criterionforum.org

Kind of a nothing teaser but does seem more promising than Season 2. I was intrigued by the flash to much-older Ali, wonder if they will be a little more playful with the cutting in this one and maybe take a similar approach to time as S1 but more extreme, perhaps?

Someone who worked on the show said on Reddit that it takes place in three eras: the 80s, the 90s, and present day

This season, much like the first one has to do with missing children. Whether it veers into the Cosmicism of the first season remains to be seen.

2nd trailer. Seems to me like the case is based on the West Memphis Three saga.

flyonthewall2983 wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:05 am 2nd trailer. Seems to me like the case is based on the West Memphis Three saga.

I was going to say the Jeff Davis Eight. It's got that weird societal corruption where people connected to a certain case just sort of "die" and cops seem to have issues keeping track of evidence. People speculated that the first season was based off of it but Pizzolatto has confirmed that he only heard about it after the first season aired. Creepy stuff.

It got off to a good start, I guess. The way it jumps around the timeline is less predictable, and for someone in the prime of his life Ali is surprisingly adept at playing an old man.

I'll wait to hear what people say once it's finished before even starting. Not liking forward to another experience like season two

This doesn’t resemble season 2 even remotely. It’s a natural continuation of season 1.

I think the biggest draw back so far is that it’s too much like season 1, relying on elaborations of the original’s conceits (not one, but two extra timelines with two depositions) to differentiate itself. It seems like more went into building the structure and atmosphere because the character dynamics aren’t nearly as interesting as season one. But the pay off suggested by the structure is tantalizing enough to hold out hope that the characters will progressively deepen and gain interest. At the moment the detectives are more attitude than personality, save that one exchange in the car following the unwelcome news broadcast.

Also wasn’t a fan of the cheap knock at SJWs early on.

To end on a positive note, the story-telling is superb on a narrative level. For a story told in retrospect across two different timelines, the show is subtle and natural in the way it withholds key details of the mystery that all the characters already know, and in how it suggests without explaining that what people think they know changes across the two later timelines. The show maintains enormous control over what the audience knows and when. That’s a good sign.

Three timelines. And what was the knock on SJWs? The TV show?

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Three timelines. And what was the knock on SJWs? The TV show?

Three timelines, but one of those timelines is told in retrospect across the other two.

The knock is when the chipper young white woman comes out with a string of currently popular leftist jargon about race and oppression, and the two black characters purse their lips and share a knowing glance, causing her to wilt in discomfort. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make of leftist discourse, but that was cheap point scoring and little else.

I watched the first episode. It was alright but sorely lacking in the chemistry of Harrelson and McConaughey. Also it felt a bit strange to me that a whole squad of police would be sent to investigate a missing kid who's been gone for only a few hours.

Murdoch wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:29 pm I watched the first episode. It was alright but sorely lacking in the chemistry of Harrelson and McConaughey. Also it felt a bit strange to me that a whole squad of police would be sent to investigate a missing kid who's been gone for only a few hours.

There's no actual rule about when you can report a missing person or persons. Police will investigate any claim with merit if there is urgency.

Mr Sausage wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:08 pm
The knock is when the chipper young white woman comes out with a string of currently popular leftist jargon about race and oppression, and the two black characters purse their lips and share a knowing glance, causing her to wilt in discomfort. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make of leftist discourse, but that was cheap point scoring and little else.

I perceived that more as a knock at white feminism more than anything else but I'm wondering now if I read into it wrong.

I have only watched Sin Nombre, but Fukunaga was along with the cast and Adam Arkpaw what made season 1, while season 2 was shit. Kicking Saulnier out hasn't really made me excited to give this a try.

Big Ben wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:02 pm

Murdoch wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:29 pm I watched the first episode. It was alright but sorely lacking in the chemistry of Harrelson and McConaughey. Also it felt a bit strange to me that a whole squad of police would be sent to investigate a missing kid who's been gone for only a few hours.

There's no actual rule about when you can report a missing person or persons. Police will investigate any claim with merit if there is urgency.

I know, I'm a defense attorney, which made it ring particularly false

I had always thought if a child is in danger, or if someone is acting very out of the ordinary (i.e. so and so takes their morning walk and comes back home at 7 AM every morning for the last decade, but they didn't come home today), etc, those instances are treated a bit differently than ones where someone may have just chosen not to phone home? I would assume you would know better than most of us though, Murdoch. But even though this is set pre-Amber Alert, it still doesn't seem too strange that a missing child would result in a manhunt once a few hours have passed, unless things are just way different now.

I don't find it all that weird either. There was a disappearance of a young boy in my hometown when I was five and the police response was pretty swift (I recall the panic even at five from all the parents.). This was also the case with the previous victim of the man who committed the crime Nathanial Bar Jonah (NFSW and it's pretty messed up so be warned.). The only reason I have any knowledge of this is because for years afterwards the entire town was paranoid and kids were watched far more closely. Perhaps this is because it occurred in 1996 but I don't think my podunk town would done it differently in the eighties. Disappearances of kids really mess with small towns.

I don't know, I guess I'm just used to my midsize city ways where a couple cops take a report and, unless there's something to suggest there's an imminent threat of danger to the child, they take a day to question relatives and neighbors. I think the point of this being pre-AMBER makes sense.

It's also that I just wanted a slower build than

Spoiler

immediately jumping into a missing child and the subsequent discovery of his corpse in the first episode. The first season had such a brilliant simmer to it whereas in this new season it felt like too much at once - three timelines, the missing kids, the reveal of the girl still being alive, the weird doll by the corpse. The first season allowed some time to set up the two leads, but here it feels like there's as much depth to them as the leads of your token network crime serial.

I actually don't really think you're necessarily wrong per se. If a cop were to get a call about a teenager for instance (Say fifteen or sixteen) that had a history of run away attempts they'd absolutely not take it as seriously as they would ten year old kids. Even cops in my town have to seriously prioritize due to work load (We actually have less cops than we need.) and if it's immediately pressing they won't do it until they can. It's one of those conditional things were cops will absolutely look into it right away if it's serious. If not they'll wait twenty four hours or even more in some cases so I don't think you're at all in the wrong here. And for the record I actually agree with your spoiler comment although I might be a tad more forgiving because the episode only has sixty minutes to convey something.

I do however feel that these two episodes are much better than Season Two's first two episodes. Hopefully we won't have to suffer through "Don't eat, even if you're hungry" level dialogue anytime soon.

I should note at this point that an arc in the later half of the fifth season of BoJack Horseman completely rips TD and characterizes the character perhaps inspired by Pizzolatto as basically a sociopath.

True Detective was only a topicla inspiration for the showrunner and that the season was inspired more by the presence of male antiheroes in media. Mel Gibson seems to be more a vocal point than anything else.

It's interesting that you bring Bojack up though as a contrast as I'm interested in seeing how Wayne progresses this season in terms of dealing with unresolved issues within himself and how that'll correlate with each individual time period.

I watched the rather turgid Galveston last night, having no idea Pizzolatto wrote the novel it's based on. I chuckled when his name came up in the credits. It has it's strong points (I have a soft spot for Ben Foster's scene-chewing) but nothing revelatory in terms of shaking up the genre.

He also wrote the screenplay under a pseudonym

The second episode of this left a very sour taste in my mouth with the police brutality. The writers seem to argue that the 4th amendment is a needless procedural hindrance to cops just trying to save children dammit. I'm not sure what this season is attempting, there are lines like "Let's go find someone to beat up" that clearly present the two lead detectives as thugs with badges, then there are the scenes of Ali arguing that the police should be given free reign to search anywhere they desire and the beating of a suspect. Whatever criticism that is brought up is swept under the rug. The politician's refusal to allow the overbroad police search is treated as the ramblings of a n elected official only concerned about getting votes. The writers appear to try to justify the beating by making the suspect both a pedophile and a racist, the suspect being a character who seems to only exist within the episode to be beaten and discarded.

There were certainly scenes like this in season one, but Harrelson and McConaughey were rarely positioned as in anyway righteous in their pursuits. They killed suspects, then faked a gunfight. McConaughey was often sociopathic and stone-faced when he killed. Harrelson was violent-tempered and largely followed McConaughey's lead, unsure of what he was doing and how far he was willing to go. The two, especially McConaughey, were treated as very damaged men up against a brutal crime they didn't fully comprehend.

This newest season reminds of another procedural drama, Major Crimes, which may be the biggest celebration of unlimited police power this side of Dirty Harry. Suspects are beaten into confessions, constitutional rights are hindrances to investigations and only exist to protect the guilty.

Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to the subject matter given my profession, but if this is the way of things for this series then I'm out.

I don't like at all either but I'd encourage you to watch the third episode which should well, alleviate a particular issue with morals being perceived as righteous over time. I can't really say anymore but suffice to say suddenly having time to reflect is a thing that has an effect on people. It also goes without saying that:

Spoiler

Hays probably isn't a reliable narrator in some instances.

I do not agree with you about the first season though. Rust and Marty are not shining examples of justice and are more than willing to brutalize and even murder in the name of what they perceive to be the greater good and Rust even acknowledges this when asked, stating "The world needs bad men. We keep other men from the door." Not comprehending something isn't much of an excuse to do many of the things that they do. I obviously don't endorse the behavior and that's why I can't justify their actions despite their obvious results (Although how truly successful they were is left open to interpretation. I see the ending to the first season as very bittersweet). I can however understand from a storytelling perspective, a story about two deeply flawed antiheroes trying to do something to help society being presented on a rather unsettling plate of cosmicism pie. I still get a little confused when thinking something that should ordinarily be a niche thing somehow becoming a mainstream thing!

I'll wait and see how it all ties together before I make a complete judgement but I've never really seen True Detective as a show about heroes and in the end that makes it palatable because I've never felt any need to say "Yeah it was okay to do that.". I want to make it very clear that I understand your criticisms though and I'm very glad to see you voicing them because people still have a tendency to gloss over this stuff.

The show takes its cues from noir, so I’m sure we’re meant to understand these stories are about flawed, damaged antiheroes with only partial understandings who manage in spite of themselves to do something of value in the end, however qualified. But the first season earned it more. The characters’ flaws were explored in more detail. The current season seems content merely to name drop Vietnam and leave it at that. Hell, we don’t learn a thing about Dorff’s character until episode 3, and even then it’s not much.

Given how closely the season is guarding its secrets, I’ll wait to pass final judgement. But it is disappointing to see for example the melodramatic way the case is affecting Ali’s character and his family as opposed to the quieter but more insidious way it affected Marty’s family in season 1.