had to drop it after the first episode, it was just so terrible and cliche-ridden.

>m-muh 80s nostalgia

80s nostalgia has to be one of the most overused cliches in modern cinema and TV. This show brought nothing new to the table, other than mixing overused 80s tropes (dorky kid heros, small town setting, etc) with overused modern tropes (absurdly powerful gov't forces, child with op psychic abilities, etc).

This show was godawful. Sup Forums needs to get better taste in TV.

It's the LOST syndrome.

It was interesting when you didn't know what the fuck is happening. The actual explanation was so poor and boring.

>muh mutants to fight commies

woah, I haven't seen that before.

>muh mutants to fight commies
But they didn't even say that. They went from a research on intelligence to research of... something? without seemingly any change in personnel

no, it was [/spoiler]good[/spoiler].

Stranger Things is faux nostalgia manufactured by a couple of hipster cunts who weren't even alive in the 80s

If you want the real thing, watch Stephen King's IT, Stand By Me and E.T. back to back. That's enough 80s for anyone

>netflix
>good

netflix is for plebs and normies. All their shows are absolute trash. Network tv is more respectable since it doesn't pretend to be good

Show wasn't good to begin with.

It's for depressed middle-aged stay-at-home moms that are seeking a form of escapism which suits their sparse off hours from a part-time job which is required for them to keep them and their children afloat in their middle-class neighborhood.

I applaud your attempt but the execution was piss poor. Troll harder

(You)

80's exploitation

wrong.

Dept. of Energy.
The US Department of Energy oversees private and governmental use of nuclear energy and materials. In the show, a lab owned by the DOE is a front for a biological research program involving paranormal phenomena. Not all that far-fetched given that this was an actual area of research during the Cold War.

It was a great show. You are all just a bunch of autistic cunts who can only judge art on weird impersonal rubrics, instead of actual quality. You still think Nolan's films are deep and interesting, and that by saying they're not I'm somehow suggesting he's a bad director.

What is great about it? Because what said, it's not good.

It was meh

Everything that it was inspired by had already done what it did better and 30 years earlier.

Every semi original idea it had fell flat. It was at least compitently executed for the most part other than some isolated instances.

Although, its' limitations as a relatively low budget telivision show were showing throughout and detracted from a lot of what have been good action moments.

Overall, maybe a 5 or 6 out of 10.

>ITT a handful of sentence-long posts saying "no you're wrong" and a boatload of paragraph-long posts explaining exactly why this show is terrible

Great to see netflixfags BTFO inbetween marketing campaigns

nice strawman

It's exceptionally well made. Despite being mostly an interplay of tropes, it injects of sense of reality and fantasy that's intoxicating.

Importantly, just because something uses tropes doesn't make it bad. Tropes are not cliches.

Most people live their lives as a trope. Almost every character of the show starts as a trope. But when things get stranger, a sense of reality takes over the characters. Their storybook lives stop being so storybook. As a reaction, most characters start taking on a new trope, but it doesn't hold, because their lives no longer fit into the neat little boxes they did before.

What's really great about it is that at the same time characters react rather naturally and realistically to the supernatural events unfolding around them, the story serves as a perfect metaphor for the way grief can spread through a community.

Just because it's not an epic story, or some Nolan/Snyder shit doesn't mean there's nothing to it. But you lot can't actually see shit for what it is, because you're like the rest of Reddit and Sup Forums at being almost completely inept when it comes to art criticism and interpretation. You don't know how to read films well, and you have completely shut yourselves off from your emotional life.

>Well written characters with fleshed-out motivations
>Excellent sound design
>Relatively strong cinematography
>An interesting and constistently unpredictable story arc that at the same time stayed true to the rules of the univers (honestly pretty rare in fiction)
>Great set design
>Great costumes
>Great acting (Good child actors, which is becoming more common but still isn't anywhere close to universal)
>A general willingness to subvert cliches (The jock kid who's with the girl stays with the girl and evolves as a character, despite being built up to fail)

Please, explain specifically why you thought it sucked, other than you being upset that it was both good and popular.

>it injects of sense of reality and fantasy taht's intoxicating

No it doesn't

There's no sense of realism in the entire show. It's just a bunch of fantasy bullshit mixed with cliche after cliche. They react as caricatures; someone who grew up on 80's cartoons vision of how normal people act.

>More strawman
>"I-if you disagree ur just a dummy and don't get art"

Fuck off.

That's not a strawman. A strawman is when you use a false argument for a stand in for your opponents in an attempt to make your argument looks stronger.

This case is an argument. It's the claim that your opinion = ____. Not as a foil, but as the claim to fought over and debated.

If it were a strawman, I'd have had to present a full argument for Nolan, ascribed to you, and then dissected it and used the dissection as support for my point.

Seriously, this should be obvious. A straw man is something you set up to attack instead of your opponents. I'm clearly just attacking you with what I perceive to be your arguments.

If you don't think Nolan's films are deep or interesting, then I'm not talking to you. But those people are clearly all over the place here, and they are who I am speaking to.

You're bringing Nolan into the mix because your argument is too weak to exist without saying "hurrr Durr I bet like this thing I don't like, stoopid"

That's a strawman

>Almost every character of the show starts as a trope. But when things get stranger, a sense of reality takes over the characters. Their storybook lives stop being so storybook. As a reaction, most characters start taking on a new trope, but it doesn't hold, because their lives no longer fit into the neat little boxes they did before.

Wow, we've must've seen the same Youtube videos explaining this! What dank subreddit do you lurk, my good chum?

>There's no sense of realism in the entire show. It's just a bunch of fantasy bullshit mixed with cliche after cliche.

Are you serious? Name a couple of the cliches that apparently inundate the show.

Bland story carried by Wynona, the sheriff and the kids chsrisma, characters and performance.

>Well written characters
Meh. Not particularly. None of them stand out.

>Excellent sound design
Auxiliary

>Relatively strong cinematography
Again, not so much. Not terrible, but nothing to write home about either. And again, auxiliary.

>Consisting unpredictable story
Haha

No

>Great set design
Auxiliary

>Great costume
Auxiliary

>Great acting
God no

Wionna is batshit, no realism about her performance at all. The child actors coul've been worse, but where still, by no means, good.

>General willingness to subvert cliches
Presenting a cliche and just doing the opposite with it is a lazy way to "subvert" cliches

Overall, mediocre show. Certainly vastly overrated.

The ones I did before

OP pyscic child
JAWs-style baddie
OP CIA/government agency
Dorky heros

That's more than a couple

The only youtube "film criticism" I watch is Every frame a painting, and I never read reddit film. If other people said the same thing, that demonstrates consensus from independent viewers, making it more likely the observation is true and not simply personal.

Those aren't cliches. Those are barely even tropes.

>bland story
>compelling characters and performance

Pick one.

Name a show you enjoyed the most this last year and I'll judge if your opinion is valid.

This, the show peaked with Will's "dead body" being found, the following episodes were forgettable.

You can't just ''[trait] is good'' over and over and expect anyone to trust you.

You serious? Ever heard of Stephen King?

You just proved my point. You're very offended, and I didn't say I didn't like Nolan, or that he was bad. I claimed you probably thought his films were interesting and deep. Not a strawman.

A strawman is when someone makes argument X, but the opponent refutes argument Y and acts like it was argument X. I refuted argument X [stranger things is bad] (albeit with no support) and then presented argument Y [you are not good at judging the quality of films].

>OP pyscic child
Not a cliche. Actually relatively uncommon. I leave it to you to mention other examples.

>JAWs-style baddie
You mean a monster that you get hints about but don't immediately see? Other than the fact that it's genuinely a good rule of thumb not to show off your monster too much if you want it to have an impact, the show INTENTIONALLY payed homage to 80s media, which was clear and obvious from episode one. Not a cliche.

>OP CIA/government agency
That's quite the reach, given how unprepared they were against the monster and the main characters, but I'll roll with it. This isn't the DMV. It makes sense in the context of the world for a secret government project to have access to a small force of people to protect their interests. It makes even more sense given the success of said project and the ongoing Cold War at the time. Definitely a trope, arguably a cliche.

>Dorky heros
There are a finite number of archetyes that characters can fit into. These characters are kind of dorky. More importantly, they aren't both dorky and bland. They exist outside of the archetype, with each character doing things outside of the archetype regularly. Not even close to a cliche, and not a trope either, as a trope would be more specific.

That's right Jay!
It was not good, it was Great!

Yes, it was.

A) Stranger things wasn't a Stephen King story, or I'd expect the psychic kid to be a black man

B) Stephen King writing something a lot doesn't automatically make it a cliche (stories set in Maine aren't automatically cliches, for example)

I don't care if you trust me, but I'm starting to think you haven't seen the show and therefore have no solid arguments against it.

Obviously. And if they were cliche in Stranger things, they'd be cliche in Stephen King too. The fact that the most prolific author has touched these characters types a couple times makes them tropes, because they're easily recognizable. But they're not tired, even if you're tired of them.

Quarry

Also, protagonists must, by definition, begin as non-idealized characters. When you're dealing with kids, there's very few ways they can begin a story and still be both realistic and relatable.

Good taste

You are defending a show that is a vapid remix of some of the most iconic movies of all time. The show has zero substance beyond what it has directly lifted from far superior filmmakers. There isn't a spark of originality to be found in the whole show nor an ounce of creativity or craftsmanship in it's presentation.

If you like Indiana Jones, you are a hypocrite. If you don't, then you clearly have no understanding of story and film making at all.

Indiana Jones had creativity and craftsmanship in spades.

Hell, by these criteria, both The Odyssey and Star Wars are some of the worst things ever made.

>You are defending a show that is a vapid remix of some of the most iconic movies of all time.
Holy shit the autism. Fist of all, I liked it. I don't genuinely like a lot of movies or TV, but this was good. Secondly, the show in this case pays homage to some of the best movies of the eighties, without disrespecting or stealing from them. If this were done disrespectfully, the show would have been almost universally panned. There aren't any examples of outright idea theft and it would be difficult to smear this movie as bad because of any general ideas it uses that are also present in eighties films without smearing dozens of other films and shows with the same broad brush.
It's okay to just say you don't like something, without it being bad.

If you say Stranger Things had no originality, then neither did Indiana Jones. You're just ignorant of the latter's influences. If you say Stranger Things has no craftsmanship, then Indian Jones certainly does not. The sets are obvious, many cuts are awkward, the story is full of holes, there are actual continuity issues, and the entire presentation is very far beyond belief. Many of the details completely give the movie away. By filmmaking standards, Stranger Things is an incredibly well made and tight series. It's obviously not as good, but by your criteria, it should be better. That demonstrates that your criteria are very broken and hypocritical.

It's literally E.T. and The Goonies. There is actually a scene saying how the The Thing is great because of all of the practical effects and then the shitty show uses CGI. The show is a name check and nothing else.

I'm fully aware of Indiana Jones' serial adventure influences. But if you genuinely think that Steven Spielberg at his prime failed to meet more "filmmaking standards" than the hacks that made Stranger Things then you are either trolling or the distillation of everything wrong with the world today.

>It's literally two things that it shares only passing similarity to.
>I complaining about it, because I don't actually know anything about it, or the films and period it draws from.

bloody-disgusting.com/news/3419833/animatronic-test-video-stranger-things-demogorgon-practical-effects-heaven/

Yeah it's not like those works demonstrated creativity or craftsmanship or anything.

The whole "mystery set up in the first episode that mostly gets solved slowly over the course of the series" is kinda getting a bit tiresome for me.

I think Legion is the first time I've really noticed it but American Horror story also suffers badly from it.

There's a big trend of the final episode(s) being less gripping than earlier ones and it's largely because, once things are explained, there's not a whole lot to them.

TV clickbait. Ask a big question in the opening episode then spend 8 hours answering it.

Hang on, I thought you said this was a Jaws ripoff?

They used obvious CGI on the show but you'd know that if you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

You can easily see that most of the props are styrofoam. Scenes do not maintain spatial continuity between cuts. Costumes do not maintain continuity. The script is relatively wooden (as most spielberg scripts are). Every character is an obvious trope played directly to the trope, with no deviation. What standards does it meet, that Stranger Things does not?

Believe it or not I'm not the only person who sees this blatant hack job for what it is. There are also many direct rip offs that I failed to mention. But you got me checkmate the show stole it's entire content from a Spielberg movie from '75 not '82.

It's literally
>When the 80s pandered to the 40s-60s it was different because I wasn't old enough to get the references and they felt original!

I can sort of see where you're coming from, but at the same time, it'd be hard to break the traditional narrative structure. That's why you have the hook, the rising action, the climax, etc. Either that, or you have a procedural, and the story is self-contained.

So... Will Season 2 manage to have a single male adult who isn't at least a bit of a shitty person?

I think the only male adult in the entire series who wasn't at least a bit of a cunt got shot 5 minutes after meeting him.

Star Wars is a pretty standard space opera that follows as close as possible to Joseph Campbell's monomyth as possible. It has such strong influences from Kirosowa, lot's of people have criticized it for outright theft.

The Odyssey as we know it was developed over centuries of oral tradition, until one version was remembered as definitive and eventually written down. Everything it contained was absolutely not original, and most of its value, along with the Iliad, was in its incessant references to long established myths and legends. You only revere them because you're told to. You have no understanding of what actually makes them incredible, as evidenced by your defense of them as "creative" (what does that even mean when comes to pure fiction) and "craftsmanship" (something you probably have no idea how to define)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, a ripoff must have ripped something off. Present the carbon copies as you see them, and I will explain to you why your opinion is bullshit.

And Yoda is obviously a puppet. The boulder in indiana jones is obviously styrofoam. The thing is obviously latex. Jaws is obviously animatronic. What's your point? CGI is inherently terrible? You have no clue how much CGI you see and never notice.

If you're gonna play the pedantic intellectual when pretending to educate on why Stranger Things is better than Star Wars, The Odyssey, and Indiana Jones at least spell Kurosawa correctly.

How about you explain how the show that doesn't hide it's blatant creative theft rises above the references?

>They used CGI
Yes. CGI exists, and can be done well when used sparingly, as it was in Stranger Things. If oyur primary criteria for whether movies or TV are good or not is whether or not they feature CGI, I have all kinds of bad news for you about movies I can be relatively certain you thought were good.

...

It's becoming a frustrating way of watching series. I think this is a good way of summing up the approach:

"I want to watch the next episode because I enjoyed it and want to see what happens next"

vs

"I want to watch the next episode to find out what it was I was watching last episode"

Game of Thrones for example keeps the mysteries to a minimum and it's primary driving force is wanting to see what happens next in the story (although you could argue the '10 stories running at once with a tiny snippet of each every episode' format also has its problems).

See you can't understand my argument, and demonstrate the flaws in your own criteria. I'm not saying Stranger Things is better. I'm demonstrating that your judgment is fundamentally flawed, and you don't actually know why any of these things are good. The arguments you use against Stranger Things are more true against works that are quite clearly better. So obviously, you're wrong about what makes work good, and your judgment of Stranger Things is therefore wrong too.

My point is that the show claims to be an homage to the 80's and all of its wonderful pop culture, to the point of even having a line directly espousing how great the practical effects were back then, and then proceeds to create its own monster with shitty CGI. It's a metaphor for the entire show, although I would not expect a fan of Stranger Things to understand the concept of a basic metaphor.

These topics are pointless unless you consider your taste.
e.g.
I hate almost everything Marvel film and tv, with the exception of Kingpin from Daredevil.
I enjoyed first two seasons of Flash, the current one sucks ass.
The Expanse is trying really hard to be good space opera and I enjoy that.
Colony is the best show that /tv never talks about.

That being said -
Stranger Things had a big nostalgia that I didn't care for. It did have a genuine mystery and creepiness to it, and I hope they can build on that.

Also, I can't spell Kurosawa correctly, because I can only write with latin characters, same as you. Any latinization of japanese is inherently flawed.

If you are just watching Stranger Things you are a complete faggot who's opinion should be discarded.

On soany levels at this point in time any opinion you are bringing to the table is invalid.

Im not one of those people and I havent really felt like watching it but what makes them edgy?

It's based on the Army's remote viewing Stargate Project and somewhat on CIA MKUltra, not anything DOE actually did.

Except Stranger Things is objectively shit for anyone with basic critical thinking skills. It has one-dimensional characters, a terrible sense of progression, and a banal and unoriginal tone. You can appeal to subjectivity and compare it to The Odyssey all you want.

Stranger Things fans everybody.

The people shitting on Stranger Things are the same kind of people that think Die Hard is full of clichés and shit on Aliens because it rips off Halo.

I'm just here for Finn and Noah and Millie. Rest of the show is shit.

The monster is practical

No the exact opposite is true the fans are the ones shitting on Indiana Jones for being unoriginal and having poor costumes and continuity errors.

Lurk moar

I can spout blatant falsehoods too. Stranger Things isn't a terrible show. Doesn't make it true.

The references are never explicit. There are exactly zero carbon copies from other works. That there are send-ups to popular films from the eighties is not something that no one but you sees. Everyone sees it, but because every. single. one. of these little nods to the audience are built on and have some relevance to the greater world and story, everyone else recognized them as homages and not whatever nebulous notion of idea theft. And pointing every example of things done well- vivisecting every episode and explaining why something you have already decided to hate is actually well structured and clever is a waste of a week.

Bitch the first episode of GoT ends with a kid getting pushed out of a tower.

Thanks for the condescension, but as said, the monster is practical. These guys used practical effects when it made sense to, like decent filmmakers. They didn't rigidly hold to a stupid ideal because doing so serves no purpose, not because they're big fans of the Roland Emerich and Michael Bay style of filmmaking.

Right, but even then, the show leaves it sort of ambiguous as to whose running the show. Maybe it's a CIA program, maybe it's the DOE and the lead scientist transfered departments- it's up for debate.

You're so fucking dense. The characters are very much not one-dimensional. Every single one of them has at least one internal conflict. That only can happen when they have opposing motivations, i.e. more than one dimension. The tone is one of the most original elements. While it heavily pulls from the 80's, it takes on a decidedly modern perspective, which is part of what feels so great about it, and why it resonates so strongly with people. Films from the 80s are decidedly sacharine and gooey. Stranger Things starts in that place, but then characters react in a way that is more relatable than "let's go find one-eyed willie's treauser before these escaped convicts because it's our time...down here."

The pacing is mostly solid, but it's a TV show, so it's always going to hit a period where it moves too slow. Books can have some chapters that are shorter than others, but so far TV episodes are always the same length.

I'm not appealing to subjectivity (though it's a necessary element of any qualitative assessment, because it's inherently non-empirical), I'm simply asking you to apply your "objective" criteria evenly. That you can't (or won't) demonstrates you are actually making a purely subjective argument, without being willing to admit it.

Man, I sure wish I was as cool as the contrarians on Sup Forums!

But you cna't read: bloody-disgusting.com/news/3419833/animatronic-test-video-stranger-things-demogorgon-practical-effects-heaven/