Starts tonite at 9 on HBO....who is watching?
True Detective
- Thread starter bkmtnittany1
- Start date
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Not high expectations after how much of a stink bomb S2 was, but I'll give it a chance tonight.
Season 3 has to be better than season 2 since Vince Vaughn isn't in it.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
This is my take as well - I liked a lot about S2 (even Vaughn had his moments), but there wasn't the same excitement with trying to piece together clues, and the payoff at the end was terrible (two tangentially related stories that are both pretty insignificant on their own). And the continual bad news was just too much - for example, when Farrell dies and receives a text message saying the kid is 100% his, is just a kick in the balls. And there were just too many main cast members. You could probably watch S2 without Vaughn or Taylor Kitsch and it would still make some sense. I think/hope Nic Pizzolatto goes back to S1 roots and focuses on a good story with a few good characters. That said, expectations are pretty low - but I'm interested.
Season 1 was amazing; Season 2 was very different, but had some good episodes towards the end. The early reviews of season 3 that I've read suggest that it is more similar to season 1 (focus on the two detectives rather than telling the story from both sides in Season 2).
I'm looking forward to it.
I'm looking forward to it.
I’ve just seen the first part of tonight’s two-part episode. But so far, it is drawing me in like the first season did, and Ali is a terrific actor in this role.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Agreed! Ali really takes command of the screen when he's on it - his voice and tone really draw you in. He's a very expressive actor too - says so much with a look or glance. And without delving too much into spoiler territory, I'll say I too loved the first two episodes and think Pizzolatto was smart to use a similar story telling device to Season 1 (details of a horrific case told through flashbacks via interview). But, he doubles down on it by adding another timeline, so there are three running at the same time. Works really, really well. I'll also add that the details of the case in '80 and '90 as they're told are really, really fascinating. We get back to 'Southern Gothic' scenery (which works much better than LA/S2) and characters and have some similar plot themes to S1 - missing children, the occult, several shady characters - and even an off-handed reference to something mentioned in S1 that may suggest a shared/expanded TD universe (won't spoil for those who like to discover on their own). I still don't know what he wants to get at with the 'current' timeline, but think it will be important and but yet to reveal itself. The previews for the rest of the season look great and I think there will be many rabbit holes for folks to discuss here. Anxious to hear what others have to say!
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
SPOILER.....
.....
....
...
..
.
It was the off handed comment about the 'Crooked Spiral' iconography, to include the dolls, that were found in another case (presumably the Dora Lange case from S1). The interviewer mentioned it to 2015 Wayne Hays.
So little chatter so far this season. Are people not that interested? Definitely moving slow so far, but that has never bothered me. Hopefully things should heat up now that the 90s timeline is going to get moving.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Some observations:
1. Hays said the girl was not dead in 1980, how does he know that?
2. Hays may not be the most reliable reporter and he appears to have had memory issues for a long time (confusion in Walmart).
3. Why is the case being revisited in 1990? Who involved hid something?
4. I think the Purcell kids were being abused, at least I believe the daughter was and someone “snatched” her from her fate. Possibly the chicken plant owners (Hoyt foods) and their foundation. Did they lose a child? Picture of Mrs Hoyt with a daughter in office?? Why was the boy killed?
1. Hays said the girl was not dead in 1980, how does he know that?
2. Hays may not be the most reliable reporter and he appears to have had memory issues for a long time (confusion in Walmart).
3. Why is the case being revisited in 1990? Who involved hid something?
4. I think the Purcell kids were being abused, at least I believe the daughter was and someone “snatched” her from her fate. Possibly the chicken plant owners (Hoyt foods) and their foundation. Did they lose a child? Picture of Mrs Hoyt with a daughter in office?? Why was the boy killed?
I'm pretty sure that they find her fingerprint at the Walmart in 1990 and it matches one that they had on file. Can't recall why she was fingerprinted, or maybe they lifted one off of something at her house. That is why the investigation is re-opened in 1990.
When does he say she is not dead in 1980? I don't recall that. Was he speculating since they had not found a body?
Trick with this show is they throw out a bunch of red herrings and easter eggs, making it hard to figure out what is a clue and what is not. Pretty sure the highschool kids in the VW are a red herring.
My guess is that both the high school kids and the Native American man are red herrings
Definitely the native American guy. I think Hays references something (bad) happening to him early on. Probably gets killed by the rednecks.
Investigation is reopened by the person who was arrested for the original crime that is why they question Hays. Julie’s fingerprints are just a part of the new reopening of the case. Also, why did the upper echelon allow Hoyt Foods to put out a $10,000 reward notice and not notify either Hays or West. Hmmm....
Hays verbalized he thinks Julie is alive after he and Hays are presented with the reward poster that notes the boy dead and Julie as “missing”.
So far reminiscent of Season 1, I did watch season 2 but never really got into the characters, never got the "feel:
Watching with my wife. For some reason it is important to her. The pace is very, very slow. There are a lot of threads to be either discarded or woven together. I didn’t watch episodes 1 and 2 so any reference to them is missed. I’ll continue to watch for her, but if it doesn’t pick up, I would stop.
I've been watching it too. Ali and Stephen Dorf are both great. Loved S1. S2 was OK until I realized the $h1tshow tying things up in 1 not-long-enough final episode. Hopefully S3 doesn't make that mistake.
One of the drawings made by the missing girl looks vaguely like the kitchen where the detectives question the guy who says he saw the black man and white woman in the fancy brown car. That guy is obviously shady and seems to be lying about a few things.
Really slow so far but as others said, Ali and Dorf (back from career abyss) are doing a great jobs this season. Only thing that really bothers me is that Hays talks so low that I can't understand half of what is said. Kind of annoying.
Yeah, that everyone whispers or quietly rasps to one another is becoming annoying. Closed captioning is on.
Wow. Huge easter egg. Check out the laptop screen.
Hoping that we get a more concrete tie in to Season 1.
Hoping that we get a more concrete tie in to Season 1.
I cant recall if we have been told exactly how the boy died.
Is it clear he was "killed" and not an accidntal death?
Is it clear he was "killed" and not an accidntal death?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
That sounds right.
I finally found out where I know Tom Purcell (Scoot McNairy). Halt and Catch Fire! It was killing me and I didn't want to look him up, but finally gave in.
Think he was also the town sheriff in Godless on netflix
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Anyone catch the line the kids’ mother says to Amelia when they are talking? She was talking about the rough home life and how the “children should laugh”. Same as what was on the note that the family found.
