Guys. The second season is much better. Trust me. Much less about the dance.

@felixxx999 said:

Guys. The second season is much better. Trust me. Much less about the dance.

Much less about humans doing the dance. I wonder if tiny and big robots doing the dance will set people off. If that doesn't do it, something else will. People love to criticize!

@Kewl_Kat said:

People love to criticize!

On the contrary. I feel quite bad criticizing the OA because there's clearly been a lot of effort and good intentions put into it.

If it's lazy, generic drivel produced just to make money like soap operas and reality TV then, yeah, I confess I do love to criticize.

@felixxx999 said:

Guys. The second season is much better. Trust me. Much less about the dance.

Thanks. The more I hear about it the more I'm being swayed.

@Kewl_Kat said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

All interesting. But the "supernatural" elements of the OA are not what I have a problem with. I like the metaphysical stuff and there is much in the show to praise. It's merely the method by which the metaphysical stuff comes in to play that's my issue.

Like, if I join an aerobics class tomorrow, is there a chance that if we do a specific routine that we'll all suddenly get zapped back in time? Or turn into elephants?

Many of these other supernatural shows or movies you refer to will have some sort of plot device or maguffin that triggers the supernatural element. And these devices will work within the context of the movie. A Delorean in Back to the Future, an angel in It's a Wonderful Life, etc.

The OA presents itself as very grounded right from the start. This is indie cinema as tv show. And there would be something that would be a believable trigger for it's cosmic side. But interpretive dance isn't it.

Interpretive dance isn't for you. You have made that clear. But at least it was original. Have you ever seen this sort of thing presented in a show or movie? Sometimes we get to a point that if there isn't an expected formula or outcome, we criticize. I get a little bored with same old crap over and over again. OK, the moves were ridiculous. I get it. But ultimately, so what? In The OA world, they work. Just like the Delorean with a magical flux capacitor works in that world. Furthermore, there are actually plenty of people who think the crazy moves are neato. Different strokes for different folks.

Yes, someone got more creative here. Too many shows are slightly modified versions of old shows, just a new coat of paint on them. Are the writers lazy or just scared of trying something new? How many monsters in films use that 'smaller mouth coming out of a bigger mouth' special effect first seen in alien? Another example is the 'black oil' alien life form I first saw in the X Files. Since then I've seen it in several shows, the latest being Dark Matter. Perhaps the writers on that one were inspired by the series title, I don't know, but I am sick of the black oil life form.
(I guess it's not really the writers who are at fault here. I think the big wigs are the ones who filter out the more original content. They are investing their money in the production and are trying to hedge their bets by sticking to a formula which has worked in the past. But it makes it boring or worse many times. ) So I kind of give extra credit for writers who take a stab at being original.

By the way, I noticed that I tend to log on and write comments about things which bug me about a show much more than I post things about things I like. I don't know why that is.

@write2topcat said:

(I guess it's not really the writers who are at fault here. I think the big wigs are the ones who filter out the more original content. They are investing their money in the production and are trying to hedge their bets by sticking to a formula which has worked in the past. But it makes it boring or worse many times. )

While I'm sure you are right, I don't quite understand why they do that. Back in the 90s that kind of mentality was clearly very rewarding for them. But we're living in the golden age of tv now. Creativity is all the rage and shows that take risks tend to be the ones that do well. But yes we still see shows that stick rigidly to formula.

Yes

@JustinJackFlash said:

@write2topcat said:

(I guess it's not really the writers who are at fault here. I think the big wigs are the ones who filter out the more original content. They are investing their money in the production and are trying to hedge their bets by sticking to a formula which has worked in the past. But it makes it boring or worse many times. )

While I'm sure you are right, I don't quite understand why they do that. Back in the 90s that kind of mentality was clearly very rewarding for them. But we're living in the golden age of tv now. Creativity is all the rage and shows that take risks tend to be the ones that do well. But yes we still see shows that stick rigidly to formula.

It's been this way for a long time I think. The investors are looking for a sure thing, a good bet on recouping their investment. It's why there are so many sequels to successful movies, and why there are so many knockoffs. On the one hand I can understand why it's that way. If I thought about investing all my savings in a motion picture, I would want some kind of assurance that it was a smart investment. Investing in the first or second Rocky sequel wouldn't be much of a risk; you know there is an audience which loves the concept and the actors. And I guess they look at TV shows in the same way. Is there a proven audience for this kind of show? Does this format work? Is this plot popular? etc.

But viewers now have a much greater selection of shows, and this allows them to provide more data to the investors. With so many networks now, it has expanded the volume of shows being made, and the writers had to start innovating more I think. And viewers responded, making some innovators successful. And that's a good thing. Like you said, we see a greater range of creativity now. I don't know the stats, but some of the new stuff has done well.

I still think old habits are hard to break, and older investors may be stuck in the old way of looking at things. I invested in a film and lost my money once; there was a competing film being done at the time and mine never made it, so all investors lost their seed money. So I can understand cautious investors.

@write2topcat said:

It's been this way for a long time I think. The investors are looking for a sure thing, a good bet on recouping their investment. It's why there are so many sequels to successful movies, and why there are so many knockoffs. On the one hand I can understand why it's that way. If I thought about investing all my savings in a motion picture, I would want some kind of assurance that it was a smart investment.

Yes, it's interesting how we and the public will all repeatedly tell the studios how stupid they are for constantly releasing soulless, expensive, cgi-driven blockbuster sequels. Because from their point of view when they release an empty, effects heavy film and it makes them millions, they'd be stupid not to make a sequel.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@write2topcat said:

It's been this way for a long time I think. The investors are looking for a sure thing, a good bet on recouping their investment. It's why there are so many sequels to successful movies, and why there are so many knockoffs. On the one hand I can understand why it's that way. If I thought about investing all my savings in a motion picture, I would want some kind of assurance that it was a smart investment.

Yes, it's interesting how we and the public will all repeatedly tell the studios how stupid they are for constantly releasing soulless, expensive, cgi-driven blockbuster sequels. Because from their point of view when they release an empty, effects heavy film and it makes them millions, they'd be stupid not to make a sequel.

I wish there were a way we could give them input other than by the ratings system and movie sales figures. I don't know that I can really articulate my views, likes, dislikes, well enough in terms which make sense to them. I don't know the industry terms and language, so if there were a way to get through to them, I guess it would pay me to educate myself more on that subject.
I know they cannot give our their email address and ask tens of millions of viewers to critique their work; they could never even read them all. And frankly, most of those emails would be useless to them.
I'm not really sure how interested they are in our views. Perhaps among the big wigs, there are a few curious, intellectual, and service minded people who would be interested. But there are certainly things I would love to tell them.

I find it difficult to make out what actors are saying in some situations. Recently I watched a show in which one character had a habit of speaking in low volume, like a strong whisper, and worse, he didn't fully enunciate his words. OK, fine there are people who speak that way. But the background music was louder than the guy speaking.
As a viewer trying to follow the story, it is frustrating. I have to quickly amp up the volume on my set to pick out his words over the background noise. But that creates another problem when camera cuts away to an action scene with much louder volume.

I don't know why, but it seems producers nearly always amp up the background music during certain scenes. It is their method for inducing emotional responses from the audience, whether fear, surprise, excitement, sadness, etc. The range of volumes in a show can be quite extreme. I have just turned up the volume in order to hear a Mr. Whisper above the background noise, and then the scene changes to an action sequence, and the volume changes dramatically, with background music blaring well above even the shouted voices.
That can actually hurt my ears sometimes.
That induces an emotional response, but not the one they were shooting for.

@JustinJackFlash said: Like, if I join an aerobics class tomorrow, is there a chance that if we do a specific routine that we'll all suddenly get zapped back in time? Or turn into elephants?

Many of these other supernatural shows or movies you refer to will have some sort of plot device or maguffin that triggers the supernatural element. And these devices will work within the context of the movie. A Delorean in Back to the Future, an angel in It's a Wonderful Life, etc.

spoilers

O M G. How is 88mph + a lightning bolt any more scientific than a dance. In fact, it's worse. At least in The OA, the science is a tool of religious beliefs. And dance, tribal behaviour, angels, gatekeepers of souls - they all fit the religious. Cause it's not the multiverse they're describing - it's the human-centric fringe version of it: that every time a "human makes an important decision, a new universe is forked". That's not science, that's human centric religion, analog to "the sun revolves around the earth".

And that's where The OA was strong in: mixing pseudo science with religion and they took it to the next level in season 2. Crowdsourcing and big data on predictive dreams. Robots to do the dancing (the same "hail mary and 20 our fathers" automation that the catholic church has to wash away your sins). But ultimately, it's willpower / faith that controls the magic: that's religion in a nutshell. Rules, good vs bad, repetition and yes, dance, but it's all secondary to the "faith".

As for the original question: had I seen this, when it came out, I'd feel really cheated after season 1. Like watching an 8 hour movie, with really weird things happening, waiting for an explanation of it all and in the final 5 minutes, the person wakes up from a dream and starts making pancakes. But the real disappointment of course is that it sets up a really good season 3 that never got released.

@vylmen said:

O M G. How is 88mph + a lightning bolt any more scientific than a dance.

88mph + a lightning bolt + a flux capacitor.