Who is the 'they' you refer to, Netflix? Netflix knows exactly what their viewing numbers are and are making funding/investment decisions accordingly. We'll never know the precise numbers because a) they choose not to reveal them and b) because they're almost meaningless due to the fact that the number of viewers grows cumulatively over weeks, months and years, as they're part of their permanent library (ie, the Netflix produced properties).
The numbers aren't meaningless because like any other production company they're not going to continue producing shows that people aren't watching. My point is that when you watch anything on Netflix, as soon as the credits roll they almost always default auto start into the next episode, or if that isn't an option, into something that is Netflix original programming. If you own a streaming device like a Roku and shut the TV off without signing out of Netflix, or alternately fall asleep on the couch like a lot of people sometimes do, then their data regarding the popularity of these shows won't be accurate. They're counting things as being watched when they really are not.
They know how to run their business - they've been wildly successful so far. This means that they know their metrics for success. It's more important to their future success to have a diverse (and permanent) catalog of original programming that will appeal to a wide array of people, both locally and globally (they're in over 180 countries). They know what they're doing.
I get your point, but that was always the case in one way or another ... In the past I could switch on the TV or Radio and then go for a walk, bake a cake or fall asleep ..... Nielsen Ratings wouldn't have known then either if somebody was really watching ....... and don't tell me those "privileged" people in the past who were part of the counted "audience" by way of some "box" were selected/chosen in a completely objective manner.
Indeed. Netflix has far better information because they control every stream and know whether people have watched the entire episode (as opposed to a small portion due to next program play). People that binge watch (who doesn't when it's available?) would continue to watch the next ep and the next, etc. Then they'll do the same the next day and the next until the season is consumed. You can do all kinds of sophisticated analytics when you heave access to near perfect information (as opposed to the old Nielsen system).
Episodes (Season 2): Madmax The Boy Who Came Back To Life The Pumpkin Patch The Palace The Storm The Pollywog The Secret Cabin The Brain The Lost Brother
I thoroughly enjoyed this show, and I look forward to season 2.... I see what a previous poster in this thread meant by saying they don't go for "family/kid" programming - I normally feel that way too, but this show was really good - and it's not all kiddie stuff honestly, and I don't think it's G-Rated, it gets pretty wild.... Netflix is putting out some great content... Also can't wait for Narcos season 2!!!
Here's a link to a good fan theory -- identical to one I came up with weeks ago and posted here -- about how the monster and the little girl, Eleven, are one and the same: This popular fan theory perfectly explains 'Stranger Things' » And here's the Duffer Brothers providing some clues as to what to expect in Season 2 next year: ‘Stranger Things’ Season 2: The Duffer Brothers Reveal Important Details »
I just finished watching the series and loved it. Thanks for the links. I find the theory posted fascinating...it never occurred to me.
Even though I enjoyed the show just fine, I must admit that I am baffled by the level of praise it is getting. Reading here and elsewhere, one would think it is the best TV show of the year. My wife has FB friends that have rewatched it multiple times and are obsessed with all kinds of fan theories and searches for deeper meaning. I just didn't find it as that deep. At times, it was almost silly. There is a lot of ground breaking TV these days, but I didn't think this rose to that. Different strokes, I guess....
I'm sure I'm not the first person to point this out, but Stranger Things completely ripped off "the void" from the 2014 film Under the Skin (NSFW): I get that the show is one big homage, but there's a fine line between that sort of thing and just lifting something wholesale from a two-year-old film.
Yes, mentioned earlier in the thread. You can tip your hat to something and I guess some see that as a "rip off" and some see it as acknowledging an influence.
Like I said, it's a fine line. It's the only instance in the show that comes across as a direct rip-off, IMO. Everything else is more along the lines of a "tip of the hat."
Really? People are looking for deeper meanings? That's news to me. It would never have occurred to me to look for any deep meanings here - it was just a very fun, nostalgic, well written and acted piece entertainment.
If anyone is familiar with the game "One Night Ultimate Werewolf" - I'm working up a Stranger Things themed version for my girls birthday party this fall.
The deepest meaning is that Steve from Stranger Things is the father of John Ralphio from Parks and Rec.
Agreed. As an 80s period piece it is fantastic and spot-on, but at a certain point it crosses over into just being too derivative of Speilberg/Carpenter/etc. The whole "I've seen this somewhere before" shtick wears off pretty quickly for me. Mad Men, for example, did a better job of recreating an era while making the story and characters feel fresh.
Someone already mentioned that the Foreigner song was the newer, re-recorded version with the current singer, but the version of "I Melt With You" also sounded like a re-record, not to be confused with the newer version they put out in 1990:
Here's a terrific interview with the editors of Stranger Things. Among other things, they reveal that there were certain songs they wanted to include, but had to replace due to budget problems (like Highway to Hell): 'Stranger Things' Has Happened - Finding the Gateway in the Cutting Room - CineMontage »
My theory is it was a slow summer. It's light-weight junk food. And it caught a buzz on the web. Some web buzz is all it takes. I was looking at some stupid throw-away Miley Cyrus song the other day on youtube that had 1,000,000,ooo views. One BILLION hits. I bet the Beatles never sold that many records in a lifetime. She got a billion hits in less than two months because of the market that is the web. Anyone wonder why Google stock is $800 a share, when 3/4 of the products they launch tank?
