What's good to watch on Netflix And Other Streaming Platforms

[Beantown]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

His Netflix animated comedy, "F is for Family," is pretty solid as well.

[Scott]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

His Netflix animated comedy, "F is for Family," is pretty solid as well.

I've only seen one episode of that, but thought it was pretty funny..

[NDAlum]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

After watching Making A Murderer I read about another documentary called Paradise Lost (about the West Memphis Three). We watched it holy hell that was on another level... It was crazy for completely different reasons than Making a Murder, but still somewhat similar. I would recommend it to anyone that enjoyed MaM.

Note: It's on HBOGo, not NetFlix. I thought that there was a Documentary thread here, but my searches came up with nothing.

On MaM...I finally finished viewing the 10 episodes. I definitely felt the hate/disgust towards the State's side of handling everything. However I started to think about the other side of things...and you have to realize there were things you know we didn't hear. We heard one side of this story and everything was painted in a certain way to elicit certain feelings and emotions. It worked!

I can't fully make a judgment on everything as I don't know all of the details.

This was a solid read...*ONLY READ IF YOU'VE SEEN IT*

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

[CMH]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

On MaM...I finally finished viewing the 10 episodes. I definitely felt the hate/disgust towards the State's side of handling everything. However I started to think about the other side of things...and you have to realize there were things you know we didn't hear. We heard one side of this story and everything was painted in a certain way to elicit certain feelings and emotions. It worked!

I can't fully make a judgment on everything as I don't know all of the details.

This was a solid read...*ONLY READ IF YOU'VE SEEN IT*

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies...nt-present.php

I haven't seen anything proving that the information not shown was actually available in the trial.

How do people even know this if I don't know it? Where is the source?

The only thing I've seen that I accept as true comes from a reporter who said nothing glaring was missing but it was worth noting that the doc didn't cover

Spoiler

Teresa's phone being found in the bonfire

[NDAlum]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

Spoiler

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-prosecutor-ken-kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mo]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

Related

Spoiler

[JayBee74]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

Related

Spoiler

What's that about Mo?

[NDAlum]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

What's that about Mo?

It's the brother of the girl killed in Making a Murderer.

The MaM stuff on FB is now getting on my nerves. It shows the power of media. The documentary creators are clearly biased. They left out some pretty important stuff

Spoiler

Phone records where Avery calls Auto Trader to request the same girl come out...and if he was indeed in a towel the previous time she came by. Those are huge to me. The documentary makes it seem like a random person came by that he had no prior contact with. When the documentary makers have a back and forth with the prosecutor Kratz in articles I'm reading they don't make very good points. They just call out his character. That's the easy out...they don't address the crucial points. The documentary paints everything in such a light that it feels too easy to say he didn't do it. We're hearing one side of the story + whatever pieces of the other side they feel were "important".

[elTodd]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

Spoiler

Phone records where Avery calls Auto Trader to request the same girl come out...and if he was indeed in a towel the previous time she came by. Those are huge to me. The documentary makes it seem like a random person came by that he had no prior contact with. When the documentary makers have a back and forth with the prosecutor Kratz in articles I'm reading they don't make very good points. They just call out his character. That's the easy out...they don't address the crucial points. The documentary paints everything in such a light that it feels too easy to say he didn't do it. We're hearing one side of the story + whatever pieces of the other side they feel were "important".

Spoiler

That's not true at all. There's a quote from one of the news stations in episode 2 (around the 32 minute mark) where Steven said that she visited his home on many occasions within the prior year. And then Steven himself gives a quote about what the series of events usually were when she visited. He wasn't trying to make it seem like it was a random person, and neither were the producers. Don't know where you got that idea.

[SuperBowlNachos]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

Spoiler

My opinion as of now is Avery for sure did it. The police either knew, or "knew" he did it, and planted additional evidence either way. I'm really not sure what to think of Branden. He should for sure be getting a new trial after what Len and his "investigator" did, or should I say didn't do.

[CMH]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

It's the brother of the girl killed in Making a Murderer.

The MaM stuff on FB is now getting on my nerves. It shows the power of media. The documentary creators are clearly biased. They left out some pretty important stuff

Spoiler

Phone records where Avery calls Auto Trader to request the same girl come out...and if he was indeed in a towel the previous time she came by. Those are huge to me. The documentary makes it seem like a random person came by that he had no prior contact with. When the documentary makers have a back and forth with the prosecutor Kratz in articles I'm reading they don't make very good points. They just call out his character. That's the easy out...they don't address the crucial points. The documentary paints everything in such a light that it feels too easy to say he didn't do it. We're hearing one side of the story + whatever pieces of the other side they feel were "important".

Information released after the series:

Spoiler

I'm curious to know the source of this information. Seeing people post this but no one has a source.

I can also say that people didn't know Steven Avery kept pictures of brunettes in his room when he was in grade school and muttered to himself over and over again about getting married to a Teresa.

I'm not saying the information being shared is not true. I'm saying, where's the source?

Re: The power of media before and after Making A Murderer

Spoiler

Let's not forget how the power of the prosecution to manipulate the media into stating theories as fact helped persuade the jury and citizens of the county before the trial even started. What's happening now with this documentary is simply the reverse of what happened ten years ago to him. But what's most important is both sides are now being shown to the public over the course of ten years. Unfortunately, when it comes to a fair trial, it's far too late. The negative got out first. The positive is happening as the man sits behind bars. Seems whether he's guilty or not guilty, the man isn't benefiting at all from this documentary. Maybe a few more letters than he received in the ten years prior.

[NDAlum]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

Spoiler

I'm not sitting here saying he should be found guilty. I concede the prosecution/investigation of this case appeared to be an absolute disaster. Both sides aren't being shown to the public. You're seeing the side of the documentary makers. If only the information given in this documentary was shown to the jury and they came back with a guilty verdict then it's absolutely ridiculous and a miscarriage of justice as they say. Even with the facts I saw that you can't go back on...there's no way in my city this case would even make it to trial. The case was so poorly managed and the conflict of interest...it was terrible.

There source was Kratz for the missing information. I think he's a turd and arrogant...and the sexting was atrocious. I'm not going to look through case documents online to see if what he said was true.

I think people watch the documentary and immediately think he did not murder Teresa. I can't get to that point with so much information missing. Do I believe a verdict of guilty was deserved? Based on what I saw: absolutely not. There was clearly reasonable doubt and horrible police work.

[JayBee74]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

Spoiler

I think people watch the documentary and immediately think he did not

Spoiler

murder Teresa.

I didn't know what to think, because I don't know what you get when you combine a

Spoiler

psycopath

with a dimwit. Of course Avery was only the former if

Spoiler

he actually did it

. The burn pit in lieu of the

Spoiler

car crusher

bothered me but Avery isn't very bright.

[bad_philanthropy]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

I agree with NDAlum's point of view regarding MaM

Spoiler

I think you'd have to be naive to think the documentary's point of view is a balanced and authentic account of the whole saga. The filmmakers had the commercial viability of the project on the line at all times. It needed to remain a narrative suitable for an audience. That premise right there at least requires us to be critical of the story told.

While it does appear there was some bad police work, lack of broader investigation, and some institutional bias toward Avery—and I'm not diminishing how serious this is—I don't think it's any more rational to just go with the narrative of the documentary. There is a lot of information I, or the audience are not privy to—like interviews with other persons of interest, things discussed in the judges chambers with attorneys, judge's colleagues, etc...

There are likely boogeymen on both sides in this situation—individuals within the State, the Sheriff's department, and the Avery family. It's probably a murkier, and broader narrative, than the "state versus outsiders/everyman" story.

That said, I think it's quite possible Avery is guilty, but the disaster of the state's prosecution and investigation leaves me with reasonable doubt.

[The JareBear]

Re: What's good to watch on Netflix

My take on the MaM. There are no real spoilers here (I guess) at all IMO but I figured just in case, I guess. If you haven't watched the show yet don't read and just watch it and form ur own opinion

Spoiler

A bunch of people I trust and consider reputable have told me a large number of key details are not covered at all in the show/documentary. Based on what they told me regarding several incidents/circumstances it sounds like you can barely even consider this creative non-fiction, and more of taking the most convenient bits of a big picture to tell a "fan friendly" story that would create buzz and get attention. It's a testament to our "Reality TV" culture we live in now, people love controversy and jump to conclusions because it's fun now. Snooki and the Situation would be proud.

I'm not sure I can consider it a documentary.

In a way it kind of reminds me of "Bro Science." These kind of things get powered by word of mouth.

Just my two cents

Also, just saw Jeremy mentioned Paradise Lost. That one actually is compelling and from what I understand very fair/accurate

Edit

Further clarifying my POV which is sloppily done in my original post

Spoiler

What I'm saying is MaM is only a documentary in the same sense that The Real World is "reality." Yeah, I can watch real people do "real things" on the real world, but cmon. It's a drama. I'm seeing small bits and pieces spliced together in a non-chronological order of what the editors want me to see. It's like when viva la bam got heat for being scripted and Bam was all "of course it's scripted, they signed us for three seasons. It's a show."

I also don't buy that documentaries can't be fair and balanced. I'm sure they all, or almost all, have a tilt based on the filmmakers prejudice but I've seen plenty that at least try to cover all bases, if not some ssss more than others