Page 4 of 15

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:53 pm
by D.o.S.
Well now my immersion is ruined.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:38 pm
by Invisible Man
D.o.S. wrote:I'm pretty sure I've put my stupidity out in the open before, so unless there's some reading comprehension issue going on with you I still agree with it?
No, I thought I'd caught you.

And yeah, I remarked to my lady at a couple points that Millie Bobby Brown did some really nuanced stuff. Hard to be a twelve year-old girl with no lines to speak of who's asked to take on that kind of role.

Another note: how many of these kinds of stories feature pubescent- or just-about-to-be-pubescent kids? Self-discovery/bogeymen. Not a coincidence.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:35 pm
by futuresailors
D.o.S. wrote:... Tim Curry ...
Goddamn. That's what was missing.
Image

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:14 pm
by Iommic Pope
If you want to get to the heart of all things unimpeachable, Tim Curry as Pennywise the clown lives there.
And he is terrifying.

Agreed on the use of nostalgia as more than just a cash grab.

Period pieces are great because technology can set parameters for plot and character development.
This shit wouldn't work in the digital age.
Kids don't ride their bikes around, they play Bethesda games, not d&d l, and you cant channel a psychic prisoner without tubes and analog circuitry.
Wavelengths and shit.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:18 pm
by D.o.S.
Quite. There's nothing worse for the development of the suspense/mystery story than the advent of the cell phone: a piece of technology that allows someone to be contacted at any time.

Obviously there are a lot of writers who have done good things with them, but it's still a particularly modern phenomenon that has only been done 'really well' as a plot point in a handful of films (take, for example, The Departed, which was the first movie I saw actually use cell phones as a plot device with aplomb).

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:44 pm
by Iommic Pope
I'll concede that I still haven't seen the Departed. :facepalm:
It's on a long list of shit I missed.

Yeah I can't stand them in real life, I don't want them donking up my escape from it.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:53 am
by bloatedsack
So, I finished it up tonight.

I'm not pleased by the ending which left entirely too many loose ends for something that, while presented as a TV show, had no concrete second season in the works. Also, I seem to remember finding Netflix's other horror season somewhat engaging for it's first season, and then an utter train wreck for the second. I don't remember what it was called (Wayward Groves?).

Anyways, still alot of fun. It did a good job of fusing alot of great source materials together. Was it here where someone suggested it's like a David Croenenberg directed film based on Stephen King properties and scored by John Carpenter?

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:59 am
by futuresailors
^ Hemlock Grove.

First season was good, but it went downhill towards the end.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:04 am
by popvulture
I was worried about the end initially, because I imagined the show as having more discrete seasons like True Detective. If that were the case, I would just be bummed that the first season had to come to a close... but in the end I was pleasantly surprised that they tidied some stuff up and left several threads open for the future.
NSFW: show
One thing that annoyed me—why did they totally skip over Joyce and Harper coming back from the parallel world? I'd be pissed if that were just an editing thing, but then again it could be tied to a S2 plot point. And so, no attempts to revive Barb and the others? Once again, prob S2.
And Pope—watch the Departed ASAP. So good.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:12 am
by lost in music
bloatedsack wrote: I'm not pleased by the ending which left entirely too many loose ends for something that, while presented as a TV show, had no concrete second season in the works.
I liked the loose ends and am definitely nervous about a second season going into production and trying to make too much sense of things.
Gone Fission wrote:I cannot tell if Ryder's bad acting is intentional to evoke vintage bad acting, for instance.
Was her acting really bad though? She seemed believable as a poverty-line, divorced mom with a history of mental illness. Her portrayal was a dead ringer for someone I know in real life.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:20 am
by blakestree
I didn't think she was bad, either. Maybe the character was a little overplayed, like Dustin. But, that would be my biggest criticism. Actually, I was kinda pleased to see that Ryder seems to still be a capable actress.

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:31 am
by popvulture
As a side effect of the 90s, I still think of WR as the eternal babe, so it was definitely weird to see her play a disheveled mom :no:

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:04 am
by Invisible Man
Agreed. Also a 90s eternal babe (though I dread turning this thread into something like that):
Image

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:20 am
by bloatedsack
What does it say about me that I thought her disheveled mom look was pretty hot?

Re: Stranger Things

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:20 am
by popvulture
If this thread turned into a 90s eternal babe, I'd be quite happy.