True Detective [HBO] [** Spoilers **]

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ehhhhhhhhhh , not really. I am finished now. One question if anyone can answer?

Can someone please explain to me what happened with the wife , please.

I think if it was binge watched over maybe a week it could/might/maybe have been more rewarding. But all in all I am still scratching my head on this.

Also the ambiguous ending as regards the fate of Julie Purcell was frustrating

they decided not to explain what happened to Hays wife for whatever reason !!!

Julie Purcell was the woman at the end with the kid in the garden of the house. Except Hays apparently forgot about this as he had a dementia episode but the address of her place found in the pocket by the son confirms that it was real.

a really weak coincidence that Hays and West just happen to run into the landscape guy (who was her friend at school from the first episodes) just as they are leaving the convent which prompts the discovery of Julie being his wife.

cena

Anyone care to explain the last scene. just before the credits

irishguy1983

Pretty annoyed at giving that 8 episodes....Feels the first 7 episodes were just messing about really...I wouldn’t recommend anyone to watch it...

cena

cena wrote: »

Anyone care to explain the last scene. just before the credits

no idea - maybe it was all a dream and he was dead in nam all along!

who the hell knows.

irishguy1983

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Pretty annoyed at giving that 8 episodes....Feels the first 7 episodes were just messing about really...I wouldn’t recommend anyone to watch it...

yes, I feel totally tricked. unfortunately the first 2 episodes were decent enough which made me stick with it (just about) just to see how it would end. I wish that I'd quit it now!

Eod100

Well that was pretty ant-climatic. Read a review last week which brought up idea of gardener so wasn't very surprising. I get series was more focused on the relationships involved and choices they made and case was a vehicle for this but don't think it came off as a good exploration of relationships or crime series. Think it's easier to get one thing right rather than pulling off two. Not sure in hindsight the chronological stuff worked for me either.

Eod100

glasso wrote: »

a really weak coincidence that Hays and West just happen to run into the landscape guy (who was her friend at school from the first episodes) just as they are leaving the convent which prompts the discovery of Julie being his wife.

Even weaker, it was Hays knocking his wife's book on floor and it happening to fall on page about Ardoin kid.

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

Well that was pretty ant-climatic. Read a review last week which brought up idea of gardener so wasn't very surprising. I get series was more focused on the relationships involved and choices they made and case was a vehicle for this but don't think it came off as a good exploration of relationships or crime series. Think it's easier to get one thing right rather than pulling off two. Not sure in hindsight the chronological stuff worked for me either.

all those things worked in season 1 but definitely not here.

copied all the mechanisms and relationships of season 1 but was nowhere near as good a story, setting and exposition of the relationships between the leads.

should never have gone out to copy the whole set-up of mechanisms in the first place as it was always going to be at the least derivative but it was actually in the end way worse than that.

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

Even weaker, it was Hays knocking his wife's book on floor and it happening to fall on page about Ardoin kid.

yes all very jarring considering so much nothingness and boringness in the lead up and then hey presto a few rabbits out of a hat in the last episode and most all is explained in a few minutes and tied up in a bow with a happy ending.

Except for the Hays wife thing where they can show how cool and so edgy the show is by leaving that out!

Throw in a random 'nam flashback at the very end to reinforce this coolness and edginess.

Eod100

glasso wrote: »

all those things worked in season 1 but definitely not here.

copied all the mechanisms and relationships of season 1 but was nowhere near as good a story, setting and exposition of the relationships between the leads.

should never have gone out to copy the whole set-up of mechanisms in the first place as it was always going to be at the least derivative but it was actually in the end way worse than that.

Yeah exactly, guess he tried something different in S2 and it didn't come off so went back to doing what he did in S3 and didn't exactly come off either. I think the acting was decent but not out of this world. And don't think acting saves the rest of it. Will be interesting to see if it gets renewed..

Skerries

who could have seen that it was Colonel Mustard in the parlour with the candlestick!

reece289

glasso wrote: »

all those things worked in season 1 but definitely not here.

copied all the mechanisms and relationships of season 1 but was nowhere near as good a story, setting and exposition of the relationships between the leads.

should never have gone out to copy the whole set-up of mechanisms in the first place as it was always going to be at the least derivative but it was actually in the end way worse than that.

You took the similarities to season 1 and thought, oh look season 1 again.

It wasn't ever meant to be that. It told his story over 35 years, using the jumps in time to give better relevance to his life and experiences.

It's was a fabulous series IMO. You need to stop expecting from these things and learn to be led somewhat. It's what art does. You're watching someone else's vision.

sk8erboii

glasso wrote: »

no idea - maybe it was all a dream and he was dead in nam all along!

who the hell knows.

Yeah, its actually a reference to Jacobs Ladder, because Nic loves to reference Bardo Thodol (Eastern book of the dead) and Jacobs ladder premise was based on that.

sk8erboii

sk8erboii wrote: »

Yeah, its actually a reference to Jacobs Ladder, because Nic loves to reference Bardo Thodol (Eastern book of the dead) and Jacobs ladder premise was based on that.

yes I got the reference. but came off as pretentious and pointless imo.

sk8erboii

Great final episode. Some people were expecting a big bang bang shootout to defeat the bad guys and uncovering a pedophile conspiracy.

The truth is that the series is not like season 1 or two, its nearly condensedly a character study of central personas, the case being a catalyst for change rather than being the central point.

Some people of course dont get this.

sk8erboii

glasso wrote: »

yes I got the reference. but came off as pretentious and pointless imo.

But why? Its a nice visual touch, of Wayne heading into the void.

Thematically, from a Doylist and Watsonian explanation, that last shot is perfect and haunting.

Of course you were probably expecting a shootout with Rust Cohle dropping by in a helicopter and saying a one liner

This isn't that kind of show bub. True Detective is art house, always has been

sk8erboii

sk8erboii wrote: »

Great final episode. Some people were expecting a big bang bang shootout to defeat the bad guys and uncovering a pedophile conspiracy.

The truth is that the series is not like season 1 or two, its nearly condensedly a character study of central personas, the case being a catalyst for change rather than being the central point.

Some people of course dont get this.

or maybe it was just fairly sh1t.

some people just don't get that either.

read back through my previous posts.

if it was a character study (which is just a cop-out as it failed as a story) it was poor and unconvincing and a non-sequential chronological disjointed mess is not a vehicle for executing a character study.

for a character study the relationship between the leads has to be engaging - this did not have that - aside from maybe the first two episodes where it was passable.

if you want a proper character study go watch "The remains of the day".

P.Walnuts

glasso wrote: »

or maybe it was just fairly sh1t.

some people just don't get that either.

Why on earth did you watch all 8 episodes from start to finish if you hated it so much?

I tend to, you know, stop watching shows I don't like

Eod100

sk8erboii wrote: »

Great final episode. Some people were expecting a big bang bang shootout to defeat the bad guys and uncovering a pedophile conspiracy.

The truth is that the series is not like season 1 or two, its nearly condensedly a character study of central personas, the case being a catalyst for change rather than being the central point.

Some people of course dont get this.

How do you know what people were expecting or if they got it or not? Its possible people got it but didn't like it. Difference of opinion doesn't equate to ignorance

sk8erboii

sk8erboii wrote: »

Can you explain why its sh1t?

Cause I can give about a hundred reasons why its great.

Cause right now the only people that seem to hate it are low IQ reactionary types who wanted the big BANG BANG ending

proof of your own IQ lol!

story where feck all happened over 7 hours and suddenly it's all tied up in a few minutes in a tell-all from a witness (one-eyed guy) - sign of a totally sh1t story execution right there.

sk8erboii

glasso wrote: »

read back through my previous posts.

if it was a character study (which is just a cop-out as it failed as a story) it was poor and unconvincing and a non-sequential chronological disjointed mess is not a vehicle for executing a character study.

for a character study the relationship between the leads has to be engaging - this did not have that - aside from maybe the first two episodes where it was passable.

if you want a proper character study go watch "The remains of the day".

You haven't posted any criticism that isn't 'I didn't like it.'

How about you use real language to justify your opinions that just saying it 'failed' or its 'disjointed' or its 'not a vehicle' (all of which are just nebulous opinions that doesn't really mean anything without any backing)

To be honest, it feels more like a projection of the type of viewer someone is.

Something is too 'disjointed' mate maybe Marvel's Avengers would be easier for you to follow.

Ally Dick

Series was great....up till the final episode. It built up and up. Had the same gothic, spooky feel as the first season. But then it decided to insult the viewers and offer up simple reasons for everything. So disappointed. I was hoping for the spooky ending. At least season 1 had that.

Ally Dick

Ally Dick wrote: »

Series was great....up till the final episode. It built up and up. Had the same gothic, spooky feel as the first season. But then it decided to insult the viewers and offer up simple reasons for everything. So disappointed. I was hoping for the spooky ending. At least season 1 had that.

I felt season 1's biggest flaw was its final episode. It turned out to be some creepy guy in a dilapidated mansion, but up till then they alluded to a huge conspiracy that went all the way to the top. It was some bog standard horror villain in the end. Running around cascosa was a bit ridiculous. Even that tape that Rust found was forgotten about to a degree. The ending was that there is no closure to some stories.

I felt this season had far more closure and arguably finished better but had a weaker story to begin with.

pixelburp

Mod warning: keep things civil. Do NOT attack or attempt to belittle other posters. Feel free to discuss, but keep it friendly.

Mike Litoris

I think Pizzolatto just trolled the shlt out of everyone who loved Fukunaga's Season 1. Dark, moody but ultimately a meandering damp squib! Lol. It had some great moments and individual episodes...that Pizzolatto didn't direct but as a whole that was worse than season 2.

Anyways, I think the big winner of S3 is Stephen Dorff. I thought he was excellent in this despite the dodgy make up...80's West looking older than 90's West. Hopefully some good roles comes his way from this.

From Reddit

Hayes: you just wanna use me to write that book.

Amelia: you dont wanna tell me sh1t

Repeat for 8 hrs and 20 mins.

Character development bruhhhhhh

maybe it could spin off into a daytime soap?

Mike Litoris

Mike Litoris wrote: »

I think Pizzolatto just trolled the shlt out of everyone who loved Fukunaga's Season 1. Dark, moody but ultimately a meandering damp squib! Lol. It had some great moments and individual episodes...that Pizzolatto didn't direct but as a whole that was worse than season 2.

Anyways, I think the big winner of S3 is Stephen Dorff. I thought he was excellent in this despite the dodgy make up...80's West looking older than 90's West. Hopefully some good roles comes his way from this.

the insults to get into the bar fight with the bikers were actual good lines and a good scene.

I wonder if the fact that Stephen Dorff is so short is a reason that he doesn't get many good roles - must be part of it.

Gimme A Pound

glasso wrote: »

Hays didn't quit in 80, he took a desk job in the police because he wouldn't sign the declaration from the higher-ups. In 90 he and West reunited to investigate the case - Hays hadn't worked as a detective since 80.

He actually quit the police after the Hoyt threat in 90 and the conversation with his wife about needing to leave the whole case behind so they move on from that. Cue to him working as campus security and she was a lecturer / professor.

you're right about the fight West got into being in 90 - he went out to get into some aggro after he shot the Hoyt security guy/ ex-cop.

Ah yes, thought they meant quitting being a detective.

I don't remember him being college security and her being a lecturer though.

Otto Kind Lawyer

Otto Kind Lawyer wrote: »

Ah yes, thought they meant quitting being a detective.

I don't remember him being college security and her being a lecturer though.

he had a badge saying "campus security" printed on it

then he meets her and she was teaching a class of young adults (not kids)


https://tvline.com/2019/02/25/true-detective-season-3-finale-ending-explained-questions/

We did get our first glimpse of a post-1990 Amelia at the beginning of the finale, reading poetry to her students as a professor at the University of Arkansas while Hays worked as the campus’ chief of security.