Television Stranger Things 4 out now

[GeneticBlueprint]

The letter was a really good send-off. I mostly agree that it's lame bringing him back. But at the same time, Hopper was the best adult character in seasons 2 and 3 so in that sense I'm glad he's back. I like the kids but spending all of our time with them would be a chore.

[Greatoneshere]

14 minutes ago, Chris- said:

I’ve never understood the argument that moments can be made less impactful retroactively. Is 2019 you in the space time continuum suddenly aware that the letter scene ‘doesn’t matter’? No he is not. 

 

No, but if you can just keep bringing back people from the dead (a disturbing trend in a lot of films and TV shows lately, I've noticed) then the scene that is meant to make you originally emotional (the death) is undermined by bringing them back to life. If there are no stakes, why should I get emotionally invested in such scenes? 

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, GeneticBlueprint said:

The letter was a really good send-off. I mostly agree that it's lame bringing him back. But at the same time, Hopper was the best adult character in seasons 2 and 3 so in that sense I'm glad he's back. I like the kids but spending all of our time with them would be a chore.

 

Then don't kill him in the first place? They're trying to have their cake and eat it too and it's lame.

[GeneticBlueprint]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Then don't kill him in the first place? They're trying to have their cake and eat it too and it's lame.

 

Well, they didn't. The stinger at the end was a pretty clear message that he was alive. But if you meant don't give him a send off then I can sympathize with that take.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Chris- said:

I’ve never understood the argument that moments can be made less impactful retroactively. Is 2019 you in the space time continuum suddenly aware that the letter scene ‘doesn’t matter’? No he is not. 

The letter scene is directly connected with Hop’s actions. There is a reason it is read to the audience when it is. Those actions and the meaning of the letter scene are negated by him being alive. Pretty straight forward, tbh.

[Greatoneshere]

5 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Well, they didn't. The stinger at the end was a pretty clear message that he was alive. But if you meant don't give him a send off then I can sympathize with that take.

 

I meant it's stupid and lazy to build up to a huge death scene and then bring him back, whether in the epilogue or the next season. It just undermines what you just did. So yeah, don't give him a send off if the death isn't going to matter, I suppose, to be more specific about it.

[Chadatog]

Um....   but there wasn't a huge death scene for hopper.  They telegraphed that thing all the way across the Atlantic.

[CitizenVectron]

I wouldn't mind bringing him back in a limited way (something of his essence survived to help them one last time in the upside down, etc) but I think it would have been nice having him as a person be gone. Oh well!

[Reputator]

I find it funny that people are getting pissed NOW when it was pretty clear by the end of Season 3 that Hopper didn't die. Like, I'm sorry you got emotionally invested in his death up until now, but it's pretty much your fault for not reading the obvious signs.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, Reputator said:

I find it funny that people are getting pissed NOW when it was pretty clear by the end of Season 3 that Hopper didn't die. Like, I'm sorry you got emotionally invested in his death up until now, but it's pretty much your fault for not reading the obvious signs.

 

Even if I had known he was clearly coming back, that makes it worse, not better. 

[Reputator]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Even if I had known he was clearly coming back, that makes it worse, not better. 

 

The difference is you'd be over it by now. I know I am.

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

The difference is you'd be over it by now. I know I am.

 

I was never into the show to begin with, including season 1, so I was over the show in general seasons ago. I just thought the Hopper stuff in season 3 was pretty good, so whether there were clues or not, bringing him back loses a lot of impact and time spent on season 3. I'm not into the show that much, so there isn't much for me to get over.

[Bloodporne]

S1 was truly great, but I couldn't even make it through S2 and the episode of S3 I saw seemed to suggest it completely went off a cliff with evil Russians and other boring shit. 

[number305]

1 hour ago, Bloodporne said:

S1 was truly great, but I couldn't even make it through S2 and the episode of S3 I saw seemed to suggest it completely went off a cliff with evil Russians and other boring shit. 

You should give us more of your thoughts about the show.  Could you review S4 for us now?

[Bloodporne]

48 minutes ago, number305 said:

You should give us more of your thoughts about the show.  Could you review S4 for us now?

Sure thing! 

 

S4 1/10

 

An insult to @Greatoneshere and all of cinema ever. 

[Mercury33]

8 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I was never into the show to begin with, including season 1, so I was over the show in general seasons ago. I just thought the Hopper stuff in season 3 was pretty good, so whether there were clues or not, bringing him back loses a lot of impact and time spent on season 3. I'm not into the show that much, so there isn't much for me to get over.

you weren’t into a show you watched all 3 seasons of? Then why continue watching?

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

you weren’t into a show you watched all 3 seasons of? Then why continue watching?

 

My wife's a fan, but seasons 2 and 3 have brought her more over to my side. Plus, I thought it was good enough at least to hang with until season 2, and I'm a completionist by nature overall with things. So . . . here I am.  

[sexy_shapiro]

On 2/17/2020 at 3:42 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

I meant it's stupid and lazy to build up to a huge death scene and then bring him back, whether in the epilogue or the next season. It just undermines what you just did. So yeah, don't give him a send off if the death isn't going to matter, I suppose, to be more specific about it.

Spock dying in Wrath of Kahn and Han Solo being frozen in carbonite are still very emotional scenes, despite  knowing what happens next. I also wish more shows or movies would be brave enough to kill off hugely likeable characters for good, but I’m also of the mind that a well made “death” can still mean a lot in that moment.

[Greatoneshere]

54 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Spock dying in Wrath of Kahn and Han Solo being frozen in carbonite are still very emotional scenes, despite  knowing what happens next. I also wish more shows or movies would be brave enough to kill off hugely likeable characters for good, but I’m also of the mind that a well made “death” can still mean a lot in that moment.

 

The issue isn't knowing where it's going, but rather the cognitive dissonance between the stakes, how the "death" plays out, and the tone. And I do think bringing Spock afterward cheapens what happens in Wrath of Khan, 100%. Han Solo frozen in carbonite is completely different since death is permanent and not knowing what would happen to Han was the reason for the emotion in his case by comparison. 

 

When someone is ostensibly "dying", you, the audience member, is also saying goodbye to the character. What if they now brought back Hugh Jackman as Logan for the MCU (let's just say hypothetically). Even if the movies were good, I'd still say it cheapens his death in Logan even if you prefer what we got if they brought him back. 

[sexy_shapiro]

On 2/24/2020 at 10:39 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

The issue isn't knowing where it's going, but rather the cognitive dissonance between the stakes, how the "death" plays out, and the tone. And I do think bringing Spock afterward cheapens what happens in Wrath of Khan, 100%. Han Solo frozen in carbonite is completely different since death is permanent and not knowing what would happen to Han was the reason for the emotion in his case by comparison. 

 

When someone is ostensibly "dying", you, the audience member, is also saying goodbye to the character. What if they now brought back Hugh Jackman as Logan for the MCU (let's just say hypothetically). Even if the movies were good, I'd still say it cheapens his death in Logan even if you prefer what we got if they brought him back. 

I think the issue here is that you and I watch movies in a fundamentally different way. You seem to like to look at the big picture when it comes to franchises, and I prefer to view a movie as more of an individual piece. I’ve always been good at compartmentalizing.

 

For example, I can watch The Matrix and think of it as one complete story without ever considering the sequels while watching it. Same with Jurassic Park, thankfully: I’m not saying this is the better way of watching movies, but it’s my preferred way of taking in stories. It makes the singular story even more powerful in my opinion. When I watch Spider-Man 2 I am able to watch it without ever once thinking about the third movie.

 

The scene with Han will always make me sad because it was written as a possible farewell to the character, because at the time there was a real possibility that he may not be sad.

 

I think this is why franchises can ultimately hurt the impact of individual films. Because too many fans are more concerned with big picture stuff instead or the individual story itself.

 

A well written and executed death scene will always be sad to me regardless of future installments. Because I still care about that characters relationship to the other characters and I have empathy for them. Seeing them sad makes me sad.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, sexy_shapiro said:

I think the issue here is that you and I watch movies in a fundamentally different way. You seem to like to look at the big picture when it comes to franchises, and I prefer to view a movie as more of an individual piece. I’ve always been good at compartmentalizing.

 

A well written and executed death scene will always be sad to me regardless of future installments. Because I still care about that characters relationship to the other characters and I have empathy for them. Seeing them sad makes me sad.

 

But none of what you said applies to me? I don't look at the big picture - I get invested in the moment and then later, the moment is cheapened. That's where it starts and ends - there's no meta commentary here. If you kill a character and try to make it mean something/matter and then you bring them back in the very next season(s), that's lame as hell, and definitely takes away retroactively from the moment (see my Logan example).

[sexy_shapiro]

11 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

But none of what you said applies to me? I don't look at the big picture - I get invested in the moment and then later, the moment is cheapened. That's where it starts and ends - there's no meta commentary here. If you kill a character and try to make it mean something/matter and then you bring them back in the very next season(s), that's lame as hell, and definitely takes away retroactively from the moment (see my Logan example).

I also think it’s lame when they are afraid to keep major characters dead. We agree more than we disagree. But where we disagree is that it retroactively cheapens prior installments worse. To respond to your example, there is nothing that will keep Logan’s ending from being heartbreaking in my mind. It’s a sad ending to a very sad story. I guess to me that’s more of how I viewed it rather than a farewell to the character itself. If he comes back, whatever.

 

I’m just saying this is how I view this situation. If there’s another movie with Wolverine, the movie with his return will feel cheap for me, but Logan itself will remain unaffected in my head-cannon.

 

But then, again, I also couldn’t find my getting too sad over Hopper’s death because by this point I’ve primed to expect it to be a fake-out. There is something to be said about our capitalistic media industry being too afraid to loose consumers by making brave and controversial choices.

[Greatoneshere]

6 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

I also think it’s lame when they are afraid to keep major characters dead. We agree more than we disagree. But where we disagree is that it retroactively cheapens prior installments worse. To respond to your example, there is nothing that will keep Logan’s ending from being heartbreaking in my mind. It’s a sad ending to a very sad story. I guess to me that’s more of how I viewed it rather than a farewell to the character itself. If he comes back, whatever.

 

I’m just saying this is how I view this situation. If there’s another movie with Wolverine, the movie with his return will feel cheap for me, but Logan itself will remain unaffected in my head-cannon.

 

But then, again, I also couldn’t find my getting too sad over Hopper’s death because by this point I’ve primed to expect it to be a fake-out. There is something to be said about our capitalistic media industry being too afraid to loose consumers by making brave and controversial choices.

 

But how is one "afraid to keep characters dead"? If you didn't want them dead, don't kill them off in the first place? That's my point - you're saying you were "primed for the fake-out" so why even bother with the sacrifice? And how is it a "sacrifice" if nothing is lost because they come back?

 

It cheapens things retroactively because this is a TV show, and sequels build on what came prior, but if you were told or meant to feel one way previously, but then the sequel comes out and takes all that work away, then yeah, on any rewatches when the "work is complete" you'll care even less about the non-sacrifice, you know?

[sexy_shapiro]

20 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

But how is one "afraid to keep characters dead"? If you didn't want them dead, don't kill them off in the first place? That's my point - you're saying you were "primed for the fake-out" so why even bother with the sacrifice? And how is it a "sacrifice" if nothing is lost because they come back?

 

It cheapens things retroactively because this is a TV show, and sequels build on what came prior, but if you were told or meant to feel one way previously, but then the sequel comes out and takes all that work away, then yeah, on any rewatches when the "work is complete" you'll care even less about the non-sacrifice, you know?

 

As for your first paragraph, dude I was agreeing with you lol. You seem to love debating so much that even when I agree with that you even debate that.  

 

And to your second post, well, I was just saying how I view stories. You don’t have to debate that because you’re not going to change how I view movies and I’m not going to change how you view them either. I was trying to just leave it at that. You don’t have to “win” every conversation.  I was simply trying to say we view stories in different ways and that’s okay. I understand where you’re coming from and you’ve made your point.

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

As for your first paragraph, dude I was agreeing with you lol. You seem to love debating so much that even when I agree with that you even debate that.  

 

And to your second post, well, I was just saying how I view stories. You don’t have to debate that because you’re not going to change how I view movies and I’m not going to change how you view them either. I was trying to just leave it at that. You don’t have to “win” every conversation.  I was simply trying to say we view stories in different ways and that’s okay. I understand where you’re coming from and you’ve made your point.

 

I see how we are agreeing, I just felt I needed to elaborate since I felt mischaracterized. We're good.  

[Remarkableriots]

Season 4 production has been delayed for at least two weeks. Other Netflix shows and movies will also be delayed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/stranger-things-season-4-coronavirus-production-delay/amp/

[Jwheel86]

 

 

MGS5 trailer vibes

[Kal-El814]

Looks weird, I’m in.

[ort]

Yeah, I dunno. I miss the vibe and lower stakes of the first season.

 

I remember reading about how the show runners wanted to make the second season more like a sequel that didn't necessarily have the same tone as the first, clearly going for an Alien / Aliens vibe... but in reality they 100% NAILED the 80s nostalgia by making a bad sequel to a beloved franchise that kinda missed the whole point and was just took all the story beats from the first season and turned the volume up to 11 on all of them. It was honestly the most 80s throwback thing ever.

 

Season 2 just really made me sad. I loved the first season and really hated the second. Season 3 was more fun and watchable, but still felt like a weird shadow of what it once was. Season 4 looks like they are just cranking the wacky knob up all the way. I guess it is what it is. I'll watch it.

[Mercury33]

Looks awesome, can’t wait!

[EternallDarkness]

actually just finished watching season 2 for the first time. I had started it after watching the first season but for some reason stopped after 3 or 4 episodes and only now got back to it 

[EternallDarkness]

okay blasted through season 3...which is definitely my favorite season

[best3444]

That looked awesome. Can't wait.

[Jason]

Season 2 would have been fine if they'd just released the backdoor pilot for a Seven and Friends spinoff as its own thing instead of in the middle of the season. I don't know if they should have released it before or after the season or what but if it'd been presented as something separate it wouldn't have fucked the pacing and people could have gone in with their expectations set properly.

[Greatoneshere]

It's one episode in one season of a season and a show you can straight up binge. Sometimes bottle episodes or stand alone episodes are a good thing. I mean, I'm more or less neutral to slightly positive on Stranger Things, so I thought that episode was interesting and just fine, but I know most didn't like that episode or the season. I certainly liked season 2 more than 3 for sure.