Interesting article on the flaws of True Detective Season 2...

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I have to admit I stopped watching after the first episode because of some of these issues, so I can definitely relate. Good tips on writing whether you've seen the show or not.

Litreactor article.

 

[Gonk the Insane]

Yep, interesting and entertaining article with some good points.

I have to admit I stopped watching after the first episode

Ah, if only I had been so discerning. I watched the whole thing. I thought, on some level, that the whole style over substance approach of the first episode surely couldn't last. Guess who was wrong...?

 

[Andersson]

I agree with three out of the four points made in the article, the exception being the first one regarding the “sense of time and place”. The vagueness of the setting didn’t really bother me and to be honest I can’t remember even reflecting on it.

What did bother me however was the question regarding “the moral of the story”.

SPOILER WARNING

The main storyline was the murder case and while it appeared complicated at first because of the connections with the prostitution, the criminal underworld and corrupt politicians, the truth was that it turned out to be pretty simple, “corrupt cops commit crime and years later their victims (or the children of their victims in this case) are taking revenge”. Really, if you think about it all that other stuff was more or less coincidental.

And what about the resolution to that storyline? Well, a couple of the murders were killed but so was one of the victims (the brother) while the other (the sister) went on the run with nothing but the clothes on her back (neither of them got any real restitution). Meanwhile the last of the murderers not only got away but were shown to benefit from what happened (he was promoted/received a medal). And the cops who “solved” the case? Two of them were killed and the third was forced to flee the country with a murder charge hanging over her. She did tell the story to a reporter in the end but did she offer any proof? It seems unlikely that the truth of what happened will ever come out.

And what about all of that coincidental stuff? A bunch of criminals, corrupt cops and politicians got killed (along with a lot of innocent people) but so what? They were just replaced with a bunch of equally bad criminals, corrupt cops and politicians. Everything was covered up and nothing changed. The “heroes” died for nothing.

I don’t think that every story needs a happy ending, in fact I prefer a good tragedy and killing off most of the main characters is usually a good thing in my opinion. But their deaths and sacrifices have to have meaning or at least serve to illustrate some truth. Without that it all just becomes bleak and pointless.

 

[Droflet]

It was, pretty much as expected. We'll probably see the same thing in season two of Fargo. A show's greatly popular. Make another one. It's been my experience that the rush second, of just about anything you'd care to mention, is never as good as the effort and care taken with the first. In this case, if I hadn't seen the first one I would have thought, okay, no masterpiece but hey, TV these days, right? As a follow up it was ... feel free to fill in expletives here.

 

[Vaz]

I did watch it all the finale was pretty good actually but yeah, for me there was too many characters. But then again I made the mistake of going in expecting it to be similar to the first season which I really enjoyed On a better note Vince Vaughan was good in it

 

[Travis Woodward]

SPOILERS

*******

*******

I was bitterly disappointed by the fact that the big mystery of 'why has this dead guy been left at the side of the road?' was basically resolved with a line that amounted to "I don't know, I think he thought it would be funny". Obviously the weird finding of the body was central to bringing the three different police officers together for the rest of the series, but I found the explanation deeply unsatisfying.

I enjoyed the first season immensely, but I'm not sure I'd watch a third if they make one.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I agree with three out of the four points made in the article, the exception being the first one regarding the “sense of time and place”. The vagueness of the setting didn’t really bother me and to be honest I can’t remember even reflecting on it.

What did bother me however was the question regarding “the moral of the story”.

SPOILER WARNING

The main storyline was the murder case and while it appeared complicated at first because of the connections with the prostitution, the criminal underworld and corrupt politicians, the truth was that it turned out to be pretty simple, “corrupt cops commit crime and years later their victims (or the children of their victims in this case) are taking revenge”. Really, if you think about it all that other stuff was more or less coincidental.

And what about the resolution to that storyline? Well, a couple of the murders were killed but so was one of the victims (the brother) while the other (the sister) went on the run with nothing but the clothes on her back (neither of them got any real restitution). Meanwhile the last of the murderers not only got away but were shown to benefit from what happened (he was promoted/received a medal). And the cops who “solved” the case? Two of them were killed and the third was forced to flee the country with a murder charge hanging over her. She did tell the story to a reporter in the end but did she offer any proof? It seems unlikely that the truth of what happened will ever come out.

And what about all of that coincidental stuff? A bunch of criminals, corrupt cops and politicians got killed (along with a lot of innocent people) but so what? They were just replaced with a bunch of equally bad criminals, corrupt cops and politicians. Everything was covered up and nothing changed. The “heroes” died for nothing.

I don’t think that every story needs a happy ending, in fact I prefer a good tragedy and killing off most of the main characters is usually a good thing in my opinion. But their deaths and sacrifices have to have meaning or at least serve to illustrate some truth. Without that it all just becomes bleak and pointless.

I think you're a bit off on the moral of the story.

Nothing they did mattered. Not one little bit.

That's the moral. The rest is window dressing.

That's what makes it noir.

 

[Andersson]

I think you're a bit off on the moral of the story.

Nothing they did mattered. Not one little bit.

That's the moral. The rest is window dressing.

That's what makes it noir.

You could be right. One of my favorite movies of all time is Chinatown which has an extremely bleak ending, yet that does not bother me at all (the ending might be the best part of the movie). I guess the difference is that the story leading up to that ending is very interesting/exciting and everything is tied together in the end. So the problem with True Detective (S2) isn't the moral of the story but rather the story itself.

 

[Vaz]

I absolutely love Chinatown. Jack Nicholson is epic in it, and yes the ending is bleak but fitting to the story