566: "A Most Extraordinary Conclusion"

[Frodo]

I think the point is the 8 week promotion raised everyone's hopes to an un-realistic level. From the beginning I questioned the wisdom of such a move, and the result is reactions like this. Yes, Eugene returning is something big, but it would've been much more of a shock if the 8 week promotion hadn't happened.

-Jonathan

I agree

Indeed, but it was still worth some of the hype.

Not really...what was the Biblical point? What was the point?

[Jonathan]

Not really...what was the Biblical point? What was the point?

Prayer should be the focus of our troubles. And you just proved one of the points I made earlier: while it was good this was included, it was too little and too late. Not that they weren't good episodes, but there was room for improvement.

-Jonathan

[rachelavonlea]

First of all, it's gratifying to hear from fellow Odyssey fans who thought I raised valid points about "Something Big".

Then there was the girl who called my honest review "extremely unfair", and that it was "cynicism gone overboard, perhaps", and, in the (same!) post said to me "gotta love how easy it is to be negative".
Boy, I felt like inch tall after reading that!

My answer to her is 1. my review had to be honest. I am not going to lie and say it was great when it was not
2. I wanted to see if others felt the same
3. it was written to those who take AIO seriously enough to listen to arguments calling a episode poorly made
4. I live in a free country where it is OK to disagree

I did put a lot of thought and time in my review of parts 2 & 3, as I did way back in my review of Part 1. However, she didn't mention that review. Maybe because it was a positive one?
-------------------
Moving on,
Now that we have all the answers to SB: What do you think of the mysterious clues?

**beware, honest opinions coming up, do not read if you can't take it*

1. The clues featuring pictures with audio links are a moot point so I wont mention them
2. The gradually appearing picture with the gang was absolute drivel. The fact that we had to wait weeks to see the whole thing is... well, who on earth thought that could possibly be a clue, or even interesting? Why blackout parts that if revealed, would not be damaging in the least? Also, I really want to know what the whole point about the scary swirl to the right was all about? I guess no one will ever tell us what it meant.
3. The empty room? What was that about?
The flash of light? What was that about?
Eugene revealed after the flash of light? What was that about?
4. The Alex blog 'clue':
Alex???What was that about?
The boxes Whit was moving? What was that about? They never said. We could only guess it was supplies for the cabin.
I thought from the beginning that the grandkids thing could be a deadend clue, but still what was that all about?

Shouldn't these 'clues' be explained now that the whole thing is over? Shouldn't even a fan be able to solve them now? It's so ironic that the page said "Click here to solve the mystery (of the clues)!", because even when we see it is Eugene, the 'clues' were not solved. Even now when we supposedly know all there is to know about SB, the clues still are mysteries and/or are still pointless.

Arrhh!! AIO is pulling my hair out one by one!

Have a otherwise pleasant day,
BTW, I loved 2friends&atruck!! I am not entirely negative! ,

R.

[Jonathan]

The clues weren't supposed to give us info, they were to tease us enough to the point where we had to listen on April 2nd. The question should be, would the three parter have been better off without the 8 week promotion?

-Jonathan

[rachelavonlea]

The clues weren't supposed to give us info, they were to tease us ...
-Jonathan

No, no, no, Jonathan! You're missing my point! What the clues were supposed to produce is not what I am driving at. It is the clues themselves I am trying to figure out.

No matter what they were created to do, they still have to make sense. When they were coming out, I didn't know what they meant. But I was expecting to find out one day!

And by now we all should know what was going on in the clues. Why they were what they were. How they made sense after we saw the whole picture. In the instances I note above, We (or I) am still clueless-figuratively and literally about their meaning!

BTW: Read what the word 'clue' means: Main Entry: 1clue
Pronunciation: 'klü
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of clew
: something that guides through an intricate procedure or maze of difficulties; specifically : a piece of evidence that leads one toward the solution of a problem

I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not the clues were clues!

R.

[Chandler]

First of all, it's gratifying to hear from fellow Odyssey fans who thought I raised valid points about "Something Big".

I love listening to what you have to say. Your insight is great and it shows you put some thought into it.

Then there was the girl who called my honest review "extremely unfair", and that it was "cynicism gone overboard, perhaps", and, in the (same!) post said to me "gotta love how easy it is to be negative".
Boy, I felt like inch tall after reading that!

I know how that feels. Dont' take it to heart... people are going to have different opinions about the show and some people don't like negativity so they may not jump up and down when they see what you wrote. However I liked reading your evaluation anyway because you meant what you said. I can decide whether or not I want to agree anyway.

[Jonathan]

The clues weren't supposed to give us info, they were to tease us ...
-Jonathan

No, no, no, Jonathan! You're missing my point!

hehe, it's not often I'm challenged like this, and will state my thoughts based on yours.

What the clues were supposed to produce is not what I am driving at. It is the clues themselves I am trying to figure out.

No matter what they were created to do, they still have to make sense. When they were coming out, I didn't know what they meant. But I was expecting to find out one day!

And by now we all should know what was going on in the clues. Why they were what they were. How they made sense after we saw the whole picture. In the instances I note above, We (or I) am still clueless-figuratively and literally about their meaning!

I agree completly with what you said. However, you seem to have also missed my point.

Since they weren't supposed to tell us anything this might explain why they a)made no sense and b)aren't explainable. It shouldn't have to be this way, but it is.

Therefore, yes, they shouldn't have been called clues. But Whitsend.org called them that to, as I said before, garner our interest.

I was, however, greatly disappointed as you were. For one, Whit's Grandkids were mentioned, something many Odyssey fans have been calling for for some time. And then, nothing.

In short, I agree, you just misunderstood my post.

Part of the problem is that the promotion, in retrospect (now that we have this dilemma of un-explained "clues") was aimed toward 10 year olds. What the Odyssey team forgot is that there are a lot of people outside of the target age range who also were interested in this promotion, in Eugene coming back. It's the same thing that has plauged the last many years of episodes; the AIO team has lost some of it's ability to reach to all ages. It is not the 8-12 year olds who wrote the emotional emails and letters to FOTF (sure some kids did, but not as passoinate ones as the older crowd). It is not the 8-12 year olds who wrote elaborate messages on boards like this.

I believe I've made my point, and agree with you that, as you said in your review, whitsend.org promotions can't be trusted. At least, for the older crowd.

As Dan Shane said, kinda stinks that I grew up.

-Jonathan

[serrebi]

Maybe the clues were not for the something big campane? Like they were posted before that, but maybe they were ideas that would be used in the not so distant future?
I know this might not make sence, but why not? They brought Eugene back after fans requesting a lot, so why not Whit's Grandchildrin etc?

[Jonathan]

Maybe the clues were not for the something big campane? Like they were posted before that, but maybe they were ideas that would be used in the not so distant future?
I know this might not make sence, but why not? They brought Eugene back after fans requesting a lot, so why not Whit's Grandchildrin etc?

Trust me on this one, the clues were for "Something Big". The link to that page at the official site said "Something Big is Happening". The entry for A Most Intruiging Question at www.aiohq.com also confirms it.

-Jonathan

[Frodo]

As Dan Shane said, kinda stinks that I grew up.

-Jonathan

[shasta]

Then there was the girl who called my honest review "extremely unfair", and that it was "cynicism gone overboard, perhaps", and, in the (same!) post said to me "gotta love how easy it is to be negative".

Glad you saw my comments. And it's KING shasta, by the way, so that'd be a guy (unless the "girl" comment was meant as a jab, which I can take.)

OK, bottom line: I stand by comments, cos the review did seem unfair. But I definitely didn't mean to make anyone "feel an inch tall" or anything... as you say, it's a free country. We can disagree here and not take it too personal, right?

Check out Shadowpaw's extensive review for a counterpoint:
http://www.aiosf.com He criticizes at times, but does so while respecting all the work that went into it.

Because your review was so early in the "Conclusion" thread, other fans followed suit and thought "Maybe it wasn't so good...."

You can bet the AIO writers spent time on the 3-parter (didn't someone say it went through 30+ drafts?) and labored over directing, editing, et. al. It could've been better. But it's still worth praising, not bashing.

> 1. my review had to be honest. I am not going to lie and say
> it was great when it was not
Fair enough.

> 2. I wanted to see if others felt the same
That's why the boards are here, makes sense.

> 3. it was written to those who take AIO seriously enough to listen
> to arguments calling a episode poorly made
I respond to this below.

> 4. I live in a free country where it is OK to disagree
Yep, absolutely. And by posting it in an open forum, you allow it to be scrutinized.

So.... with the request that you please read http://www.aiosf.com 's review before going on, here are the excerpts in question...

I cannot believe their weak writing, and all the times they wasted gem moments while drawing out nonsensical ones. The pathetic writing, and consequent lacking storyline especially floored me...

This is where "Extremely unfair" comes in.

In a world-class mix-up, a confused AIO illiterate flunky mailed the wrong script to the voices of Eugene, et all.

This "world-class mix-up" thing seems insulting to the hard-working AIO team.

> 3. it was written to those who take AIO seriously enough
> to listen to arguments calling a episode poorly made
I agree that there are times to call an episode "poorly made" -- I didn't like "Think on These Things" myself. But the tone in this review went a little extreme...

...I feel an inner gag even thinking about listening to part 2 again...

...Completely predictable, and a stale storyline...

...Which shows the unusually poor effort they put into the last two episodes...

...Mr. Writer, you knew this material sucked. Why did you write the whole script on a scrap of paper while waiting for your wife to be done shopping? Haven’t we been good fans to you?...

...Come on, please. We are not all elementary aged out here!...

...Which raises another illogical point...

...It is plastic and unbelievable...

...No, it’s just that the writers didn’t take the time...

... here is another eye roller...

...I don’t have a lot of trust in whitend.org promotions anymore. They promised, and they didn’t deliver.

The material speaks for itself.

Certainly the reviews of 2F&T and "Intriguing Question" (which I did read) were well-thought, well-written, etc. But this one was still overboard, and I object mainly because it had a negative impact on others' opinions.

Have a pleasant day!
Sincerely yours,
-shasta

[Jonathan]

But this one was still overboard, and I object mainly because it had a negative impact on others' opinions.

I want to go on record by saying it didn't affect my review in the least b/c 1. I start writing my reviews on Thursday nights and 2. I didn't read hers until just the other day.

-Jonathan

[Chandler]

But this one was still overboard, and I object mainly because it had a negative impact on others' opinions.

I want to go on record by saying it didn't affect my review in the least b/c 1. I start writing my reviews on Thursday nights and 2. I didn't read hers until just the other day.

He does have a point though... Whether or not anyone intends that, it's possible for an early negative tone to be picked up an carried. When someone writes such an informative review as Rachel did some people might hesistate to disagree too much. It's not really a conscious thing...

[rachelavonlea]

OK, bottom line: I stand by comments -Shasta

And I stand by mine. Firmly. There would have been more positive comments in my review if there were more positive scenes in the episodes.

If a whole batch of cookies burn to a crisp, you cannot say the cook did his best and that some of them were pretty good, when it's not true.

He may have tried to make them good, he may have cooked thousands of great tasting cookies before, but it's clear he didn't this time.

I did say the writers usually create "sky scraping" episodes. I did note some scenes I thought were fine. I did say I loved part one immensely. I was as fair as the material allowed. It was fair to say it stunk, if it did!

FYI, I did read shadowpaw's review as soon as it came out.

I apologize that I called you a girl, I made an innocent mistake based on the name. I certainly wouldn't call anyone a girl as an insult. Leave 'King' in it next time, OK?

As for influencing others, well that cannot be helped by anyone here. All words have the chance of influencing others opinions. That is the point of discussion. If I wrote a super-long positive review early on, would you berate me like you did for influencing others opinions positively? It truly seems as if you are the unfair one here.

By the way, you just said "I object mainly because it had a negative impact on others' opinions", but in your original post condemning mine, where do you say this? Read:

I thought this review was extremely unfair ... The expression "Missing the forest for the trees" comes to mind -- so caught in the details that you miss the wonder of what's there.

rachelavonlea wrote:

‘It’s Maude on the phone.”
This is the worst scene. It is worthless to storyline. It is not funny. It is not serious. It makes Bernard look like a half-wit, and his wife half that. Which is pretty bad. It also makes this episode, well, half-witted.


I loved this scene! Great way to get all the main characters involved, and tell exposition (which needed to be done) while still lending some humor to it. Cynicism gone overboard, perhaps?

rachelavonlea wrote:

don't trust whitsend.org promotions any more.


If Eugene coming back isn't "Something Big", I don't know what is. Gotta love how easy it is to be negative.

-shasta

PLUS, like I said before everyone's posts have the power to affect others But don't forget everyone can, and does, make up his/her own mind about whether they agree.

You prove my point. Obviously you didn't let my review change your own opinion.

That’s the way it should be.

And I did feel an inch tall after reading your original post. If I insulted you like you did me, I suppose you would feel an inch tall too.

Insults gone overboard, perhaps Shasta? Missing the point completely, Shasta?
Gotta love how easy it is to be negative, Shasta! Extremly unfair, Shasta!

Feeling all good and fair with the above comments, Shasta? It was not my intention to insult you right now. Just throwing the ball back. Do you understand how I felt a little better?

-R.

[rachelavonlea]

Certainly the reviews of 2F&T and "Intriguing Question" (which I did read) were well-thought, well-written, etc. But this one was still overboard, and I object mainly because it had a negative impact on others' opinions.

And, regarding this, cannot you see how biased and thus unfair your words are? You praise my other two (positive) reviews as "well-thought, well-written", but only object to the one that is negative-because it is negative! It too was well thought out, and I have been told, well-written as well.

I'm sorry, but you are in the wrong here. In MY opinion. Which I can legally have. Even if it isn’t as positive as you'd like it to be!

Have a pleasant day too,

Rachel

[David Harley]

I've lost track of both of you, and if you want to continue having this discussion, do it in pm.

[Shadowpaw]

I was not going to step in and say something but you've left me little choice.

Rachel, I can't believe the attitude you are displaying here. You were incredibly disrespectful to the writers in your post about part two and now you are being disrespectful to other members of this board. I understand Shasta and you don't see eye to eye on this episode, but he brought up very valid points and delivered them to you in a constructive way. You chose to tear down the Odyssey team and simply berate them for things that bugged you. And now you are lashing out at a member of this board for taking issue with the negativity of your post. Having written many reviews myself, there's a fine balance between bashing the writer's abilities and offering constructive criticism. You did nothing but insult them and now you are insulting another member and I won't have any of it. You claim that you felt one inch tall after reading Shasta's post... do you think the writers didn't feel one inch tall after reading yours? You could most certainly have delivered your opinions in a more gentle and kind/Christian way. It's hypocritical to think only your feelings are the ones being hurt here, all of the writers (and their families) read these boards. You're not in a vacuum... your words sting.

Ok, so let's say the writers are in the public eye and thus should be held accountable for an episode you didn't like because it was too predictable or cliched. Well let's remind ourselves of the single most important fact: This is a children's radio drama! Ok, so the shows don't have twists and turns like we might want, but we need to remind ourselves that most of us are well beyond the target age range. Should we write to Disney and complain that the ending of The Lion King was too predictable? Or should we write nasty messages about the writers to make them feel like garbage? There are two ways to offer criticism... constructive and destructive, and as a Christian, you have been a poor example to others by carrying on the way you have chosen to do so in this thread as well as several others.

You put a lot of thought, time, and effort into your review and that should be commended. And the truth is, I agreed with most of the points brought up. Our reviews really aren't that different from each other, but notice the tone of mine isn't meant to bring the team to tears nor insult their intelligence level. The words "childish", "immature", and "spoiled" come to mind when reading your posts and I don't believe that's the image you want to portray. Please understand that I'm not here to attack you, I'm simply pointing out that Shasta isn't the only one who feels awkward and incredibly hurt by your comments on behalf of the writers. He just so happens to be the only one to come forward to defend the writers and as I feel this is something he should not be attacked for, I am here to do the same.

Out of respect for those reading, please let us take this to the private message system. It's already boiled over far more than was necessary.

[shasta]

Well said, Shadowpaw. I don't think I needed defense on this, but hey you're the moderator.

I can do the Christian thing and apologize. Sorry, R. -- seriously -- for posting "insults." That's not what I intended, but it doesn't matter if you took it that way.

Because Officer Harley has asked us to take this privately, I will abide by the law and do so.

-KING shasta : )

[Jonathan]

Indeed, well put Shadowpaw.

-Jonathan