True Detective (Season Two)

[fistofrage]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

Too bad she had to wake up and talk.



Ah, but that "dis-resemblance" was a way to throw the viewer off. Who would have thought it was Colin's kid? Clever.....

Spoiler

I'm kidding

LOL, or his wife's kid, or the Criminals kid or anyone else in the entire cast. The only one who I could see being a parent to that kid would have been Vince's wife because of the semi-red hair and the fact she was probably doped up and sleeping all the time while Chumley raided the pantry of Cheetos and other high calorie snacks.

For whatever reason, I really didn't mind the show. But make no mistake it was horrible. Anyone who watched it could write a dissertation on all the things this show did wrong. It was a mess.

[Money99]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

Finally got around to watching Season 2.
It definitely got better after Ep4 but I still feel S2 was far, far beneath S1.

There were far too many characters and plot lines going on that really had nothing to do with anything.

They'd throw a character out there to move the story and I'd be like "Who the EFF is Stan?!?!"

I felt as if the writer was so in love with his script and writing that he completely neglected the crime story behind his holy dialogue.

Spoiler

- Was there really any need to link Rachel Macadams fathers tree hugging camp to Rick Springfield?
- What about Chisani's daughter (Tony's sister)? Any reason she's in there?
- The woman with the scarred face?
So many characters just thrown in without much thought other than to fill a quick hole. (that's what she said).
- but I think what I disliked most is how it ended. I wanted Ray to finally get a Win.
He murdered the wrong man. Didn't get revenge on the real rapist or the man who tricked him.
He loses his wife, and his son (both sons) and didn't get to know he was the biological father to Chad.
On top of that, his voice mail to his sons gmail account didn't even get uploaded.
Why not just have his dead body get raped by bears while revealing he wasn't well endowed and had a horrible credit rating?
Yeesh!

I really hope for Season 3 we get a less convoluted and much more interesting crime to follow.

[fistofrage]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

^^^I agree with everything you said, except for still putting spoiler tags in a year afterward.

Speaking of spoilers...

Spoiler

Darth Vader is Luke's Father, figured I'd put in a spoiler tag just in case.

[pietasterp]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

I've made it pretty clear earlier in this thread that I liked season 2 more than season 1, but that's obviously a minority opinion. To me, season 1 hit a high note in episode 4, then just dwindled to lame nothingness by the end. At least season 2 built to something throughout, and I liked the season finale. Although, it's probably just coincidence, but I think both seasons' best episode was #4.

Also, re: spoiler tags, I don't think there's anything wrong with them at any time ever. It's not like it's difficult or strenuous to slap them on there, and in this age of binge-ing content way out of the time that it was originally aired, I think it's entirely reasonable to give people the option. I mean, how many people watched "The Wire" during its original run vs subsequently on HBO Go or whatever? (for the record, I watched every season during originally airing. Which makes me...a dork?). Anyway, long story short, I think it's never wrong to spoiler tag it up, since best case scenario is there's no harm done. But I'm not the spoiler police.

[fistofrage]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

My view is if you haven't watched the show/movie yet and its been 30 days, don't go in thread if you don't want anything spoiled. t's just easier on mobile devices to not to have to open the spoilers or create the spoiler tags.


Anyway carry on.

[JayBee74]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

Season 1 of True Detective is to season 2 what early Dexter was to later Dexter.

And you really don't have to look at the disjointed story of season 2 to find the problems right at the surface.

In season 1 you had the great dialogue and chemistry between Matthew and Woody, in season 2 you have the "co-stilted" performances of Vince Vaughn and Wooden Wife, the incoherent dilemma of a sexual confused Taylor Kitsch, and some kind of halfhearted attempt to put Farrell and McAdams together. None of the four stars' main problems were remotely interesting, and the "good guy" task force of Farrell-McAdams-Kitsch didn't inspire any kind of camaraderie or empathy for their cause. None of the four major players worked, independently or together.

Back to a little bit of story....that ending with the Wooden Wife and the baby....ugh....

[Burns11]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

Later Dexter wasn't that bad.

[JayBee74]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

Later Dexter wasn't that bad.

We have to agree to disagree, because after Lithgow in season 4, you have Lumen (s.5), Olmos & Hanks (s.6), Chuck's girl (s,7), and the woman doctor played by the now controversial Charlotte Rampling. Still watchable, but some of that stuff was bad and actually tedious to watch. (IMHO)

EDIT: I just realized you might be saying that to demonstrate just how bad season 2 of TD was.

[pietasterp]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

My view is if you haven't watched the show/movie yet and its been 30 days, don't go in thread if you don't want anything spoiled. t's just easier on mobile devices to not to have to open the spoilers or create the spoiler tags.

Fair enough. I didn't take into account how many people browse this place on mobile devices.

Season 1 of True Detective is to season 2 what early Dexter was to later Dexter.

And you really don't have to look at the disjointed story of season 2 to find the problems right at the surface.

In season 1 you had the great dialogue and chemistry between Matthew and Woody, in season 2 you have the "co-stilted" performances of Vince Vaughn and Wooden Wife, the incoherent dilemma of a sexual confused Taylor Kitsch, and some kind of halfhearted attempt to put Farrell and McAdams together. None of the four stars' main problems were remotely interesting, and the "good guy" task force of Farrell-McAdams-Kitsch didn't inspire any kind of camaraderie or empathy for their cause. None of the four major players worked, independently or together.

Back to a little bit of story....that ending with the Wooden Wife and the baby....ugh....

See, but I felt like season 1 was about nothing but dialogue between McConaughey and Harrelson. The story wasn't that great, the mystery wasn't that compelling, the whole thing was just "mood" and over-stylized dialogue. It was McConaughey chewing scenery, and after the timeline snapped back to modern day, the whole thing just got lame IMO. And the last episode was barely a rung above a Scooby-doo level conclusion. The whole thing just fizzled for me after episode 4, and I feel like it got a free pass because everyone liked Woody and Matthew.

At the very least, season 2 had a story that built all the way from episode 1 to the climax in the season finale. Whether or not you invested is personal, obviously, but I thought the characters were at least as compelling as season 1. It struggled because it was all over the place and only after you watch the whole season do you even realize who everyone was and what happened, so I do agree with a lot of the criticism that season 2 has had. Also, there seemed to be 1 too many "red herrings" in season 2 which took away from the overall narrative. But the shootout in episode 4 was epic(!).

I think in the end, season 1 was under-criticized and season 2 was over-criticized. Obviously I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this, but it's not like one is objectively better or worse than the other.

[wwharton]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

See, but I felt like season 1 was about nothing but dialogue between McConaughey and Harrelson. The story wasn't that great, the mystery wasn't that compelling, the whole thing was just "mood" and over-stylized dialogue. It was McConaughey chewing scenery, and after the timeline snapped back to modern day, the whole thing just got lame IMO. And the last episode was barely a rung above a Scooby-doo level conclusion. The whole thing just fizzled for me after episode 4, and I feel like it got a free pass because everyone liked Woody and Matthew.

At the very least, season 2 had a story that built all the way from episode 1 to the climax in the season finale. Whether or not you invested is personal, obviously, but I thought the characters were at least as compelling as season 1. It struggled because it was all over the place and only after you watch the whole season do you even realize who everyone was and what happened, so I do agree with a lot of the criticism that season 2 has had. Also, there seemed to be 1 too many "red herrings" in season 2 which took away from the overall narrative. But the shootout in episode 4 was epic(!).

I think in the end, season 1 was under-criticized and season 2 was over-criticized. Obviously I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this, but it's not like one is objectively better or worse than the other.

I want so much to agree with you, and yet I couldn't disagree more lol. It's really strange, I don't think I've ever found a show that makes me feel like this. I really liked Season 1... maybe BECAUSE it was just two mega stars showing how good they are at their job with little story behind it. But like you said, it ran out of steam and sputtered to the end. I don't think I found season 2 as bad as most people but there was definitely too much going on and too many moving pieces that made character development drag on. It got better as the season went on (unlike Season 1) but don't know if it was enough to save it.

The real disappointing thing to me was how different the seasons were. If I watch Fargo or American Horror Story, the next season is completely new but the style remains, and the style is why we're watching. My issue with Season 2 was it seemed like they didn't really understand why people loved Season 1. They thought it was the weird directing and artistic script or some other crap nobody really cared about... or was just a nice accent to the real meat.

[pietasterp]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

The real disappointing thing to me was how different the seasons were. If I watch Fargo or American Horror Story, the next season is completely new but the style remains, and the style is why we're watching. My issue with Season 2 was it seemed like they didn't really understand why people loved Season 1. They thought it was the weird directing and artistic script or some other crap nobody really cared about... or was just a nice accent to the real meat.

Yeah, this is actually a general criticism of anthology television that more than a few people have started to bring up (rightfully so). Anthologized TV is sort of in vogue right now, and it's hard to know what to make of the trend since season-to-season variation can be vast (to say the least). You could argue why even have the "True Detective" label on the show if it's not even remotely similar between seasons 1 & 2. But who knows? I guess at some point it becomes like a brand name labeling type of thing.

Will be interesting if there is even a season 3, given how poorly received season 2 was in general.

[slickdtc]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

They should do another season, but it should be titled True Detective: [detail specific to content of season] instead of just TD Season 3. S2 was a downer on the whole, but I think True Detective still carries some prestige. With expectations down, it could make a rebound. Plus it was nice to watch over the summer.

Stop trying to one up the previous season, and just make a quality show. I think 7-8 episode series are perfect. Like a long movie broken down in to acts. Great format IMO. Enough to develop characters and storyline without having to drag anything out or sell out to keep making money off a good thing. Extend a few episodes if needed like Season 2 seemed to need.

They've got the freedom being on HBO instead of network TV too. I feel like I can trust them more then if they were on FOX or something.

Did a little Google search and there's no official word on a S3 but they are keeping Pizzolatto around. They felt they rushed him and he got unjust criticism because of that. Can't disagree with that. But it appears we'll be without TD this summer and at the earliest it'll reappear in spring of 2017. I'll take it. Let it rest a bit, allow the writers to put together a fully formed and fluid story, and come back strong in 2017-2018.

[Money99]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

I've made it pretty clear earlier in this thread that I liked season 2 more than season 1, but that's obviously a minority opinion. To me, season 1 hit a high note in episode 2 at about the 20 minute mark, then just dwindled to lame nothingness by the end. At least season 2 built to something throughout, and I liked the season finale. Although, it's probably just coincidence, but I think both seasons' best episode was #4.

Fixed it for you, lol.

P.S. I can't hate on anyone for liking something the masses didn't.
I'm a huge Rocky 5 fan. I felt it was on par, or perhaps even better than 3 & 4.
But that's between me and my therapist.

[pietasterp]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

Fixed it for you, lol.

P.S. I can't hate on anyone for liking something the masses didn't.
I'm a huge Rocky 5 fan. I felt it was on par, or perhaps even better than 3 & 4.
But that's between me and my therapist.

Isn't there a thread about opinions like that somewhere on these forums?....

edit: just realized what happened in S1 episode 2 about 20 minutes in....now I need a cold shower.

[Money99]

Re: True Detective (Season Two)

Isn't there a thread about opinions like that somewhere on these forums?....

edit: just realized what happened in S1 episode 2 about 20 minutes in....now I need a cold shower.

LOL!
If I ever get Alzheimer's, I hope that's the one memory that never fades.