bpb99
Joined Feb 2022
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews69
bpb99's rating
My opinions of this show is positive - however there are few other positive reviews I actually agree with.
This show is borderline bad, but it has some sort of unspoken magic that makes watchable. It is fully passable entertainment, however to me it is bottom of the barrel. I only even bothered watching it because I had literally nothing else to watch. If there was anything new out I would probably choose that over this - and even after watching it I stand by it.
The part I find most interesting about this show is its best features are also its worse, or vice versa. The characters. For some reason there is a certain magic between some of the cast and combination of characters they chose. However it is almost like they selected each and every character and slowly, or quickly, ruined them.
The plot and narrative seems to lose its steam after the first season or maybe the second. By the third season it feels as if its totally lost any sort of direction, story or meaning. There are definitely some nice and/or feel good stories throughout the show but they seem to become fewer and further between.
The characters.. boy is that ever one to unpack.
From the totally unbelievable yet somehow loveable Ted - I mean really, is there anyone like this human on this earth? Doubtful. It's not even the kindness, or unending positivity that is the part that's not believable - its the persona of Ted himself. He is dumb most of the time, but then randomly well learned and smart about a subject whenever it suits the plot. The (totally random) baking of biscuits somehow feels it fits somewhere in this camp as well. Another part I found cheap or random was the use of alcohol in this show. They seem to put a lot of emphasis on characters consumption of alcohol, however it rarely ever has any consequences.. Like Teds day drinking for example. They made sure we noticed it, but he wasn't drunk, it wasn't a negative character trait, it was just a random placement. And if so then why? It just adds to this unbelievability of this character. It doesn't seem in line with Teds persona they have attempted to create.
Other notable mentions would be the total random flipflop of the Nate character, to the increasingly annoying and repetitive aspect of Roy, to the coaches assistant with the beard who becomes more boring the more he says, the projects d-bag that randomly becomes the nice guy. It is quite literally the biggest mess of character 'development' I have seen in such a highly positively rated show.
The overwhelming feeling I get of this show is 'sitcom comedy' where it provides hours of watching for tiny glimpses of passable comedy and where certain episodes have good plots and others do not. The ratio seems to get worse as the show proceeds with the first season being best, second being behind and the third becoming somewhat boring. It seems to be a 'single story' per episode similar to a sitcom, however with much more backstory being required to know being the only real difference.
This show is borderline bad, but it has some sort of unspoken magic that makes watchable. It is fully passable entertainment, however to me it is bottom of the barrel. I only even bothered watching it because I had literally nothing else to watch. If there was anything new out I would probably choose that over this - and even after watching it I stand by it.
The part I find most interesting about this show is its best features are also its worse, or vice versa. The characters. For some reason there is a certain magic between some of the cast and combination of characters they chose. However it is almost like they selected each and every character and slowly, or quickly, ruined them.
The plot and narrative seems to lose its steam after the first season or maybe the second. By the third season it feels as if its totally lost any sort of direction, story or meaning. There are definitely some nice and/or feel good stories throughout the show but they seem to become fewer and further between.
The characters.. boy is that ever one to unpack.
From the totally unbelievable yet somehow loveable Ted - I mean really, is there anyone like this human on this earth? Doubtful. It's not even the kindness, or unending positivity that is the part that's not believable - its the persona of Ted himself. He is dumb most of the time, but then randomly well learned and smart about a subject whenever it suits the plot. The (totally random) baking of biscuits somehow feels it fits somewhere in this camp as well. Another part I found cheap or random was the use of alcohol in this show. They seem to put a lot of emphasis on characters consumption of alcohol, however it rarely ever has any consequences.. Like Teds day drinking for example. They made sure we noticed it, but he wasn't drunk, it wasn't a negative character trait, it was just a random placement. And if so then why? It just adds to this unbelievability of this character. It doesn't seem in line with Teds persona they have attempted to create.
Other notable mentions would be the total random flipflop of the Nate character, to the increasingly annoying and repetitive aspect of Roy, to the coaches assistant with the beard who becomes more boring the more he says, the projects d-bag that randomly becomes the nice guy. It is quite literally the biggest mess of character 'development' I have seen in such a highly positively rated show.
The overwhelming feeling I get of this show is 'sitcom comedy' where it provides hours of watching for tiny glimpses of passable comedy and where certain episodes have good plots and others do not. The ratio seems to get worse as the show proceeds with the first season being best, second being behind and the third becoming somewhat boring. It seems to be a 'single story' per episode similar to a sitcom, however with much more backstory being required to know being the only real difference.
I think this should could end up being alright, there is just nothing about this show that justifies a weekly release schedule though. As for now, that aspect really detracts from the show for me.
Otherwise it is cute, fresh and entertaining. The children actors are a bit.. over the top, like they are only taking inspiration out of stranger things, but they aren't bad at all. They are all individually leagues above Amandla Stenberg from Acolyte.
The weekly release feels extremely slow and the episodes feel very short. The show just doesn't feel good enough or gripping enough to make you want to have to wait or to come back every week. I'd rather just wait for the whole show to be released because it feels as though it needs to be watched back to back. I think the weekly release has this strange effect of cheapening the show, by highlighting how little content Disney has coming. Like it feels pretty apparent this would have been released all at once if there was anything good ready to be released, but everything else is months if not years away so they need to prologue every single thing they made.
Early impressions feel a lot like a movie that they just clipped down into individual episodes, where there is just something about them that don't feel like a full tv episode. It's like something is missing to make it complete and as is just seems to end abruptly. As if it was a movie that they just clipped.
Otherwise it is cute, fresh and entertaining. The children actors are a bit.. over the top, like they are only taking inspiration out of stranger things, but they aren't bad at all. They are all individually leagues above Amandla Stenberg from Acolyte.
The weekly release feels extremely slow and the episodes feel very short. The show just doesn't feel good enough or gripping enough to make you want to have to wait or to come back every week. I'd rather just wait for the whole show to be released because it feels as though it needs to be watched back to back. I think the weekly release has this strange effect of cheapening the show, by highlighting how little content Disney has coming. Like it feels pretty apparent this would have been released all at once if there was anything good ready to be released, but everything else is months if not years away so they need to prologue every single thing they made.
Early impressions feel a lot like a movie that they just clipped down into individual episodes, where there is just something about them that don't feel like a full tv episode. It's like something is missing to make it complete and as is just seems to end abruptly. As if it was a movie that they just clipped.
Obviously this documentary discusses and attempt to teach us about an important issue that effects everyone. I don't think many people will argue about that.
I should also note a disclaimer, I could not get through the entire film. I just found the presentation style so totally boring and condescending and otherwise useless I had to shut it off.
The problem is in the way they attempt to achieve this. They get industry 'experts' to basically explain how they were apart of it, without ever really specifying any tactics. There's a certain vagueness that makes the information almost useless. Also considering who the message is coming from.. I wouldn't call it disingenuous since they may really have changed their hearts, but definitely hypocritical considering some of these people caused the problem they are essentially complaining about. The information they provide doesn't make up for that in the slightest.
The part that bugged me most is this extreme level of vagueness in terms of not condemning anybody in specific, while at the same time just blaming 'everyone'. They won't even put a definition on what they consider to be 'overconsumption' or the buy now mindset. They will vaguely mention thing such as how brands are now creating new styles for monthly basis instead of a biannually. Or a specific example of how many 'new items' certain brands are creating.
It's like the want to make everyone feel at fault. Which is fair, but then without telling anyone where they are going wrong. Like what is a specific circumstance of overconsuming?
They got the one guy (the adidas guy i think) saying how nobody needs anything basically.. Well that is obviously untrue - and there is very clearly certain levels to this.. Not everyone consumes or 'wastes' at the same level. Some people are full in mindless consumers. Where others do try to make conscious decisions, however some information from executives on how they trick us to 'buy more' would be helpful in order to not fall for that.
So my shoes never get a hole in the bottom? Same with my socks? Even my sweatpants. Hell even blue jeans worn and washed enough eventually will begin to fall apart. You can make the argument people should do more thrift shopping but instead they just make the blanket statement 'Nobody needs anything ever'. Also if you do decide you no longer need something (anything), what is it you do with that item? Do you try to sell it, donate it? Recycle it in the proper way? Or do you just chuck it in the trash? They just want to make it seem like we are all one and one for all. Its ridiculous.
So they provide no information for the people who might be willing to actually make a change, to the people who would actually sit down to watch this. While mindlessly condemning the mindless people who wouldn't be watching, and even if they did it would go in one ear and out the other.
They feel as if they need the very worst mental examples in order to get their point across but then never actually put two and two together with real life, or in a relatable way.
I should also note a disclaimer, I could not get through the entire film. I just found the presentation style so totally boring and condescending and otherwise useless I had to shut it off.
The problem is in the way they attempt to achieve this. They get industry 'experts' to basically explain how they were apart of it, without ever really specifying any tactics. There's a certain vagueness that makes the information almost useless. Also considering who the message is coming from.. I wouldn't call it disingenuous since they may really have changed their hearts, but definitely hypocritical considering some of these people caused the problem they are essentially complaining about. The information they provide doesn't make up for that in the slightest.
The part that bugged me most is this extreme level of vagueness in terms of not condemning anybody in specific, while at the same time just blaming 'everyone'. They won't even put a definition on what they consider to be 'overconsumption' or the buy now mindset. They will vaguely mention thing such as how brands are now creating new styles for monthly basis instead of a biannually. Or a specific example of how many 'new items' certain brands are creating.
It's like the want to make everyone feel at fault. Which is fair, but then without telling anyone where they are going wrong. Like what is a specific circumstance of overconsuming?
They got the one guy (the adidas guy i think) saying how nobody needs anything basically.. Well that is obviously untrue - and there is very clearly certain levels to this.. Not everyone consumes or 'wastes' at the same level. Some people are full in mindless consumers. Where others do try to make conscious decisions, however some information from executives on how they trick us to 'buy more' would be helpful in order to not fall for that.
So my shoes never get a hole in the bottom? Same with my socks? Even my sweatpants. Hell even blue jeans worn and washed enough eventually will begin to fall apart. You can make the argument people should do more thrift shopping but instead they just make the blanket statement 'Nobody needs anything ever'. Also if you do decide you no longer need something (anything), what is it you do with that item? Do you try to sell it, donate it? Recycle it in the proper way? Or do you just chuck it in the trash? They just want to make it seem like we are all one and one for all. Its ridiculous.
So they provide no information for the people who might be willing to actually make a change, to the people who would actually sit down to watch this. While mindlessly condemning the mindless people who wouldn't be watching, and even if they did it would go in one ear and out the other.
They feel as if they need the very worst mental examples in order to get their point across but then never actually put two and two together with real life, or in a relatable way.