Stranger Things (Netflix) [Spoiler Thread]

[HexMachina]

If the government had started offing everyone connected to the events, or who'd seen something they shouldn't, then the number of deaths/disappearances would only draw more unwanted attention and prompt further investigation. Cutting a deal for everyone to forget things ever happened is their best solution. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, HelenaExMachina said:

If the government had started offing everyone connected to the events, or who'd seen something they shouldn't, then the number of deaths/disappearances would only draw more unwanted attention and prompt further investigation. Cutting a deal for everyone to forget things ever happened is their best solution. 

That would work if they weren't so incompetent in their surveillance. Once the Sheriff discovered the bug nothing happened, no surveillance of him or tighter security on him. 

[PetyrPunkinhead]

 

Interesting theory, and I never thought to look up what a demogorgon was or what actually takes place in that issue of X-Men they mentioned. I think that's more on the head though--Phoenix & Dark Phoenix rather than 11 = monster. 

It was also made clear (well, clear-ish) that the "black realm" 11 went to when she first used her psychic abilities to read the KGB agent's thoughts was kind of like the psychic plane in X-Men. While there she opened a door to another dimension, which physically manifested in that area of the lab then gradually began to seep out to pocket sin the surrounding areas as the monster learned how to jump between dimensions.

So even thought the vid is spot on about the examples of duality in the series, I don't think this motif of duality is a direct link to 11=monster. I think this motif is just pointing to the show's central theme that we can't take the world at face value--we must question and be open to the possibility that what we perceive as real is an illusion, which is essentially what adolescence is all about. Adolescence is when we begin to really question the world around us, gain new insights that come with new expectations and new responsibilities

[AncalagonTheBlack]

Stranger Things Renewed for (Slightly) Bigger Season 2, Set in Year 1984

Quote

 

Arriving sometime in 2017, Season 2 will consist of nine episodes, versus the freshman run of eight. Per the teaser video below, the story will pick up about a year later, in the fall of 1984. Many returning characters are expected, though series creators Matt and Ross Duffer are being coy about a key player, telling EW.com that Eleven’s involvement is “up in the air.”

Season 2 will add four new characters and venture “a little bit” outside Hawkins, Ind., the Duffers also told EW.com.

 

 

Stranger Things 2 renewal announcement:

 

[Corvinus85]

This seems like an excellent idea to me. They're matching the real life growth of the kids during filming with the timeline of the story. Also, if the slug that Will vomited is going to be a big part of the season, a one year growth period for the creature would be sensible.

I hope Eleven returns.

[HexMachina]

46 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

This seems like an excellent idea to me. They're matching the real life growth of the kids during filming with the timeline of the story. Also, if the slug that Will vomited is going to be a big part of the season, a one year growth period for the creature would be sensible.

I hope Eleven returns.

I think that although the Duffer Bros were coy about Eleven coming back, she will definitely be back. I don't think they would be foolish enough to waste a character and actress that the audience has absolutely fallen in love with like that.

I'm really happy that the show has been renewed though  

[Martini Sigil]

9 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I think that although the Duffer Bros were coy about Eleven coming back, she will definitely be back. I don't think they would be foolish enough to waste a character and actress that the audience has absolutely fallen in love with like that.

I'm really happy that the show has been renewed though  

Totally agree... I normally can't stand child actors... but my wife and I wanted to adopt Millie Brown when we saw her in the Intruders... 

 

[Fez]

I finally saw this; watched it all in two sittings on Sunday/Monday. Other than some Futurama reruns, its actually the first TV (other than live sports) that I've watched since the GoT season ended. The constant praise got me curious enough. And it was justified I think, I really, really liked this show. There were a couple times that I wished the show focused more on the central mystery, but I generally really enjoyed the showcasing of '80s Anywhere, USA. So much nostalgia.

I've read through this whole thread; lot of good theories, and I don't have much to add. I think the monster was real and existed prior to Eleven, it just didn't know about our dimension until she made contact. I also think it was hunting for reproductive reasons and maybe also for sport; I don't think it was for food. And I never got the impression that it was the only thing living in the upside-down (at the very least there's the slugs and plant life), just that it was the only large thing in that particular area of it.

I could also believe that there actually were two monsters (or more), and that the one that got Will in the beginning was not the one seen the rest of the time (which is why he wasn't killed immediately). I generally agree with the timeline of events posted earlier, except that I'm not positive that the monster and Eleven escaping happened immediately after she first made contact. For one thing, I thought the scene with the scientist gone into the portal and getting taken was flashback to before the escape. And if the escape wasn't an immediate thing, there's enough time we didn't see that there could've definitely been more than one monster getting out of there.

[PetyrPunkinhead]

I'm loving the teaser for S2. I find it reassuring that the Duffer Bros. already have the season mapped out and have titles for each episode at this point. Hopefully we see these episodes earlier in 2017 rather than later.

On 8/31/2016 at 9:16 PM, Martini Sigil said:

Totally agree... I normally can't stand child actors... but my wife and I wanted to adopt Millie Brown when we saw her in the Intruders... 

 

I've never heard of this series, but I've gotta see it now! I watched a couple of other clips on youtube and it seems like an interesting series even though it was canceled after one season. Looks like the story arc is self contained at least. And I had no idea this actress that played 11 had done anything else let alone was British.

[Martini Sigil]

Holy cow this is wonderful

[sagewich]

I binged it, and then binged it again. Wonderful. Although the clothes gave me pause - they were so awful, in the show and when we actually wore them. 

Winona's character was a bit too frantic all the time. Or maybe, as suggested, that's just Winona now. 

Looking forward to Season. And now back to Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.

[HexMachina]

On 2 September 2016 at 1:28 PM, Martini Sigil said:

Holy cow this is wonderful

This is from the full clip of the silly string game but: "Can you read?" "Can you HOST?"  

[Free Northman Reborn]

So I just finished binge watching this series, and it was awesome.

And the whole thing got me thinking. The contrast between this nostalgic, almost "innocent", Good vs Evil story, and the deluge of gritty, overly realistic, morally ambiguous, grey character obsessed stories of the current day and age is stark. And looking at the general responses from viewers  it is apparent that I was not the only one who was longing for something like this to relieve the neverending obsession with realism and cynicism that modern shows clobber us over the head with.

In articles like a recent one from the Verge, some modern smart asses try to find fault with the fact that characters like Brenner weren't fleshed out more to make them more morally ambiguous, to provide a sense of justification for their actions, but frankly, the last thing I would want is for the writers to try and do a Jaime Lannister on the main bad guy of the series.

What I'm trying to say is that for a long time now opinion seems to have been that the current trend of so called realistic characters, characterized by moral greyness to make them "more three dimensional, because 'even Hitler loved his dog", is a natural progression to a more mature level of storytelling, perhaps because audiences are less naïve than 20 years ago. And that Good vs Evil is something for young adult novels of the 80's.

Well, I can only speak for myself, I guess, but from the feedback this show has gotten, it seems to me that just maybe this current step towards depressive, almost nihilistic gritty realism is not irreversible, and that it may just be a "phase". The "good" kids, the "good single mom, with her "good" son and the ultimately "good" sheriff was a far more enjoyable and uplifting experience for me than the endless despair of Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad and all those other so called "mature" shows of this day and age.

That does not mean that all the "good" characters in Stranger Things didn't also have flaws. But ultimately, it was still utterly clear who was Good and who was Evil. And that, is something I think is missing in much of what is dished out on TV and in literature today. And I would argue, it is something that we are inherently attuned to, and craving for, despite the way in which the opinion makers  of the day talk down to those who hold such notions in this "more mature" age.

[mormont]

I think you're seeing what you want to see, there.

ST absolutely has moral ambiguity and greyness and all the characteristics of modern storytelling. It's a series set in the 80s but it's not one that would have been written in the 80s: at least, several things in it would have been done very, very differently.

For example, Hopper is a flawed character who treats women badly and sells Eleven out (though he feels bad about it). Brenner's affection for Eleven as a 'daughter' is unhealthy but real. Jonathan, in any other series would be the clear hero: his photographing Nancy would be shown as somehow romantic or something, and he'd get the girl in the end. But the series doesn't go down that road and doesn't duck the fact that what he did was creepy, not romantic. Steve does get the girl despite being a jerk for much of the series.

Every character other than the boys is a three-dimensional, flawed character. If you're looking for a simple story with no moral ambiguity, you didn't just watch one. This series is nostalgic but it isn't a throwback.

[Free Northman Reborn]

48 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think you're seeing what you want to see, there.

ST absolutely has moral ambiguity and greyness and all the characteristics of modern storytelling. It's a series set in the 80s but it's not one that would have been written in the 80s: at least, several things in it would have been done very, very differently.

For example, Hopper is a flawed character who treats women badly and sells Eleven out (though he feels bad about it). Brenner's affection for Eleven as a 'daughter' is unhealthy but real. Jonathan, in any other series would be the clear hero: his photographing Nancy would be shown as somehow romantic or something, and he'd get the girl in the end. But the series doesn't go down that road and doesn't duck the fact that what he did was creepy, not romantic. Steve does get the girl despite being a jerk for much of the series.

Every character other than the boys is a three-dimensional, flawed character. If you're looking for a simple story with no moral ambiguity, you didn't just watch one. This series is nostalgic but it isn't a throwback.

I'm afraid you're both wrong in your assessment, and misinterpreting my point (maybe because that's what you want to see in the story?)

I made a point of stating that the characters all have flaws, but these are very different from making them morally grey. Going through your randomly selected list:

Hopper carries psychological wounds from the death of his child (hence him being a flawed character who drinks too much and likely suffers from depression), but your assertion that he "treats women badly"  is simply over the top scrounging for something to portray him as morally grey. So he struggles to commit to relationships after losing his child. Hardly makes him Hannibal Lecter. None of the protagonists are Mother Theresa. But none of them are Walter Whites, Jaime Lannisters or Travis's kid from Fear the Walking Dead either.

Hopper is given an impossible choice in the end, and chooses to save the vulnerable Will (and the rest of the protagonists in the bargain) while leaving the super powered mutant Eleven to face the enemy instead. Eleven at least has a chance to fight them off, while Will has no chance without that deal. A morally grey character would make that choice to save his own skin. Hopper does it to save others, and is still clearly torn by it. His actions are heroic, and light years from the type of morally ambiguous stuff from other hit shows of today which you attempt to equate it to.

So Jonathan doesn't get the girl. How does  that make him less of a heroic character? I said the story is uplifting and "Good vs Evil", not a fairy tale. As for his photography. He admitted he shouldn't have done it. He is flawed. Which makes him real. But again, it is a small flaw, not a sign of him being a grey character. A vice of 0.5 on the Tyrion Lannister 10 point scale of protagonist "greyness".

Steve was meant to be the jerk. I read the interview with the Duffer brothers. They changed his ending partly because the actor made the character so much more fun than he was initially intended to be, and partly to deviate from the hero gets the girl expected ending. So they give Steve the girl in the end. As they said in the interview, Steve was more of a guy who hung out with the wrong crowd, and started  out being bad, before reaching a turning point late in the series. Besides, he is not one of the protagonists. He is if anything a minor antagonist who gets "turned to the side of good" by the example of the good guys.

As I said at the start, you mischaracterize my point if you suggest I'm looking for a simple story with no flawed characters. Flawed characters don't have to equate to major level moral ambiguity, however. The fact that the characters all have vices are great for characterisation. But never once does the viewer not root for all 5 kids, or for Hopper, Nancy or Winona's character. They are clearly the good guys throughout, albeit good guys with some minor flaws.

In comparative shows of the day, that is quite rare. Now, this may change in Season 2, but as a standalone the first Season of Stranger Things was a wonderful reminder of how enjoyable a true Good vs Evil story can be. And I think we need  more of it in this day and age.

EDIT

On a lighter and completely different note, how awesome was the He-Man intro that popped up when EL was surfing the TV channels? I actually re-winded and replayed that bit about three times, unable to move on, as I was transported back to my happiest childhood times. Just wonderful.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Hopper carries psychological wounds from the death of his child (hence him being a flawed character who drinks too much and likely suffers from depression), but your assertion that he "treats women badly"  is simply over the top scrounging for something to portray him as morally grey. So he struggles to commit to relationships after losing his child. Hardly makes him Hannibal Lecter. None of the protagonists are Mother Theresa. But none of them are Walter Whites, Jaime Lannisters or Travis's kid from Fear the Walking Dead either.

One might even say they're morally grey. There are, after all, shades of grey: Walter White is a very dark shade, for example. But that doesn't mean Hopper isn't a lighter shade of grey. He absolutely is.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

A morally grey character would make that choice to save his own skin.

You seem confused here between 'morally grey' and 'evil and selfish'. A morally grey character will often be portrayed as saving others by doing morally questionable things themselves.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As I said at the start, you mischaracterize my point if you suggest I'm looking for a simple story with no flawed characters. Flawed characters don't have to equate to major level moral ambiguity, however. The fact that the characters all have vices are great for characterisation. But never once does the viewer not root for all 5 kids, or for Hopper, Nancy or Winona's character. They are clearly the good guys throughout, albeit good guys with some minor flaws.

In comparative shows of the day, that is quite rare. Now, this may change in Season 2, but as a standalone the first Season of Stranger Things was a wonderful reminder of how enjoyable a true Good vs Evil story can be. And I think we need  more of it in this day and age.

As I understand your point, your point is that ST doesn't have that modern sensibility that you dislike. But it absolutely does. Those flaws you mention are things that would not have featured in a series that was actually written in the 80s: writers of that era would have gone in different directions. Each of the things I cited is an example of modernity in the writing.

I'd also note that if you think that true Good vs Evil stories with protagonists you can root for are rare these days, you're simply wrong.

[Free Northman Reborn]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

One might even say they're morally grey. There are, after all, shades of grey: Walter White is a very dark shade, for example. But that doesn't mean Hopper isn't a lighter shade of grey. He absolutely is.

You seem confused here between 'morally grey' and 'evil and selfish'. A morally grey character will often be portrayed as saving others by doing morally questionable things themselves.

As I understand your point, your point is that ST doesn't have that modern sensibility that you dislike. But it absolutely does. Those flaws you mention are things that would not have featured in a series that was actually written in the 80s: writers of that era would have gone in different directions. Each of the things I cited is an example of modernity in the writing.

I'd also note that if you think that true Good vs Evil stories with protagonists you can root for are rare these days, you're simply wrong.

Well, all I can say is that it is a refreshingly uplifting story in the horror genre, compared to the "gritty" moral relativism of shows like Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. And the association of Protagonist with Good, and Antagonist with Evil is much stronger in Stranger Things, than in other modern shows like Game of Thrones, for example, where a fundamental aspect of the narrative is getting you to constantly question where exactly various protagonists stand in terms of these two sides, or even who exactly should be defined as protagonists vs antagonists as time goes by.

 

[First of My Name]

Just finished the first season and really enjoyed it. Being a 90's kid the nostalgia aspect that many seem to have loved was mostly lost on me, but the show has plenty of other things going for it. The first two episodes scared me more than... pretty much every horror movie I remember watching.

I can see why someone would find Rider over the top in this role but I personally thought her performance was great. The part with the Christmas lights and phone calls might be my favorite.

[Unlady B]

I just finished it and loved it. I was trying to avoid watching it because I didn't want to engage myself with the first season of a long running series. Sadly, now I can't wait till 2017 for next season. The good thing is that the season didn't end with a killer cliffhanger nor a complicated set up of story arcs for future seasons (for example, season 1 of GoT). Of all things, most of the events that happened in the story had a sort of resolution at the end, though not very specified.

The soundtrack is just awesome. The opening is one of the best ones I've heard in a while. Idk why it made me remember the opening song of Drive (2011), and the font to the Choose Your Own Adventure books.

Regarding to the plot and the theories, I'm also curious about Eleven's name. Where are the other numbers? What happened to all the people in the original experiment? Was this lab the only place this kind of experiments took place? It seemed El was the only kid kept in there, but I kinda doubt after getting her as a result of an experiment the scientists wouldn't try to replicate the results with other pregnant women.

It caught my attention that when El was asked if Will was held by the "bads", El said no (I know she referred that he was not being held by the feds, but by the monster). For a while I thought the demogorgon was not evil and it and El were something of the same kind, only that El was the "tamed" one. For what we end up knowing, the demogorgon was living happily in the upside down till he was contacted. When we see El spying the russians, I immediatly thought "if this is set in the Cold War and the USA has El, what does the USSR have?". El's powers were known for years, and probably she wasn't the only one (my theory).

Finally, two short comments: I got bothered by that science teacher :/ More than Mr Clark he was Mr Google.                               

The other one is that I'm not 100% sure if it's stated in the story or if it's something I imagined: Is Hop a former resident of the Town? I thought he knew Joyce from before.

 

 

 

[karaddin]

I don't think its "before", I think its between his daughter dying and the events of the show. His marriage flamed out, he became an alcoholic and moved to the country town, and my read was that he and Joyce had had a (probaly brief) relationship. He semed familiar with her relationship issues with the boys father beyond what the town cop would know, but in line with an ex-boyfriend, not to mention the right attitude for that to be why he knew as well.