Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4895721
Kingpin wrote:
Lee FW wrote:One thing that's been consistent is how cheap it looks from the colour grading to the sets
Serious question, have you watched any of the classic series Lee? the production levels on the new series are another galaxy compared to the cheap sets of the 1970s and 1980s. :) In the end though, it's still just the BBC, not something like Netflix, Hulu or Amazon.
Lee FW wrote:I just wish they'd shorten the series and pump a bit more time/money into tightening it up.
The stories are short enough as it is, I'd rather not make them any shorter just to shore up something that we're going to disagree on regarding how flimsy it may look.
I'm overall happy with the quality of the sets and colour grading if it means we can have a series of a semi-reasonable length
Yup I generally watch a couple episodes per season and I stand by it looks very cheap. It's clear the budget is stretched far too thin. Admittedly it may not have Westworld money but it could do something comparative in quality if it made fewer episodes and held its self to a higher standard. We're at a point where series are cutting the bloat and still get to tell satisfying stories, Stranger Things, Glow a Series of Unfortunate Events for example. No need to drag it out to fill an episode quota.
#4895724
Lee FW wrote:and I stand by it looks very cheap.
Would you be able to elaborate?

It's not too surprising that a good part of the budget will be going into special effects as the show is effects heavy, and I think it can maintain a 12-episode run without having to cut the series length... if perceived bloating is the issue, then simply make more of the stories multi-part, which will have the knock-on effect of greater depth and character development.

Given American series are frequently 20+ episodes, 12 episodes already seems a little on the short side (and actually that's pretty scaled back compared to how long the show's first season was, a whopping 42 episodes for eight stories - although they were about 25 minutes each compared to the 45 minute running time of the 2017 series). The first time the series was even close to the current series length, and running time was Colin Baker's first year in 1985, and has generally stayed in the 12/13 episode format since. 12/13 episodes is just about enough to make a year's wait feel like a reasonable stretch of time, I feel it would be a drastically bad move to reduce the series length further over perceived issues of low quality.

On the topic of GLOW and Stranger Things, just how frequently do they use visual effects? Stranger Things will definitely make use of them more often than the other show, but do they usually feature some sort of VFX in every episode? Plus both show's first season was shorter than even the current series of Doctor Who
Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4895750
I got two episodes in Stranger Things, those types of shows really aren't my genre. Granted with Stranger Things, being a teen myself, the whole teenage relstionship in the first two episodes really turned me off. Maybe it was going somewhere, but honestly I just didn't like the portrayal.
User avatar
By Sav C
#4895761
Kind of funny that there's a whole side to Ghostbusters that I'm completely unfamiliar with... I know of the junior Ghostbusters, but unlike even the Extreme Ghostbusters I can't picture them for the life of me.

Just to make sure we're definitely on the same page though, it was the teens that bugged me. They were both blockheads.
This Post Contains Spoilers
Oh, and to answer the question asked, I only remember a very minimal amount (next to none) of visual effects in the first two episodes of Stranger Things. It could've been a suspense tactic though, as the stories seemed pretty well written. I just couldn't relate to the teenagers, and the kids to a lesser extent. If I could've then I probably would've watched more of the series. :)
Last edited by Kingpin on July 20th, 2017, 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Added spoiler code
#4895764
I have two reasons for disliking ATC.

#1: It doesn't look like something that interests me (for several reasons already stated e.g. I wanted a sequel with the old guys, rebooting seemed unnecessary, it didn't seem to have the same spirit as the old films, the direction they were going with the raunchy, slapstick comedy didn't suit my tastes etc.)

#2: Directly relative to #1, I couldn't say I didn't like it, regardless of the legitimacy of the reason, without being bombarded by insults. A good amount of people automatically assumed that the "real" reason was because I was a sexist, racist fanboy, blah blah, consciously or subconsciously. That was irritating enough, but when the people working on the movie itself started doing it it made me feel like I was kind of being bullied into seeing it.

So, I still haven't seen it because I'm not interested, and because I don't think studios, directors etc. should treat fans like crap and then expect them to hand over money. At the end of the day, I don't begrudge anyone for liking it, and all I ask in return is for people to accept that there are legitimate reasons for not liking it.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4895768
Everybody knows that, though. When people were angrily calling out the sexist, mysogynist complaints, they were only referring to those ones. Anyone who's complaint wasn't based on that should just have gone, "well, that's not me then, I'll just get on with my day".

There was NO END of really horrible stuff being said. There still is when the film comes up. Be proud that your reasons were decent and legit, but that shouldn't be a reason that the other stuff shouldn't have been condemned. Possibly offending someone who hasn't said something, in case they might think you meant them, is not a good enough reason not to call out people that have said something.

Leslie Jones was literally compared to a gorilla and a man over and over again. Sony and Paul Feig were 100% correct to get behind their stars and to call that nonsense for what it was: predudiced and horrible.

And that wasn't you, and it will never be you, so don't worry about it. Since you objected for decent reasons you seriously don't need to worry about it. Tempers were raised because of nasty stuff going on, but everyone understands that there were a whole bunch of reasons that some fans might not dig it.
JurorNo.2, Sav C, Kingpin and 2 others liked this
#4895995
JurorNo.2 wrote:What's interesting is I see a ton of men on social media loving the idea, and a ton of women weeping because they can't crush on a female Doctor, lol. Of course they won't say that, they say it's all about preserving some fictional canon, as usual. But from one fangirl to another, you aren't fooling anyone, ladies. ;)
I'm not getting that at all. What I see is left wing and SJWs blaming misogyny on 'white male losers'. The irony is that females as well don't like this idea.
JurorNo.2 wrote:The more you whine and complain about gender, the more irrelevant you are making yourselves. Like Weaver said, things change. It's not political correctness, it's progress. And kicking and screaming won't stop it.
From what I've heard and seen so far seems like a dictatorship to me and I'm in my right to complain about these idiots. Bare in mind that most of these people who are desperate for change don't actually watch Doctor Who. They only care about progressing their own political agenda.
Kingpin wrote:I would appreciate it (and I'm sure the others would as well) if you didn't make a false statement while lumping us into the "dislike" camp.
Okay, some enjoyed but most hated it at least that's what I've come across.
JurorNo.2 wrote:More like they see progress and confuse it for political correctness.
I think I know what political correctness is. It's just when I see gimmicks like gender swapping going by our political climate I know something weird is going on, something dodgy.
Sav C wrote:I watched one episode of Doctor Who from the first season. Not my cup of tea.
Classic series is really where it's at. The new series is very uneven and cringeworthy at times.
robbritton wrote:but come on - the entire point of feminism and anti-racism and anti-homophobia and trans awareness and everything that gets dismissed as SJW stuff, is to represent those who don't have the power. How on earth is that complicated?
There's nothing wrong with left wing progress. The problem is the current ideologies are corrupt. What you mention doesn't happen properly currently. We live in a world where someone can launch a Kickstarter charity if they're offended by a white jumper and everyone will get behind them for the sake of diversity. Society has been driven past political correctness into snowflake culture and selfish left wing politics.
robbritton wrote:I'm proud 'our' franchise took a stand for progress, I'm proud of the hit it took in exposing the necessity for that progress,
The only thing it exposed was that Paul Feig was so desperate to push his feminist ideology he ended up alienating the people who'd actually want to watch his movie. The only thing to be proud of, if you can call it that, is that he'll hopefully not be involved with any more future Ghostbusters movies.
robbritton wrote:There was NO END of really horrible stuff being said. There still is when the film comes up.
A lot of interesting points are said. Had Sony gone about the movie the right way, had we not have the political climate we have now we wouldn't be in this mess.
featofstrength wrote:I find the Stranger Things kids as grating as the Junior Ghostbusters.
Whenever they try to emulate the 80s they never succeed in making it set during the 80s. It ends up being a show about the 80s with self aware dialogue and endless easter eggs included. It's kind of why I didn't like Super 8.
Kingpin wrote:Although some fans are excited by this development, others, like with the Ghostbusters reboot, aren't happy at all.
Lee FW wrote:I find the man vs woman argument is wholly ridiculous when the shows many many actual faults are overlooked.

Like Ghostbusters those guys who scream and shout about women ruining their stories are preventing constructive criticism from ever being heard.
The thing about about of these criticisms like mine is that people on the left don't wish to know. For people who are supposed to be very understanding and open minded they come across as very close minded. There are some feminists who know what they're talking about but there very rare. Most feminists at least today are very close minded which is why we have the problems we have.
JTysonLambert wrote:So, I still haven't seen it because I'm not interested, and because I don't think studios, directors etc. should treat fans like crap and then expect them to hand over money. At the end of the day, I don't begrudge anyone for liking it, and all I ask in return is for people to accept that there are legitimate reasons for not liking it.
See the problem with your valid criticisms is that nearly everyone who is desperate for progression can't see the woods through the trees so all they read is sexism and misogyny. The thing is you're absolutely correct and have made extremely valid points that should be taken into account.
Chris Brewin wrote:I've found much of Mr. Moffat's writing to be "'Why?' 'Because arbitrary reason***.' *moving on*" and, in my opinion, it's getting stale. Mr. Chibnall is responsible for a widely respected show. I feel he's got the chops to carry the show and I can't wait to see what he and Ms. Whittaker have in store for us next season.
Broadchurch is seen as a fairly overrated show. With Chibnall in charge I can't help thinking we're going to get more sex alien episodes. :shock:
Chris Brewin wrote:but of those angry fans, only about 5-10 take the time to voice their "dissatisfaction" beyond a single click/tap.
Probably because they know all these left wing people are going to jump down their throats. I posted in a couple of places my dissatisfaction and people have harassed me calling me all these different insults and these are the people who welcome progress. Perhaps these people don't deserve a female Doctor if this is their reaction to people who disagree. The small amount who do post have congratulated me on my bravery for posting my thoughts because they're too scared to. I hope that helps give you some insight. :)
Last edited by pferreira1983 on July 30th, 2017, 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#4896052
pferreira1983 wrote:What I see is left wing and SJWs blaming misogyny on 'white male losers'.
"I love Humans, seeing patterns in things that aren't there." - The Eighth Doctor.
pferreira1983 wrote:Classic series is really where it's at. The new series is very uneven and cringeworthy at times.
The classic series is pretty uneven and cringeworthy in it's own right. Snakedance? The Zarbi? The original Thals?
robbritton wrote:Society has been driven past political correctness into snowflake culture and selfish left wing politics.
Let's be honest though, there are numerous right-wing personalities who've displayed themselves to be just as much a "snowflake" over their reaction to anything decidedly non-conservative (abortion, LGBT+ rights, feminism, the advance of non-Christian religions), being over-sensitive to social and political change is not the exclusive province of people who adhere to the left (it could actually be argued that conservatism was what spawned the "snowflake" concept first, as part of a knee-jerk reaction to politics and society moving on from the rose-tinted idyllic fantasy of the 1950s).
pferreira1983 wrote:The only thing it exposed was that Paul Feig was so desperate to push his feminist ideology.
pferreira1983 wrote:Probably because they know all these left wing people are going to jump down their throats.
Still sticking to your belief you're centralist? Come out of the closet as right-wing, search your feelings... you know this to be true. :P You may wish to come up with a fresh line of dialogue though, because "the feminist agenda" and "damn left-wing people!" rhetoric is starting to become a parody around here. :sigh:
pferreira1983 wrote:Most feminists at least today are very close minded which is why we have the problems we have.
The opposite is also true of those who would describe themselves as anti-feminist/anti-political correctness.
pferreira1983 wrote:Broadchurch is seen as a fairly overrated show. With Chibnall in charge I can't help thinking we're going to get more sex alien episodes.
Overrated in what way? Are you saying that because of the general quality of the writing, or potentially because of Chiball's politics? Based on other posts you've made here, have you actually watched Broadchurch, or are you forming your opinion on second-hand accounts and subjective episode clips?
Still, I know what you're referring to with that "sex alien episode" crack, and I very much doubt that's what we'll be getting in Doctor Who, Torchwood was a very different beast compared to 'Who, and it is fair to say that TW struggled to find itself during its run. While Chibnall was responsible for that episode, it doesn't mean that's what his tenure on Doctor Who will be like, and it'll take a lot to do any worse than Moffat.
Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4896354
Kingpin wrote:"I love Humans, seeing patterns in things that aren't there." - The Eighth Doctor.
I would actually be surprised if you didn't feign ignorance on that. :mrgreen:
Kingpin wrote:The classic series is pretty uneven and cringeworthy in it's own right. Snakedance? The Zarbi? The original Thals?
Nope, the Zarbi a little but pretty much a lot of New Who is worse. Classic Who is only cringeworthy if you cannot appreciate old TV. New TV there is no excuse for farting aliens and other bad writing.
Kingpin wrote:being over-sensitive to social and political change is not the exclusive province of people who adhere to the left (it could actually be argued that conservatism was what spawned the "snowflake" concept first, as part of a knee-jerk reaction to politics and society moving on from the rose-tinted idyllic fantasy of the 1950s).
Strange how we see the two opposites eh? :-|
Kingpin wrote:Still sticking to your belief you're centralist? Come out of the closet as right-wing, search your feelings... you know this to be true. :P You may wish to come up with a fresh line of dialogue though, because "the feminist agenda" and "damn left-wing people!" rhetoric is starting to become a parody around here. :sigh:
As is your constant left wing feigning ignorance of what's going on and then blaming the right for anything you dislike. The left aren't really known for taking responsibility so I guess I shouldn't expect much from you eh? :wink:
Kingpin wrote:The opposite is also true of those who would describe themselves as anti-feminist/anti-political correctness.
Currently it's tipped more towards the left wing.
Kingpin wrote:Overrated in what way? Are you saying that because of the general quality of the writing, or potentially because of Chiball's politics?
General quality of writing. Critics and audiences, don't shoot the messenger.
Kingpin wrote:Still, I know what you're referring to with that "sex alien episode" crack, and I very much doubt that's what we'll be getting in Doctor Who, Torchwood was a very different beast compared to 'Who, and it is fair to say that TW struggled to find itself during its run. While Chibnall was responsible for that episode, it doesn't mean that's what his tenure on Doctor Who will be like, and it'll take a lot to do any worse than Moffat.
I don't remember Chibnall's better Doctor Who universe stories being that good off the top of my head. Maybe you could provide a couple of episodes?
#4896360
In the aim of breaking our repetitive dialogue, I'm just going to focus on the Doctor Who questions. :)
pferreira1983 wrote:I don't remember Chibnall's better Doctor Who universe stories being that good off the top of my head. Maybe you could provide a couple of episodes?
Chibnall wrote the following stories:
42 (David Tennant)
The Hungry Earth / Cold Blood (Matt Smith, the first story to feature the NuWho Silurians)
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship (Smith)
The Power of Three (Smith)
(There were also some minisodes, but the above are the full-episodes he'd written for the series)

I enjoyed 42, and the Silurian two-parter and the Power of Three were okay, if not fantastic. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as most of what he'd written was filtered through Moffat and his own plan for the series. In being showrunner he may be given greater flexibility, so I'm optimistic.
Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4896560
Kingpin wrote:Chibnall wrote the following stories:
42 (David Tennant)
The Hungry Earth / Cold Blood (Matt Smith, the first story to feature the NuWho Silurians)
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship (Smith)
The Power of Three (Smith)
42 wasn't very good, just too gimmicky. The Silurians two-parter was okay I guess. Dinosaurs on a Spaceship was a bit too wacky while The Power of Three wasn't too bad although it had some questionable stuff in it. I mean for what is a family show having the whole world being triggered heart attacks is a bit much no? :shock:

I think Chibnall's scripts sometimes suffer from an uneven tone. I'm not holding out hope for the new series but let's see...
#4896594
pferreira1983 wrote:42 wasn't very good, just too gimmicky.
What was "gimmicky" about it?
pferreira1983 wrote:I mean for what is a family show having the whole world being triggered heart attacks is a bit much no? :shock:
That's pretty tame when all's said and done, the show's shown or suggested even more extreme content even in it's recent history, while the classic series itself has given us humans who've cut and engineered themselves into soulless ghouls (Cybermen) and Nazi-like killers (Daleks).
Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4896599
Sav C wrote:I got two episodes in Stranger Things, those types of shows really aren't my genre. Granted with Stranger Things, being a teen myself, the whole teenage relstionship in the first two episodes really turned me off. Maybe it was going somewhere, but honestly I just didn't like the portrayal.
Stranger Things was fantastic. It's about way more than teenage relationships and what is there is pretty darn accurate. It's a great show. You probably didn't grow up with the '80s pop culture referenced in the show so maybe it's a generational thing? You should try and stick with it though, it goes to some great places and certain characters who seem immature or like jerks have more depth than meets the eye.

I see a bunch of people knocking Stranger Things online for being a "nostalgia porn/ fest". I don't get that. It's a period piece. Kids in the '80s would be talking about '80s pop culture. I didn't see people complaining about Mad Men being "nostalgia porn" for the 1960's or whatever. It would ring false if these kids weren't into Star Wars, Poltergeist, Alien etc. I thought Stranger Things was one of the better stories told in 2016 in movie or TV. Loved seeing David Harbour finally get something to chew on as an actor.
Sav C, Clifton Sleigh liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4896627
RichardLess wrote:
Sav C wrote:I got two episodes in Stranger Things, those types of shows really aren't my genre. Granted with Stranger Things, being a teen myself, the whole teenage relstionship in the first two episodes really turned me off. Maybe it was going somewhere, but honestly I just didn't like the portrayal.
Stranger Things was fantastic. It's about way more than teenage relationships and what is there is pretty darn accurate. It's a great show. You probably didn't grow up with the '80s pop culture referenced in the show so maybe it's a generational thing? You should try and stick with it though, it goes to some great places and certain characters who seem immature or like jerks have more depth than meets the eye.

I see a bunch of people knocking Stranger Things online for being a "nostalgia porn/ fest". I don't get that. It's a period piece. Kids in the '80s would be talking about '80s pop culture. I didn't see people complaining about Mad Men being "nostalgia porn" for the 1960's or whatever. It would ring false if these kids weren't into Star Wars, Poltergeist, Alien etc. I thought Stranger Things was one of the better stories told in 2016 in movie or TV. Loved seeing David Harbour finally get something to chew on as an actor.
I'll consider looking into more of it. Honestly I found the teenage guy to be too pushy and the teenage girl to be not the swiftest. But that's just me, like you said they have more depth so perhaps I'll give it another go. I'm a teenager now (so you're right I wasn't around then), but honestly I liked all of the references--if anything they made me like the show more. Better times, really. Phones and social media have really done a number on so many kids in the current generation. I feel in the short time I've been on Facebook that it's rewired me, so I'm going to get off. Don't need that in my life, email's more than good enough. It's funny though, I'm not used to social media at all, when I message someone I usually type a real letter, and then (depending on who I write) only get a sentence in response.

I don't expect you to read it (since it is long), but if you're interested here is a very interesting article about the way phones and social media have affected teens: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... urce=atlfb

The only reason I got on Facebook in the first place was to connect with friends and jumpstart my social life, but it really hasn't worked that well. I'm really only good at face to face conversation, since I have an idea of how people really feel about what I'm saying. I should probably mention that I've been homeschooled my whole life, hence people have always asked me "How will you learn to socialize?". It's only been recently that I've been able to overcome a lack of confidence in my social skills caused by people asking that. It's kind of ironic though, I learned all of my social skills long ago, yet it's only now that I feel comfortable using them, and it's all because of people who didn't think I had them. Apologies for the rant.

Speaking of kids from the 80s, I just got the urge to watch Goonies again--have you ever seen it?
#4896651
Sav C wrote:
RichardLess wrote:
Stranger Things was fantastic. It's about way more than teenage relationships and what is there is pretty darn accurate. It's a great show. You probably didn't grow up with the '80s pop culture referenced in the show so maybe it's a generational thing? You should try and stick with it though, it goes to some great places and certain characters who seem immature or like jerks have more depth than meets the eye.

I see a bunch of people knocking Stranger Things online for being a "nostalgia porn/ fest". I don't get that. It's a period piece. Kids in the '80s would be talking about '80s pop culture. I didn't see people complaining about Mad Men being "nostalgia porn" for the 1960's or whatever. It would ring false if these kids weren't into Star Wars, Poltergeist, Alien etc. I thought Stranger Things was one of the better stories told in 2016 in movie or TV. Loved seeing David Harbour finally get something to chew on as an actor.
I'll consider looking into more of it. Honestly I found the teenage guy to be too pushy and the teenage girl to be not the swiftest. But that's just me, like you said they have more depth so perhaps I'll give it another go. I'm a teenager now (so you're right I wasn't around then), but honestly I liked all of the references--if anything they made me like the show more. Better times, really. Phones and social media have really done a number on so many kids in the current generation. I feel in the short time I've been on Facebook that it's rewired me, so I'm going to get off. Don't need that in my life, email's more than good enough. It's funny though, I'm not used to social media at all, when I message someone I usually type a real letter, and then (depending on who I write) only get a sentence in response.

I don't expect you to read it (since it is long), but if you're interested here is a very interesting article about the way phones and social media have affected teens: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... urce=atlfb

The only reason I got on Facebook in the first place was to connect with friends and jumpstart my social life, but it really hasn't worked that well. I'm really only good at face to face conversation, since I have an idea of how people really feel about what I'm saying. I should probably mention that I've been homeschooled my whole life, hence people have always asked me "How will you learn to socialize?". It's only been recently that I've been able to overcome a lack of confidence in my social skills caused by people asking that. It's kind of ironic though, I learned all of my social skills long ago, yet it's only now that I feel comfortable using them, and it's all because of people who didn't think I had them. Apologies for the rant.

Speaking of kids from the 80s, I just got the urge to watch Goonies again--have you ever seen it?
I actually read that article just the other day. Definatley an interesting read about how smart phones are shaping a generation. I encourage anyone looking at this to read it.

I have seen Goonies. Oddly enough I did not grow up with Goonies. I came to it rather later in life, in my 20s. Even though Goonies came out before Monster Squad, I grew up with Monster Squad so I prefer it to Goonies. I do like Goonies though. Have you seen Monster Squad? It's pretty much the Goonies but with Werewolves, Vampires, Mummies and Frankenstein's Monster(the mother is even played by the same actress that plays the mother in Goonies, who also plays the mother hiring Ray and Winston for the bday party at the start of GB2). Monster Squad is a great Halloween flick, check it out if you haven't seen it.

Also, definatley try out Stranger Things again. It may surprise you.
Sav C liked this
#4896670
Sav C wrote: I think Feig is fine directing males. Kevin was pretty good.
Define "directing." Putting someone in front of a camera and saying "okay now ad-lib the shit out of this scene a few times and let's see what sticks" isn't exactly a Francis Ford Cappola technique.

I think this meme sums up a majority of the understandable reactions when it was announced it would be a total reboot disregarding the originals:

Image
pferreira1983 liked this
User avatar
By Sav C
#4896698
RichardLess wrote:I actually read that article just the other day. Definatley an interesting read about how smart phones are shaping a generation. I encourage anyone looking at this to read it.

I have seen Goonies. Oddly enough I did not grow up with Goonies. I came to it rather later in life, in my 20s. Even though Goonies came out before Monster Squad, I grew up with Monster Squad so I prefer it to Goonies. I do like Goonies though. Have you seen Monster Squad? It's pretty much the Goonies but with Werewolves, Vampires, Mummies and Frankenstein's Monster(the mother is even played by the same actress that plays the mother in Goonies, who also plays the mother hiring Ray and Winston for the bday party at the start of GB2). Monster Squad is a great Halloween flick, check it out if you haven't seen it.

Also, definatley try out Stranger Things again. It may surprise you.
It's quite a fascinating article, right? Does make me glad I don't have a phone, and I'm quitting Facebook cold turkey.

I haven't seen Monster Squad, but it sounds interesting. I saw Goonies for the first time about seven or eight years ago, and I've watched it quite a few times since.
SpaceBallz wrote:
Sav C wrote: I think Feig is fine directing males. Kevin was pretty good.
Define "directing." Putting someone in front of a camera and saying "okay now ad-lib the shit out of this scene a few times and let's see what sticks" isn't exactly a Francis Ford Cappola technique.

I think this meme sums up a majority of the understandable reactions when it was announced it would be a total reboot disregarding the originals:

Image
I pretty much just mean that he is capable of directing males. Whether his directorial style is any good or not is subjective, of course (not to say I think it's that best).
#4896859
Kingpin wrote:What was "gimmicky" about it?
The whole plot. You could have done the whole episode without the 42 min gimmick, it was tacked on and some of the acting was terrible.
Kingpin wrote:That's pretty tame when all's said and done, the show's shown or suggested even more extreme content even in it's recent history, while the classic series itself has given us humans who've cut and engineered themselves into soulless ghouls (Cybermen) and Nazi-like killers (Daleks).
Yeah but all of that is fantastical, this is about world wide heart attacks. I don't know, I suffer from health anxiety so...
RichardLess wrote:I see a bunch of people knocking Stranger Things online for being a "nostalgia porn/ fest". I don't get that. It's a period piece. Kids in the '80s would be talking about '80s pop culture. I didn't see people complaining about Mad Men being "nostalgia porn" for the 1960's or whatever. It would ring false if these kids weren't into Star Wars, Poltergeist, Alien etc.
Mad Men is a period piece, Stranger Things is aiming to appeal to 80s kids so yeah it's pandering to that generation. If it wasn't pandering it wouldn't be putting in endless references to pop culture from that era.
Sav C wrote:I pretty much just mean that he is capable of directing males. Whether his directorial style is any good or not is subjective, of course (not to say I think it's that best).
Feig has said himself he feels uncomfortable directing males, probably due to his childhood. The man is probably going to be producing female lead films for the rest of his life.
Last edited by Kingpin on August 13th, 2017, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Fixed quote code
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4896869
pferreira1983 wrote:Mad Men is a period piece, Stranger Things is aiming to appeal to 80s kids so yeah it's pandering to that generation. If it wasn't pandering it wouldn't be putting in endless references to pop culture from that era.
What is Stranger Things if not a period piece? And considering how much pop culture there was in the 80s, surely an absence of it would feel fake? It feels like you're stretching to justify your view, especially when you provide a perfect justification for why Stranger Things has what it has when you defend Mad Men.
Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4896873
Kingpin wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:Mad Men is a period piece, Stranger Things is aiming to appeal to 80s kids so yeah it's pandering to that generation. If it wasn't pandering it wouldn't be putting in endless references to pop culture from that era.
What is Stranger Things if not a period piece? And considering how much pop culture there was in the 80s, surely an absence of it would feel fake? It feels like you're stretching to justify your view, especially when you provide a perfect justification for why Stranger Things has what it has when you defend Mad Men.
Pferreira has some strange complex that he/she can't admit when they are wrong or misguided. I see it on forum after forum. Pferreira Is shown to be incorrect or misguided and then simply moves on to the next thing. Reading what Pferreira just said about Mad Men compared to Stranger Things is so misguided it has to be on purpose. They have to know that when something takes place in the past that it's a period piece, right? I mean if you don't like the show, cool. That's fine. But to say Mad Men is a period piece and Stranger Things is aiming at something else...yikes. Are you trolling Pferreira? I'm just going to ask you straight up. Are you? Cause if not...
Kingpin, Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4896886
Kingpin wrote:What is Stranger Things if not a period piece? And considering how much pop culture there was in the 80s, surely an absence of it would feel fake? It feels like you're stretching to justify your view, especially when you provide a perfect justification for why Stranger Things has what it has when you defend Mad Men.
In no way does Stranger Things feel like a period piece. They set it in the 80s and then added an abundance of 80s related stuff even if it doesn't make sense. It's kind of like making a Christmas episode and stuffing every Christmas related image into that episode. Real life isn't like that!
RichardLess wrote:Pferreira has some strange complex that he/she can't admit when they are wrong or misguided. I see it on forum after forum. Pferreira Is shown to be incorrect or misguided and then simply moves on to the next thing. Reading what Pferreira just said about Mad Men compared to Stranger Things is so misguided it has to be on purpose. They have to know that when something takes place in the past that it's a period piece, right? I mean if you don't like the show, cool. That's fine. But to say Mad Men is a period piece and Stranger Things is aiming at something else...yikes. Are you trolling Pferreira? I'm just going to ask you straight up. Are you? Cause if not...
I have a strange complex? Says the guy who can't admit Spider-Man 3.1 was released on blu-ray when I made that post. Hypocrite much mate? I've seen people like you as well, you go from forum to forum claiming to 'educate' people when you end up embarrassing yourself...which you are doing here. It is good to listen to other people and not always be right RichardLess. :roll:
#4896891
pferreira1983 wrote:
Kingpin wrote:What is Stranger Things if not a period piece? And considering how much pop culture there was in the 80s, surely an absence of it would feel fake? It feels like you're stretching to justify your view, especially when you provide a perfect justification for why Stranger Things has what it has when you defend Mad Men.
In no way does Stranger Things feel like a period piece. They set it in the 80s and then added an abundance of 80s related stuff even if it doesn't make sense. It's kind of like making a Christmas episode and stuffing every Christmas related image into that episode. Real life isn't like that!
RichardLess wrote:Pferreira has some strange complex that he/she can't admit when they are wrong or misguided. I see it on forum after forum. Pferreira Is shown to be incorrect or misguided and then simply moves on to the next thing. Reading what Pferreira just said about Mad Men compared to Stranger Things is so misguided it has to be on purpose. They have to know that when something takes place in the past that it's a period piece, right? I mean if you don't like the show, cool. That's fine. But to say Mad Men is a period piece and Stranger Things is aiming at something else...yikes. Are you trolling Pferreira? I'm just going to ask you straight up. Are you? Cause if not...
I have a strange complex? Says the guy who can't admit Spider-Man 3.1 was released on blu-ray when I made that post. Hypocrite much mate? I've seen people like you as well, you go from forum to forum claiming to 'educate' people when you end up embarrassing yourself...which you are doing here. It is good to listen to other people and not always be right RichardLess. :roll:
You are just a sad troll. And a liar. You are completely lying about the Spider man 3.1 thing. And don't try to be condescending, because you suck at it. You were wrong about the Spiderman thing and don't even have the decency to admit it so you try and lie about what was being discussed. It's a tad pathetic

The only thing I'm embarrassed about is you liking posts I've made. No wonder fans like Juror are militant against reboot haters. People like you are the worst of us. It's time to grow up. I may not agree with people like Alpha, Kingpin, Juror etc about the reboot and lord knows I've had many a disagreements with them. But you are something else entirely. You make a friendly debate turn into grasping at straws contest. You can't admit when you are wrong, which seems to be all the time. That says everything about what little character you have
Kingpin, Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4896893
pferreira1983 wrote: In no way does Stranger Things feel like a period piece. They set it in the 80s and then added an abundance of 80s related stuff even if it doesn't make sense. It's kind of like making a Christmas episode and stuffing every Christmas related image into that episode. Real life isn't like that!
You're saying they're trying too hard to scream "80s!!!" and therefore it feels more like an 80s themed party than an accurate period piece. Yes?
#4896897
JurorNo.2 wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote: In no way does Stranger Things feel like a period piece. They set it in the 80s and then added an abundance of 80s related stuff even if it doesn't make sense. It's kind of like making a Christmas episode and stuffing every Christmas related image into that episode. Real life isn't like that!
You're saying they're trying too hard to scream "80s!!!" and therefore it feels more like an 80s themed party than an accurate period piece. Yes?
No what I think he means is: I've read other people criticize this aspect of the show so let me regurgitate what they said even though it makes no sense. There are many aspects of the show that aren't perfect but being set in the '80s is an automatic target for people to pick on.

Here's how '80s the show is: kids have posters of 70's/'80s movies in their room, kids listen to music that was popular in the late '70s/early '80s, references are made to the current popular culture and zeitgeist of the time. And why does this happen? Because that's what kids did. I mean if anyone can cite an example of how they overdid the '80s thing then maybe that's a start but this generic "nostalgia=bad" stuff is weird.
Kingpin, Clifton Sleigh liked this
#4896901
Well I mean I can understand that Hollywood often does "period-lite." Christopher Guest is one of the few directors to do it well, IMO. I haven't seen Stranger Things or Mad Men so I can't pass judgement.
Charlesworth Dynamics Trap Build

Hi All, The Trap is coming on, I've nearly finish[…]

I found a cool tube at Ollies discount outlet, and[…]

Finally got my copy today - It's not the worst I'v[…]

I don't remember exactly, But I think I've had pr[…]