The OA on Netflix

One question for those that have seen the whole thing

Spoiler

what was the FBI therapist doing in her house near the end, when one of her five friends (sorry, names didn't stick) found the box of books?Why was he lurking in her dark, locked house? Did he plant the books? Just seemed odd and out of place that he would be there

 

Spoiler

Fan theories have suggested that's why he was there, to plant the books to discredit her story. The presumption would be that her parents would find the books, piece it all together, etc etc. That could explain why the FBI agent kept calling her, as her mother said in an earlier episode. There's also apparently an Easter egg in the form of Rachel's name in braille at the FBI facility.

See more here: https://www.inverse.com/article/25410-fan-theories-ending-oa

This is a rabbit hole that I'm not sure I wan't to go down.

 

Crazy show for sure. I didn't love it but found it fascinating. I may re-watch it down the line. My niece's husband, Alex DiGerlando, is the production designer for the series.

 

Very well done show but frankly the ending felt lazy and gratuitous. Lazy because of the multitude of unresolved/unanswered plot bits (what happened to Hap?) and gratuitous in its absurdly surrealistic ending (let's end horrific violence with modern dance). I'm fine with cliff-hangers but purposely vague endings are a rip-off. It's as if they were running out of money and rush-wrote and filmed the last 15 minutes on the fly. I'm sure that wasn't the case but the ending is so disjointed and disconnected from the rest of the series that that's how it feels.

 

I watched the three episodes last night and loved it. Very intriguing. I liked the direction. Very light touch, nothing hammered home, nothing cliche. Draw your own conclusions. Daring unlikable characters, Will finish it today. It felt like "Stranger Things" for adults.

 

There are a lot of similarities between The OA and Stranger Things. I think in one episode of the OA I saw an episode of ST playing on a background TV.

 

Everyone I've seen that's watched it all has said the same thing -

"I want those hours back!"

Glad we stopped after the first episode.

 

Except that I think Stranger Things actually made sense and told a story with a beginning, middle, and end, had characters we could empathize with, and (at least on some level) could be believed. Stranger Things was also never boring and (to me) never felt padded.

I'll give The OA points for being unique and original, and I know some people criticized Stranger Things for being the very thing it set out to be, which was a send-up of 1980s fantasy & science fiction. I didn't mind borrowing from E.T. and Explorers and Goonies and all that other stuff at all -- it's fine.

 

We watched all of it..the wife is pissed.

 

Without a doubt the OA on Netflix is the more original show I've seen in the few years. HBO's sci-fi re-boot "Westworld" was a sluggish bloated affair and "Stranger Things" was a teleplay of plastic proportions. "The OA" is the most modern and inventive attempt I've seen at sci fi I've seen in a decade, as it blends a sort of intense new age spiritualism with a traditional mad scientist premise but does it to uniquely smart and chilling effect. The villain is charming, brilliant and scary as hell because he's the devoted neighbor you like living next door to.. It's battle are intellectual chess matches played out over years. The production is wonderful the cast is fantastic. I don't see why "LOST" fans aren't flocking to this show, as it has much of the same vibe. I don't know who the guy is who plays the evil doctor but he's been out overlooked. But the OA is just a brilliant modern sci-fi film and I have to say I haven't been moved by anything on television for quite some time as I was by this series. You get this nice warm thoughtful glow about you watching this series because it keeps you constantly curious about what's going on -- it's a quite an achievement and the director is spectacular. Much smarter than a lot of mainstream film directors getting kudos these days. Thank god there are still creative teams (this one produced by Brad Pitt) that are willing to create risk instead of depend on "tributes' or brand name recognition reboots.

 

Jeez....the wife and I thought it was great.

 

I see your point to some degree, but I think you're way too negative about Stranger Things and Westworld and too positive about The OA. But you raise some good issues, and The OA isn't entirely terrible. Just a lot of "WTF" from me.

BTW, the look of the show is horrific, really thin and mushy, weird, and bad. I know people in the bidness who refer to this as "the log look," because it kind of looks like the raw image out of these digital cameras. It's not pleasant to watch, as far as I'm concerned, since there's rarely any actual black in the picture.

 

More than anything I was disappointed that The OA didn't pursue the NDE angle which was a major plot element. The idea of basically killing subjects then reviving them in order to research their NDE had a lot of potential and the show's depiction of the afterlife deserves honorable mention. By the way, the only character I really cared about was Steve Winchell. I was oddly disconnected from Prairie/OA and didn't really care if she found Homer or not.

So from what I surmise

Spoiler

Prairie was abducted and held captive and raped for a period of years and she made up the entire Hap scenario as a way of coping with the trauma.

 

Ok, I do have to admit that the synchronized movements reminded me of The African Anteater Mating Dance from "Can't Buy Me Love". Still liked it.

 

Only if you're into voodoo. There is nothing mystical about NDEs - it's a simple physiological result of the brain shutting down due to oxygen deprivation, resulting in certain patterns of neuronal firings which, if the person is revived in time, they will try to make sense of in accordance to their mental world model. Another words, it's total nonsense to ascribe mystical properties to such events.

 

That is, of course, one of many unfounded theories. If you have a certain point of view beforehand, you will latch onto the one that conveniently fits that point of view and state it as fact.

 

NDEs are well documented. I won't debate spirituality vs mysticism but dismissing NDEs as total nonsense may be something to reconsider after doing some research. Back to OA, I feel like they squandered the time and effort invested in the flashbacks involving Hap and his research.

Some interesting theories here: 8 Mind-Boggling Theories That Explain 'The OA' »

 

Just finished the show. I found it fascinating, but the ending was more than a little confusing. The confusing ending is, of course, part of what makes it fascinating. Major points for being unique and original.

 

It's apparent that the show's theme is intentionally provocative and the last act is deliberately vague. I think it was very well done for entertainment aimed at the "debate the ending" crowd although I prefer my TV a little more "tell a good story and leave the viewer satisfied".

 

Thanks. I was actually so confused by the ending that I immediately checked this thread to see if I had missed something.

 

Sorry, but you don't what you're talking about. NDEs have indeed been studied and the only people 'latching on' to anything are those that desperately want to 'believe' in something mystical. There is a ton of research on the effects of hypoxia on the brain.

The fact is that there is no conceivable mechanism that subscribes to the laws of nature that could possibly act as some sort of a 'conduit' for a disembodied consciousness (which in itself is nonsense, as consciousness emerges from the physical structure of the brain and the electrochemical signals that course through that structure).

People making extraordinary claims (and this is a doozy) need to provide extraordinary evidence , otherwise it's all make-believe.

 

This was (for me) the most interesting part of OA, the attempt to provide this extraordinary evidence. But if we're saying that something doesn't exist because it can't be proven to exist then we're denying the limitations of human comprehension and our available resources.

 

That isn't what I said. My point was that with all the forces/laws that describe the physical world, there isn't any reality based mechanism by which such a thing could be possible (while a perfectly good medical explanation exists that has been investigated). Mystical explanations of NDEs are in the same boat as telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc. What's the mechanism of action? Interpretive dance?

 

You are mistaken. There is no scientific consensus on the nature of NDEs, and no conclusive evidence has been presented to substantiate the claim that the common characteristics associated with NDEs are the result of hypoxia or hypercarbia. The nature of NDEs remains a mystery. Check out this lengthy and balanced article on the topic.
The Science of Near-Death Experiences »

 

"God is a concept
by which we measure
our Pain"

Ooooh.. see what I did there?