True Detective [HBO] [ Spoilers ]

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.

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 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

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

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".

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

Skerries

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

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..

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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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.

IAMAMORON

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

Otto Kind Lawyer wrote: »

Hays quit in '80 though. West had the meltdown (which was quite heartbreaking) in '90. I was watching hairstyles and clothes closely to avoid the mix-up. Actually, maybe it's because he had just been complicit in killing a man... which would do it all right. :pac:

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. That was also the reason that he and Hoyt didn't speak for 25 years.

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that was immediately after Hays quit the job. He wanted to vent. He wanted to fight someone, anyone.

Hays quit in '80 though. West had the meltdown (which was quite heartbreaking) in '90. I was watching hairstyles and clothes closely to avoid the mix-up. Actually, maybe it's because he had just been complicit in killing a man... which would do it all right. :pac:

Degag wrote: »

So was the brown car outside his home a figment of his imagination or real?

The one-eyed guy at the end was in the car. He wanted to confess everything but didn't have the balls to go in and tell him.

Degag wrote: »

So was the brown car outside his home a figment of his imagination or real?

no, it was one-eyed jack (the dead eye guy working for the Hoyt's)

pretty clearly explained in the last episode I would have thought when he specifically said that it was him.

Degag

So was the brown car outside his home a figment of his imagination or real?

in fact it was more about Hays and his wife than Hays and his detective partner Roland West.

and that was a boring relationship (with the wife) - just boring bickering, that ultimately didn't go anywhere and was unresolved.

as for the daughter appearing back in out of the blue in the last episode at the very end - rubbish and I wouldn't buy any dementia point to prove for the manner of her re-introduction.