Nothing in the art world is original. Bringing one's own voice makes art feel fresh, new. The more honest, the better. Interesting game.
Just watched the first episode last night and I'm hooked! Good show and the music (as mentioned) reminds me of John Carpenter (and this was before I even read any threads mentioning the Carpenter connection). Looking forward to seeing the rest.
Here's a Hi-res version: http://i.imgur.com/57gnhsw.jpg The creator ("akidneythief") of the poster posted the link on REDDIT: Fan Art Poster I Made - Possible Spoilers • /r/StrangerThings »
Finished the season last night. Loved every minute of it. I even got a bit choked up near the end. I can't wait for the next season/sequel or whatever they want to call it.
I gave up. I couldn't finish Ep. 3. It was chugging along slowly. No new developments, Winonna Ryder getting annoying. high school scenes bored me to death. Very blah, imo. So much to watch in the world, just because something in new and trendy doesn't mean i'm spending my time on it. my shift key just broke. i'm cap-less. well, i think there's a point were if you borrow too many plot devices you're pushing plagurism. i guess the scenario of 'a secret government lab has a child with special powers locked up to study' has been ripped off so many times its practically a cliche and could be considered universal material. but honestly, it's pretty much a steal. Mother was in Lsd test experiments? Direct STEAL. and i sure don't think these guys are bringing anything new or any 'art' to it. the show is artless. it's mediocre tv fare. its written, plotted and paced like every tv show. and it's indifferently directed (the very opening of the scientist getting killed in the elevator, being pulled up by an unseen beast made me roll my eyes, thinking; "okay, no originality here..." at least king was smart enough to make his story play out realistically. what good would it do for a government to torture a little girl with great powers? How is that going to win her over to your side? at least in Firestarter, King has them working the angle of befriending her with an undercover agent, which makes a lot more sense than 'they kept her locked up in a tiny cell. Ridiculous.
Like Super 8, I liked the premise and the nuance in its retro style etc. - there's a lot to like, but also like Super 8 I was underwhelmed in the ending of it.
Super 8 did have a disappointing ending (loved everything else about it - OMG Elle Fanning is amazing!), however Stranger Things has not ended - the narrative continues in season 2. As such, I liked the cliffhangery ending to S1.
Twp episodes in. We will be continuing. What is fantastic is the return of shorter seasons. So many shows now running 6-13 episodes rather than those meandering 22-23 episode filler seasons of "Troi has a headache!" or "We are stuck in the holodeck again!" Meanwhile...yes...still trying to work out the point of Preacher...
Well, I'm not a fan of the stupid Troi episodes either, however, when it comes to Trek, I'd prefer to see those 26 episode seasons. You can always skip over the odd bad episode, but still enjoy the many other standalone eps. And this is one of my qualms with the new Trek Discovery series - it'll be short and serialized, which means you essentially get one extended storyline over the entire season. This may be great initially, but I doubt it will be as re-watchable as the old series with many standalone episodes.
I just started watching this last night. 3 episodes in. Really love it so far. So much to like but one thing that is extra special is that the high school kids look like normal real life high school kids of the correct age. That is such a nice change from 30+ year old models playing what are supposed to be roughly 14 year old freshmen nerdy kids.
I'm through episode 5. Really good series, very reminiscent of Stand By Me. Stephen King even gets a mention in the story.
I'm positive I rented this from Blockbuster in 1984... I think anybody who dislikes this show either has a heart of stone or doesn't remember what it was like being young (or younger) in the 1980s. It's a terrific show in many, many ways, and I think the similarities to and steals from other shows are done in a very affectionate, interesting way.
We like it a lot. It's homage to so many things from the 80s. I think the acting and writing is pretty good, keeps you interested. The thing I like the most is the soundtrack. It revisits the best scores from the 80s too.
The police chief isn't Pvt. Joker. Matthew Modine plays the evil government science guy who Eleven calls "papa".
Lack of originality. A number of reviewers agree with me. Slant Magazine Chuck Bowen "Stranger Things is competently crafted, but exists as little more than the pointless sum of its spare parts." Washington Post Hank Stuever "Nothing here feels particularly new, except for the compelling way the Duffers have put it all together--and even that can’t fix some plot holes and deliberate obfuscation that make Stranger Things a clumsier ride than it needs to be." indieWIRE Ben Travers "Stranger Things never establishes itself as anything more than a reminder of what was, instead of a celebration of past and present." Entertainment Weekl Jeff Jense "Even as ’80s pastiche, there’s little unique about Stranger Things--the plot and novelty are stretched thin at eight hours." Newsday Verne Gay "Unless your name is Stephen King or Steven Spielberg, there’s only so much new anyone can bring to this potluck supper. The Duffers don’t bring much new. They do bring a large degree of enthusiasm, however." Slate Willa Paskin "As with J.J. Abrams’ ode to Spielberg, Super 8, Stranger Things is extremely watchable and a little empty, a paean to the Duffer brothers’ own youth masquerading as a compliment to a master." And there's others, but you get the picture. Some critics liked it. I happen to be among those who weren't impressed. So be it. You could claim running the same old numbers is in the name of "homage" or you could argue there's really not a lot of new ideas in the show. It's okay. But everyone seems to need to think they've found the next big buzz word (most of the times those are websites angling to stir up excitement) when maybe they've found an okay little show. Which is what Stranger Things is to me: an okay little show. As I said, in the very, very first scene where the scientists get pulled upward into the elevator, dangled by an unseen beast, I went "ho hum." Like I haven't see that image in a million monster films. An old clever show like the X-Files would have had a pair of eyes creepily material in the wall of an elevator and then maybe the doors close and a scream. That show as extremely creative at coming up with original ideas and images -- which is why it was a great show. But immediately I wasn't that impressed with the "Duffer Brothers" mise en scene. I'm not also the intended audience for a high school romance plot, every scene of which bored me silly. If high school kids are watching it and loving it, good for them. I need more "things I've never seen before" from Sci-fi. And little touches like the elevator scene are where true originals and moderate talents separate themselves.
Hey, someone asked me point out "What was wrong with it?" I obliged. Some people are content to sit with a beer and bowl of chips in hand and take their mind off mowing the lawn. Good for them. After earning a Masters in screenwriting from USC, I'm trying to study what separates cinematic art from moderately aimed entertainment, so I perhaps I watch with a more critical eye than most. Me, I'm studying and analyzing all the time; not kicking back for some snacking. I like to think that's how a real cineaste is forced to see things, and believe me, it does take away from the simpler pleasure of just kicking back -- you lose something in the process. But I also like to think handcuffing yourself to that level of expectation is why there are so few Kubricks or Paul Thomas Andersons and why there are so many Syfy movies!
F 'em. I loved, loved, loved the show and don't mind the homages and imitations at all. I think there's enough of a new spin on old ideas that it all worked for me. The key to me was simply that the story and characters had a lot of heart, plus the structure and timing was great, and I believed in what I was seeing just enough to make it all work. We finally got through the final episode last night and was actually relieved that <certain characters> made it through alive. And I like the fact that they took one character from being a bad guy to essentially being a good guy, which was an unexpected twist that I think was very interesting and added an interesting spin to the situation. I have to say, there would be a long, long list of ideas, stories, shows, and movies that Stranger Things borrowed from. I'd include: The Thing (old and new, and I noted the 1982 poster on the kid's wall) Alien (creature captures humans and encases them in goo, apparently for food) X Files Fringe Altered States (isolation tank) Forbidden Planet (I'm convinced that the monster comes from inside the mind of <character's name redacted>, and the two are interconnected) E.T. (a ton of E.T., kids on bikes, men in face-lit spacesuits, evil governnment groups, mysteries in suburban neighborhoods, etc.) Jaws (with a poster in the background, hunting for a man-eating monster in a very scary but familiar place) Goonies (group of young kids going on an adventure) Firestarter and Carrie (little girl has horrific powers she can't necessarily control) Poltergeist (kid taken by demon into another world) Little Girl Lost (the Twilight Zone episode from which Poltergeist heavily borrowed) Close Encounters (man goes nuts and builds unorthodox things in his living room) Stand by Me (coming of age story with four boys in a rural area encountering bullies and adventure) Outer Limits (two or three episodes in particular, like "Feasibility Study," one of my favorites) Twilight Zone (the entire show is like an extended episode) It's got a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes right now, and I'd call that appropriately high. To me, the key thing is how well the ideas are executed, not necessarily that the ideas are absolutely unique. I could pick apart all the previous films and show how they were all stolen from great science-fiction and adventure novels and short stories. Heck, the main title for Stranger Things is stolen from Amazing Stories. We should start another thread on spoiler theories. The Duffer Brothers have revealed one major character (who we see) is really most sincerely dead, but when it comes to characters in TV shows, I'm with Jack Bauer: "show me the body!" I think damned near anybody could come back in some form. But I have many questions that are currently unanswered, particularly on why Matthew Modine was such an a*****e in keeping <character name redacted> imprisoned for years. More questions raised and answered by the producers at this link: ‘Stranger Things’ Finale: Duffer Brothers Talk Cliffhangers, Death and Season 2 »
You won't get a much more critical eye 'than most' with me, and while I don't have your impressive literary credentials, I still loved pretty much everything about the show, right from the start. The argument over lack of originality completely misses the point of this particular work. Sometimes carrying out a forensic analysis of every single tree misses the forest as a whole.
Afraid to look through the read for spoilers. I know the opening credit font is like a Stephen King 80s paperback. When the episode name comes at you till you see the scene behind it - what did they borrow that from? I can picture being in a theater as a kid seeing a film doing that but can't place it.
No spoilers from me! You can know going in that the show is about 4 12-year-old boys in a small Indiana town in 1982, one goes missing, and the others go through harrowing adventures investigating the mystery. That's all you need to know. I swear, the typeface is the one used on the Poltergeist main titles, but the zoom through the image keyed in the font is something I'm not positive about. It was kind of a common '80s thing.
