John Carpenter's suburban screams

I don't understand the rating of the season. It's 4.4 (Date: 17.10.2023).

But, comparing this rating 4.4 with the individual ratings of the six episodes of season 1

Season 1 - Episode1: 5.4 / Episode 2: 6.2 / Episode 3: 7.1 / Episode 4: 7.1 / Episode 5: 6.5 / Episode 6: 7.1

something is not right. The average of ratings of the six episodes is 6.6.

Some reviewers here haven't even seen all episodes of this first season, but write a review and rating more or less after watching just two episodes. Sorry, but this is no good practice and gives a false impression of this series. Furthermore, how is it possible, that the season gets an overall rating of 4someting, but the average rating of the episodes is 6something? Makes no sense.

I suggest, please check the individual rating of each episode.

Some thoughts on the show: The show has some old-school flair, is not groundbreaking or needlessly overproduced and follows some traditional horror story telling. It uses the true-crime setting with interviews and storytelling as flashbacks. If this kind of story telling is not your flavor, than skip this show.

John Carpenter is one of the shows executive producers, directed episode 6 and composed the main theme music with his son Cody. Furthermore, his voice is in the intro of the episodes.

I liked the stories, the atmosphere and the good production values of this show. It's a solid horror show for gloomy sundays.

My overall rating for this first season is somewhere near six stars.

----

18.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.5

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.5 / E3: 7.2 / E4: 7.3 / E5: 6.5 / E6: 7.3 = average episodes rating 6.7

--> difference between season rating 4.5 vs average episode rating 6.7

----

19.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.2 / E2: 6.0 / E3: 7.0 / E4: 7.2 / E5: 6.1 / E6: 7.2 = average episodes rating 6.5

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.5

----

23.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.2 / E3: 6.6 / E4: 6.4 / E5: 5.7 / E6: 6.7 = average episodes rating 6.2

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.2.

----

07.11.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.6

episodes ratings: E1: 4.9 / E2: 5.9 / E3: 6.0 / E4: 5.7 / E5: 5.2 / E6: 6.2 = average episodes rating 5.7

--> difference between season rating 4.6 vs average episode rating 5.7.

This is "true crime" garbage, joining the list of other such shows polluting the streamers.

It is quite idiotic, on so many levels. Lame "reenactments" and talking heads. Obvious fictionalizing of supposed real stories.

It is cheap programming, and apparently, the masses are eating up this tripe, or they wouldn't keep producing this stuff. It's lowest common denominator output.

I've seen this genre produced first-hand. This past year, for some money, I worked a true crime series, which I swore that I would never do. It was as bad as I expected, and I left the job. Everything about it was lame. The pay, the producers, the cheapness of it all. Very "Z level."

This series ups the ante, I suppose, by buying off John Carpenter.

I was watching this while on the treadmill, for a distraction, but I am not moving beyond the third episode. The same thing happened with the even worse "Phrogging" series on Hulu. I found myself yelling at the screen with this one, too.

There are some GREAT "true crime" documentaries out there, as opposed to this formulaic series nonsense.

Do. Not. Watch. This.

Please stop talking trash about John Carpenter's Suburban Screams! It's a decent series! Ok! Carpenter it's not the same as in the 70's or 80's but it' s Carpenter at 75 years old! Cronenberg or Argento are not better! Please give the master some support! Do you want him to make nothing?

He is involved in:

• Comic books;
• videogames ( toxic commando);
• music;
• and now tv series.

The man is one of the best directors ever! Please show some respect! Is clint eastwood making better movies? Hell no!

So in this terrible world we live in it's very good to have something new from a master to see. Thank you Mr. Carpenter and Sandy King.

5 of the 6 stories can be verified. 2 of them are in Canada and the last time I checked Canada is NOT "hometown America". The Jamul, Ca. Story is the only one (so far) that cannot be verified. It is typical John Carpenter with unnecessary scenes, stupid dialogue and long held shots that are annoying, not suspenseful; and it takes too long to tell the tale. It's all of John Carpenter's trademarks. If you don't like JC, don't watch it. That simple. I like JC, so the stories are interesting, and I know how he's going to tell them. Also, all the stories but one have multiple sources to back up the stories. Canada has strong libel laws so the first two episodes have the most sources. I will say that the 'Ouija" board is pronounced "we - ya", as in oui the french word for yes and ja the German word for yes; not "we-gee". In what universe has the "a" ever been pronounced "eee"? Otherwise the show is the John Carpenter version of true story, NOT true crime as some of these reviews have stated. It's about the story.

Only two of these "stories" felt even remotely true. The rest felt like they were very loosely based on only some actual events at best. So many of the details were derived or interpreted from presumption, or portrayed in such a way that is all assumed through implication. Some of the "truth" to the stories are merely assumed as truth cuz "there was a police report" so therefore...it must be true, right?! It's like Unsolved Mysteries met Goosebumps, but you're just supposed to take everyone's word as truth, despite there being very little to suggest it's anything other than a local legend. A lot of the acting in the dramatic recreations were also lame. And yet they portray the recreations in such way where they expect you to believe that's exactly how it happened. Here's the issue - MANY of the recreations didn't have ANY eye witnesses to them, so how on earth do you present alleged facts with no supporting evidence? This might as well have been kids telling you ghost stories they heard from other kids, who heard it from other kids...but you're just supposed to believe it's all true? Even when there's no documentation, evidence, or anything else at all?