Extremely poorly written show.
If you were to look up 'Contrivance' in a dictionary, there would be a picture of this show's logo right next to it.
shareBEWARE! TROLL BAIT!
MovieChat Forums > Stranger Things (2016) Discussion > Extremely poorly written show.
I guess that says a lot of about you that you need pictures in your books.
shareSorry if I offended you and your feelings.
sharelol sorry I didn't agree with your meticulous observations of the show. Perhaps if you something more to say than obvious troll bait, you'd get a better response.
shareI already did back on IMDB, it would be helpful if someone actually made some arguments as to why this show is well written, but alas.
shareThis isn't IMDb and it's not my or anyone else's job to guess what your specific problems with the show are, or hunt for them on other websites. Saying a word doesn't actually tell us anything. You want a conversation, then fucking start one. Don't get all pissy just because people aren't lining up to suck you off for your amazing insight.
shareYeah you're right, but I figured someone would ask me. I mean, there are so friggin many moments that makes no sense, plot holes, and ridiculously contrived moments. I sincerely hope that no one who bashes the likes of LOST for having moments like that are fan of this show, which has waay more of it.
shareNo, actually the show is very well put together. I have yet to see anyone post a good example of something that truly doesn't make sense within the context of the story. Mostly they just make declarations like you did, to goad fans into arguing with you. Do you even know what the term "plot hole" actually means? That's such an overused (and generally misused) expression.
shareEl not understandning when Mike calling her 'friend' and Mike having to explain it. Even if we ignore how cheesy awkward that sequence is, it doesn't make any sense because we later see in one of the lab flashbacks that 'Mr. Creepygrayhairedobviouslyavillian character' calls her that aswell which triggers no reaction from her.
How did Will survive in the other world for days with no food? How did He also manage to last many days without getting spotted by the monster? We can clearly see that the monster's world is not big at all. As for the monster, what exactly is it that decides whether it passes through Joyce's wall or not? We see many times it's only seconds away from doing so, but Joyce apparently just has to run away a couple meters for it to drop the breakthrough?
How many times when you have been out in the woods have you seen a dead bleeding deer just laying on the ground? This was dumb cheap plot convinience to have the teens introduced to the monster. Speaking of the teens, how much did they actually contribute to the main story overall? If we remove all their scenes then the quest to save Will would barely have to be changed up.
Why did no one care when Barb mysteriously disappeared? Oh that's right, she was nothing but a plot device character to get Nancy involved in the central story. Oh, and talk about funny deus ex machina with Jonathan with no explanation being a creeper who stalks people snapping a picture of the monster...
There is most likely a lot more, but that was just on the top of my head.
Dr. Brenner probably said a lot of things to Eleven that she didn't understand. He was a scientist. I'm sure there are words and terminology you've heard used but aren't entirely clear on what they mean.
You can easily survive four days without food, even water if the temperature is not high (and we know it was on the cold side there). In fact it's probably dehydration that had him nearly unconscious in the tent. Or maybe he did drink the local water and it made him sick. If he was there for weeks it would be a different story. The monster's world is at least as big as the town of Hawkins and may be a parallel Earth, no smaller than this one. The fact that, unlike Barb, he hadn't cut himself or bled meant that the monster couldn't track him like a shark scenting blood in the water. As long as he kept out of sight and quiet it had no idea where he was.
Speaking of Barb, we don't know what was going on in town. The story was focused on the central characters who had a full plate of shit to deal with. The timetable was pretty short here. Nothing is required to explain why we didn't hear about the search for Barb. There was an investigation being conducted by Hopper's deputies and apparently this figures into season 2.
Yes, the deer was put there as a way of drawing the beast to that spot. So what? If you're within a mile or so of a roadway you will see injured and dying animals in the woods from time to time. Was the timing convenient? Absolutely. As was Jonathan being in the right place at the right time. But how often do main characters end up surviving an ordeal because some critical item just happened to be available nearby? This isn't a hole in the plot. Before you say something makes no sense or is ridiculous, try asking yourself: is there a logical and simple way to account for it within the context of the story? Like I said, I have yet to encounter someone pointing out a glaring flaw that can't be explained (usually with a minimum of effort).
Plot holes have always been and always will be a part of Cinema and Television. Most of them can be explained by using your imagination which is what the storyteller intended for us to do. For me, if the story is structured properly and the characters are engaging, I can omit them by looking deeper into the story
share[deleted]
I watched the entire first season and found it difficult to get through. The kids were extremely annoying and the story was very unoriginal. The only good thing about the show was; well, what was that?
share[deleted]
I stuck with it because I was hoping it would get better. I know it is an homage to the 80's movies and television and it might even be done well, but it just did not do it for me. Maybe because I really think that as good as movies and television may have been in the 80's, today is the golden age of television. There is so much great and unique stuff out there, that Stranger Things seems very old and tired to me. Maybe if they put a little spin on it, I would find more interest in it. Season 2 won't be seen by me. Anyhow, hope you fans enjoy it. Don't mean to be a wet blanket.
share[deleted]
I stopped watching AHS Roanoke after the third episode. Just wasn't doing it for me. I may go back to it, but there is so much I am watching now I find it hard to watch things that I just don't enjoy.
share[deleted]
Modica- Many good TV shows in the 80's as well, Today had some good/very good TV shows but some are crap........You should watch other TV shows set in the 80's like:The Americans, Halt + Catch Fire, The Goldbergs etc -Sure yo u know of them as they are popular
shareMoreover, I think its influences are far more in the film sphere. And while the show will still not appeal to every single viewer, its emphasis on being cinematic is undeniably in line with the new age of television.
share[deleted]
At least you made the simple acknowledgement that this just isn't your cup of tea. The best made movie or show in the world won't appeal to those who aren't into the type of story they tell, and that's fine.
What bugs me are the people who try to find something wrong with the writing, acting, cinematography, or whatever else, to turn their personal dislike into objective fact. No need to apologize for not being a fan. Everyone has different tastes. And you're right. Television has never been better or offered more choices than it does today. No matter what you like, there's plenty of content out there that delivers the goods.
I have no problem with the production of the show. It is top notch. The kids annoy me and the story is a little too derivative(but I guess that is the point of the show). I do like the beginning theme and titles. Overall though, it is just a little too obvious for my taste.
share"What bugs me are the people who try to find something wrong with the writing, acting, cinematography, or whatever else, to turn their personal dislike into objective fact."
Is that any worse than treating a positive opinion like an objective fact? Because going by your logic, you and all your likeminded people are doing the same towards this show.
Everything ever made has positive and negative reactions. Some people like simple storytelling, while others like challenges in viewing something. It all depends of who is watching. I read comments and take everything into consideration in determining whether I will see it or not. I enjoy reading others takes on certain movies and shows, but I hate when people just say, "It Sucks". WTF am I supposed to do with that?
shareWhat I meant was, people try to find defects that aren't really there. Especially annoying is the use of the term "plot hole" (the most overused of all movie and TV criticisms) when it doesn't apply. If a story is internally self consistent then by definition there are no plot holes. Others criticize characters for making mistakes - like real people don't?
For example a number of times I've heard someone say that Nancy's decision to go through the portal in the tree after Barb was stupid and illogical. A teenager acting rashly and impulsively - that never happens! Less than flawless decision making by characters is not unrealistic, or bad writing, and whatever you do don't call it a plot hole! Speaking of Barb, there's also a lot of people who talk about the police ignoring her disappearance. In fact there was an investigation by Hopper's deputies which will figure into Season 2. The timescale was short in the first season, and whatever the major characters weren't focused on dealing with, we didn't see on screen. This is not poor writing. And it is NOT the other thing either.
I have yet to encounter a really substantive defect that anyone's brought up which doesn't reflect a real lack of thought on their part. They could easily have addressed their own objections if they tried. All the pieces of the story fit together. They manage to draw inspiration and individual elements from a large number of books and movies, but tell a new story that's not a retread of any of them. The kids have gotten the lion's share of attention, but many of the show's actors delivered outstanding performances. Admittedly that's a little less objective and one's opinion of how well acted a role is can be affected by whether or not one likes a movie overall.
For some reason this show has gathered a legion of fans ...
... and a small cadre of dedicated haters. This mystifies me. I personally despise Grey's Anatomy, most reality shows (especially anything to do with the attention whore Kardashians) and a few other programs, so I just don't watch them. Many other shows are probably quite well done for their genre but they don't interest me. I feel no need to cut apart the writing in order to justify my indifference. It's all about personal taste. Luckily we live in a time of menu driven television. A veritable all-you-can-eat buffet of content with plenty of stuff that's right up your alley, all you have to do is scroll through the interface and locate it.
I wish more people would be honest and just acknowledge (I'm talking generally here) that a show or movie isn't their cup of tea. It annoys me when they try to find tangible reasons to claim their opinion is the right one and fail to come up with anything good. Oh there are shows whose writing is truly awful - and full of genuine plot holes. But in the past year I've read numerous scathing reviews of Stranger Things, some of them quite lengthy, and haven't seen a single complaint that wasn't petty nitpicking, and either outright mistaken or easy to explain with a minimum of thought. Is the presence of a particular radio model that wasn't available until 1985 really a serious deficiency in the show? Or a song that didn't come out till a few months later?
The fact that no serious defects have been presented in all that time tells you something about the self consistency of the plot - whether you like that plot or not. Just say it isn't the show for you. That's all you have to do. No one's taste in entertainment is right or wrong, but specific criticisms are.
*long wall of text* There was numerous contrived scenarios and lots of them bordering plot hole standards. Not to mention lots of horrible dialogue between the kids which made me roll my eyes.
shareSome of the greatest classic stories ever told are based on contrived scenarios. No one claims the show isn't far fetched. And once again, plot hole means there's an internal inconsistency in the storyline. Either details contradict one another or events occur which cannot in principle be explained within the rules laid down for the story.
In stories involving a lot of magic it's easy to avoid plot holes because almost anything goes. Hard science fiction tales involving time travel are the other extreme, damn near impossible to keep 100% free of inconsistencies. Read my long wall of text. It's not THAT long. The squeeze just makes it look that way. I have heard no complaints about this show's writing that amounted to a genuine plot hole, a catch all term that's almost always misused.
True, but most of those are much milder in terms of contrievance. Stranger Things is borderline braindead in how unrealistic the plot moves, which brings me to your next point. Stories involving magic are still able to have contrievances and plot holes because most of them (the most popular ones) have established rules within their universe whoch are often contradicted in later scenarios, or we have instances of 'Well why didn't they just do the thing they did in *insert previous movie or later here* to solve this?' Harry Potter was really guilty of this, but we're getting sidetracked. The point is that ST had many of these, and I listed some of them in an earlier post. For example, the monster reacting to blood was inconsistent, the requirements for the monster to break through a wall was inconsistent. Why did Dr. Brenner send in his OWN SON to the other world to find the monster? Why didn't the police lock Nancy and Jonathan's weapons in a safe, but instead LEAVE THEM WIDE OPEN UNDER NO SURVEILANCE SO THEY COULD EASILY GET THEM BACK!!??
shareLike sharks, the demogorgon hunts whether or not it scents blood. That's only one cue. Barb couldn't have escaped it because she cut herself and was bleeding. Will didn't, so as long as he kept out of sight and quiet the creature had no idea where he was. The exact circumstances under which you can cross between worlds hasn't been established yet, although the Duffer brothers said in an interview that there are rules governing that.
Brenner called the soldier he sent through "son" the way older guys sometimes address young men or boys. His last name was Shepard, so clearly he wasn't Brenner's actual son. As for the police station, can you say hick town? Plus of course ... how else could Jonathan and Nancy get their supplies back to go kill the monster? I grew up in upstate New York. We had a little backwoods police station just like that. No metal detectors at the door, and if you went late at night there'd sometimes be no one sitting at the front desk. They relied on one of those little tabletop bells to know when someone needed help. You could have walked right down to the basement where the firing range was, without being seen, as long as you were quiet about it. I'd be surprised if it was still that way today but back in the 80's ...
I'm still here. It's wasn't terrible, just mediocre. I had already gotten over halfway through at the time I made my opinion, so I felt like I had to finish it.
share