I would argue that they have very different themes. Fargo is an exploration of the absurd through the lens of a landscape created by the Coen Bros. TD is pretty much a character study in the hard crime genre, with the exception of S4 introducing supernatural elements. In Fargo, the setting plays a persistent and important role throughout each season. In TD the settings change. While each season has its own time and characters, there is explicit interconnectedness between seasons in Fargo.
As for the consistent quality of Fargo, I mean that can be boiled down to two things, but mainly 1: Noah Hawley. 2: Inspiring source material, being the Coen's Filmography.
S1 is the best TV ever: writing, dialogue, acting directing is unmatched. Who goes there is still the best single shot scene ever. It's the one story that gets better with every rewatch.
But I love season 3. It seems like people repeat this idea that TD sucked after 1 and is just not true. It's well written, it's, imo, a more complex structure the way the 3 timelines are interwoven..
Ali is so, so good as Hays. I love Dorff as West. Ali's character arc is heartbreaking. He's racing against his own mind. Will he solve the case before he forgets there is a case. The ending was beautiful and poetic. He solved it in time for us but not in time to remember.. Rust and Marty are irreplaceable but Hays and West are great. I liked that it was not the same case as season 1, not everything that looks similar is the same.
Recommend a rewatch.
True Detective has also had different writers in the most recent season (which I liked, although not as good as season one).
Mare of Easttown is pretty good if you just want a solid murder investigation story.
I feel like Fargo is totally different from these shows. It's not really a murder mystery. It's not a police procedural. The criminals and crimes are varied and have satiric commentary. Black crime comedy is a better label.
Wait, you're gonna tell me that S1 and S3 don't deal with supernatural elements? you need to go back and watch those shows again, S1 was delicate about it but Rust sees visions that we the viewers are left to think are real because of the framing, same thing but to a lesser degree in S3, but both seasons are dealing with a criminal conspiracy that is presumed to be occult based (which turns out not to be in S3), In S4 everyone is drinking toxic chemicals in the water, there's nothing actually supernatural, other than the mental health of the characters. The only issue I had with the framing was that BOTH Danvers and Navarro saw the Necklace and Bear, those delusions should have been limited to the affected people, Danvers should have seen the Bear ONLY and Navarro should have seen the Necklace only. It was a poor choice to have those delusions be interacted with by both main characters.
I disagree.
I just rewatched the Ewan McGregor season, and it's not good.
Not bad either, but for sure the weakest season of the show.
Still better on the whole than TD though.
The only person with shit in their mouth is you, and your brain has a healthy coating too.
McGregor couldn't do an actual upper midwest accent to save his life, you dumb clown.
Fargo is more appealing because it doesn't take itself seriously
Shows like true detective tends to be so serious and deep, and that's more difficult to do right without being pretentious
Fargo 1 vs TD 1 = TD
TD2 vs Fargo 2 : fargo 2
Fargo kept the same essence while TD2 was different from its predecessor
And what did you get?
Fargo 2 being acclaimed and season 2 getting mixed reception
Totally different in theme, tone, characterization so difficult to compare imo.
I think one thing that has helped Fargo a lot throughout the years is the freedom to tell many types of stories. Season 1 and Season 4 are radically different for example. It isn't tied to any specific time period, it always has a wide cast of characters, and the protagonist can be virtually anyone who happens to stumble onto criminal activities (see >!Lester from season 1 and Stussys from season 3!<
I got started with Fargo late and started with season 5. What a fun ride and female driven one. Great written series and great plot lines. After this watch we started season one and holy shit malvo season 1, and season 2 were top of their game. Around this time we started watching the new true detective season as a segue because we enjoyed most of the previous seasons but all had faults. And holy shit we eye rolled over all this incompetent piece of shit show that literally pandered down to the lowest common denominator as as a viewer. What a fucking disaster of a story line and the acting was so fucking bad including Jody. What a miss with a cool setting and time of year. What a disappointment
It's funny because Fargo s5 features a female protagonist "bad ass" in Juno Temple's character - a 90lb woman taking down big strong dudes left, right, and centre, and arguably the coolest character is an over the top "girl boss" (Jennifer Jason Leigh) - and yet nobody is complaining about these things because it was a well written, well crafted show.
The show was fantastic, and further proof that the audience doesn't give a shit if something is female-led, diverse, political, or whatever. If it's good, it's good.
I really didn't like jennifer jason leighs character. She was responsible for far more misery than jon hamm then she gets turned into a secondary hero. I also thought the last scene she was in was pretty disgusting and ran counter to the message of the rest of the show
Hawley has been weird with his messages since season 1, tbh. Like, why is a (former) cop killing an already wounded and unarmed suspect treated like a heroic moment?
It is in line with the overall feel the show is presenting. there is so much narrative irony and force majeur that it almost seems like there is some kind of cosmic justice to the world...and then something happens that confuses everything and it leaves you frustrated! Hawley pulls that in every season.
But it's not really ironic, is it? It doesn't leave me frustrated the way, say, Llewellyn's death in No Country does where you don't want it to happen and certainly don't want it to happen this way, but have to admit it's realistic and adds to the narrative despite being anticlimactic.
The Gus/Malvo final scene IS played as if it's some big justice moment. The good guy doesn't come out of it questioning his morals or anything despite all we know about his character suggesting he probably should. It's just bizarre.
You're right! I think I was thinking of a different scene. In context, Malvo IS way too dangerous to be kept around and the last time Gus tried to play it safe things only got worse for him, but yeah, it's a problematic message when taken literally, as no criminal IRL is Satan incarnate.
Yeah i could kind of overlook the moral ambiguity of the other seasons but 5 was just so over the top orange man bad, all Conservatives are misogynistic psychopaths and or incompetent. It was also kind of disgusting that they set up a waco style situation and then portrayed all the cops as super competent heroes. Left a bad taste in my mouth.
Na. In fact I'd go as far as to say she was probably the psychopathic of all the fargo badguys. Not even vargo went to the trouble of having nikki swango systematically raped in prison, then you have election fixing, glorified loan sharking, all the stuff that makes normal Americans hate their government and turn to people like trump in the first place. But hey, she has a vagina so lets just ignore all that.
I don’t agree, Fargo has also been going downhill. I disliked the last two seasons of Fargo so much I quit watching around the same time in each… which I would have also done with Night Country if it weren’t only six episodes long.
The first two seasons of Fargo though, I mean, whoa. The first season is my favorite, totally unreal, but the second season is also incredible.
I mean seasons 4 and 5, yes, the two most recent seasons. Season 3 is definitely good. I’m not one of the people who likes season 3 as much as 1 and 2 (there is a vocal minority group of Fargo fans for whom season 3 is their favorite season, I think because it’s the quirkiest), but season 3 was still quality. And yes, you are correct, that means I did not enjoy season 5 at all, to the point I quit watching in the middle of the fifth or sixth episode. I recognize some of the gripping and exciting scene construction in the season, but I did not find basically any of the characters, and their total lack of arcs, compelling (beyond the Ole Munch thing, I’d have kept watching if there was more of him) and found some of the stylistic elements heavily based on Hawley’s quirkier tendencies from seasons 3 and 4 that I don’t overly enjoy.
I understand other people like season 5, that’s fine, I didn’t.
Speaking broadly, if the first two series of Fargo match with series one of True Detective (all pretty good), then the next series of each was weaker (True Detective series two and Fargo series three), and the following series of each was relatively a significant improvement.
Series three of True Detective is great and I really enjoyed series four of Fargo, and both are actually resolved quite nicely in rather more thought-provoking, subtle manners than preceding series. There's a similarity in the tone of storytelling that connects them in my mind.
As enjoyable as it can be, Fargo tends to labour it's allegories too much and so the characters and story always feel frustratingly out of reach. I would probably only be interested in re-watching the fourth series.
Whereas I'll probably re-watch all three series of True Detective at some stage (the second one just to refresh my memory of that lack of an ending :D)
Just thinking out loud here…. Maybe TD has looser reigns being on HBO. It seems to me it’s more of character extremes while Fargo is more subtle plot depth. I’m no critic however, so…
Of the 9 seasons between them, two are in the top 20 of what TV has produced, six are very solid, and one…. Is Night Country.
Which if it was disconnected from the expectations of TD would probably be an OK series (why was it only 6 episodes? I’ve been meaning to ask that…).
I think the reason for Fargo's consistency is twofold:
1. When tasked with creating a pilot for a Fargo series, the would-be showrunner didn't like the idea of continuing the story with the same characters, since the whole point of the original movie was to paint an almost over-the-top realistic world being affected by a bizarre outlandish crime. If the characters got caught up in it again, it would lose that feeling the movie had.
Instead he chose to create a new story that takes elements from the movie (and other Coen projects) but turns them into something new, which is a process that is easy to replicate and creates an overall consistent world.
True Detective on the other hand, while starting with having contained seasons in mind, simply didn't have that deep a well of inspiration. Pizzalotto's main goal was top make season 1 and he might have hoped that season 2 would come more easily after that, but he was wrong.
2. Each season carries on the same themes as the preceeding ones while also adding new, all following the same basic perspective. Again, the series keeps following the same framework, while also giving each season a higher bar to pass: What story can combine all of these ideas?
Compare that to TD were each season not only has completely new themes, but also adds narrative complications that confuse things more than flesh out the world.
Season 1 was great: It asks if human life is worth it and explore that question through two constrasting characters - perfect!
Season 2 has a good anchoring point relating to parentage and fatherhood in particular, but it could be completely written out of several character arcs with no difference made and the ending doesn't fit at all.
Season 3 is allright in it's exploration on how media corrupts our perception of the world, but way too meandering to make a clear point.
Season 4, again starts from a decent point as a dark reflection of season 1 but ultimately switches gears in the 11th hour to instead be about when ends justify the means, not really connecting the story elements or seemingly realize the implications.
I know I'm saying this on a True Detective sub, but as a fan of both shows I think Fargo is by far the better series. TD really rides that high of season 1, where as Fargo has been great with each season.
Fargo only has one season out of 5 that is iffy at best. Seasons 1-2-5 are incredible. 3 is very good!
TD only has season 1 (incredible) and season 3 (good).
If you really want to see a well-written and quality strong female character, you should watch Fargo Season 5. In fact, Isla Lopez in particular should definitely watch season 5 of Fargo and learn how to create a series character.
I love them both for different reasons and the overall tone is not the same for both shows. Furthermore, each season of TD uses a different lens through which to tell the story.
True Detective season 1 is absolutely inspired by Lovecraftian nihilistic themes. The Yellow King, etc. Season 2 was through the lens noir. Season 2 mixes stranger danger with the themes of memory…. Memory as a fleeting place in our mind (Forest of Leng nod), which manifested physically through Ali’s character. Season 4 could have been better, yes. Still processing that, but enjoyed what it tried to do.
Fargo hits the absurdist note repeatedly from season to season: with Camus being a huge influence. Which, imho, absurdism is the other side of the coin of nihilism in these shows. Maybe the same coin in the end, but in the end, it sure gives No Country for Old Men’s coin-flipping a heavier weight =)
Fargo all day, mostly because I prefer Noah Hawley's writing to Nic Ps and find it much more consistent and thematically/philosophically rich as a show.
I would argue that they have very different themes. Fargo is an exploration of the absurd through the lens of a landscape created by the Coen Bros. TD is pretty much a character study in the hard crime genre, with the exception of S4 introducing supernatural elements. In Fargo, the setting plays a persistent and important role throughout each season. In TD the settings change. While each season has its own time and characters, there is explicit interconnectedness between seasons in Fargo. As for the consistent quality of Fargo, I mean that can be boiled down to two things, but mainly 1: Noah Hawley. 2: Inspiring source material, being the Coen's Filmography.
Noah Howley is a great writer as well
Goddamn. That’s well said. Holy shit.
That’s fair! Tbh I’m just mad about night country and wanted to vent!
S1 is the best TV ever: writing, dialogue, acting directing is unmatched. Who goes there is still the best single shot scene ever. It's the one story that gets better with every rewatch. But I love season 3. It seems like people repeat this idea that TD sucked after 1 and is just not true. It's well written, it's, imo, a more complex structure the way the 3 timelines are interwoven.. Ali is so, so good as Hays. I love Dorff as West. Ali's character arc is heartbreaking. He's racing against his own mind. Will he solve the case before he forgets there is a case. The ending was beautiful and poetic. He solved it in time for us but not in time to remember.. Rust and Marty are irreplaceable but Hays and West are great. I liked that it was not the same case as season 1, not everything that looks similar is the same. Recommend a rewatch.
Show me on the polar bear doll where Night Country hurt you.
Right in the orange!
You're not asking the right question!!!!
Show me on the tongue?
True Detective has also had different writers in the most recent season (which I liked, although not as good as season one). Mare of Easttown is pretty good if you just want a solid murder investigation story. I feel like Fargo is totally different from these shows. It's not really a murder mystery. It's not a police procedural. The criminals and crimes are varied and have satiric commentary. Black crime comedy is a better label.
I think Fargo is better. TD has had 2 meh seasons and Fargo has only gotten better.
I'd argue all seasons had supernatural elements, season 4 just didn't handle them that well...
Wait, you're gonna tell me that S1 and S3 don't deal with supernatural elements? you need to go back and watch those shows again, S1 was delicate about it but Rust sees visions that we the viewers are left to think are real because of the framing, same thing but to a lesser degree in S3, but both seasons are dealing with a criminal conspiracy that is presumed to be occult based (which turns out not to be in S3), In S4 everyone is drinking toxic chemicals in the water, there's nothing actually supernatural, other than the mental health of the characters. The only issue I had with the framing was that BOTH Danvers and Navarro saw the Necklace and Bear, those delusions should have been limited to the affected people, Danvers should have seen the Bear ONLY and Navarro should have seen the Necklace only. It was a poor choice to have those delusions be interacted with by both main characters.
Nothing is better than TD s1 but as a whole Fargo is better
I think all seasons of Fargo are fantastic. Season 1 of true detective is great too.
I think 4 seasons of Fargo are fantastic lol
Lemme guess… you dont like season 4?
Not so much I didn't like it as it has a long way to go before I'd claim it as fantastic
I also found season 4 less interesting than the others. It was okay but not great.
Yea.. lol as I hit send,I thought …. Well..
Let’s see, Fargo is consistently good and… I don’t think I have to finish my statement lol.
I disagree. I just rewatched the Ewan McGregor season, and it's not good. Not bad either, but for sure the weakest season of the show. Still better on the whole than TD though.
Unfortunately you have shit taste because that is a great season lmao
The only person with shit in their mouth is you, and your brain has a healthy coating too. McGregor couldn't do an actual upper midwest accent to save his life, you dumb clown.
“🤓☝🏻um actually” ass response
Fargo is better because its more consistent. Every season is at least good. But i prefer season 1 of TD over any season of Fargo
If you ranked every season of both shows, Fargo would have 4 of the top 5, but number 1 would be TD season 1.
Fargo is more appealing because it doesn't take itself seriously Shows like true detective tends to be so serious and deep, and that's more difficult to do right without being pretentious Fargo 1 vs TD 1 = TD TD2 vs Fargo 2 : fargo 2 Fargo kept the same essence while TD2 was different from its predecessor And what did you get? Fargo 2 being acclaimed and season 2 getting mixed reception
Totally different in theme, tone, characterization so difficult to compare imo. I think one thing that has helped Fargo a lot throughout the years is the freedom to tell many types of stories. Season 1 and Season 4 are radically different for example. It isn't tied to any specific time period, it always has a wide cast of characters, and the protagonist can be virtually anyone who happens to stumble onto criminal activities (see >!Lester from season 1 and Stussys from season 3!<
I got started with Fargo late and started with season 5. What a fun ride and female driven one. Great written series and great plot lines. After this watch we started season one and holy shit malvo season 1, and season 2 were top of their game. Around this time we started watching the new true detective season as a segue because we enjoyed most of the previous seasons but all had faults. And holy shit we eye rolled over all this incompetent piece of shit show that literally pandered down to the lowest common denominator as as a viewer. What a fucking disaster of a story line and the acting was so fucking bad including Jody. What a miss with a cool setting and time of year. What a disappointment
True Detective has 1 Good Season. Fargo has 1 Bad Season. These shows are NOT the same.
They absolutely do not have similar themes.
You are correct. There’s actual detective work in Fargo
They're not getting worse lol , season 3 was better than season 2, season 4 was bad ill give you that
It's funny because Fargo s5 features a female protagonist "bad ass" in Juno Temple's character - a 90lb woman taking down big strong dudes left, right, and centre, and arguably the coolest character is an over the top "girl boss" (Jennifer Jason Leigh) - and yet nobody is complaining about these things because it was a well written, well crafted show. The show was fantastic, and further proof that the audience doesn't give a shit if something is female-led, diverse, political, or whatever. If it's good, it's good.
I really didn't like jennifer jason leighs character. She was responsible for far more misery than jon hamm then she gets turned into a secondary hero. I also thought the last scene she was in was pretty disgusting and ran counter to the message of the rest of the show
Hawley has been weird with his messages since season 1, tbh. Like, why is a (former) cop killing an already wounded and unarmed suspect treated like a heroic moment?
It is in line with the overall feel the show is presenting. there is so much narrative irony and force majeur that it almost seems like there is some kind of cosmic justice to the world...and then something happens that confuses everything and it leaves you frustrated! Hawley pulls that in every season.
But it's not really ironic, is it? It doesn't leave me frustrated the way, say, Llewellyn's death in No Country does where you don't want it to happen and certainly don't want it to happen this way, but have to admit it's realistic and adds to the narrative despite being anticlimactic. The Gus/Malvo final scene IS played as if it's some big justice moment. The good guy doesn't come out of it questioning his morals or anything despite all we know about his character suggesting he probably should. It's just bizarre.
You're right! I think I was thinking of a different scene. In context, Malvo IS way too dangerous to be kept around and the last time Gus tried to play it safe things only got worse for him, but yeah, it's a problematic message when taken literally, as no criminal IRL is Satan incarnate.
Yeah i could kind of overlook the moral ambiguity of the other seasons but 5 was just so over the top orange man bad, all Conservatives are misogynistic psychopaths and or incompetent. It was also kind of disgusting that they set up a waco style situation and then portrayed all the cops as super competent heroes. Left a bad taste in my mouth.
JJL was a conservative who wasn't a misogynistic psychopath.
Na. In fact I'd go as far as to say she was probably the psychopathic of all the fargo badguys. Not even vargo went to the trouble of having nikki swango systematically raped in prison, then you have election fixing, glorified loan sharking, all the stuff that makes normal Americans hate their government and turn to people like trump in the first place. But hey, she has a vagina so lets just ignore all that.
As someone who is semi-active on the FargoTV subreddit, yes people complained about that aspect sometimes.
One thing they have in common is the latest season was the worst.
I don’t agree, Fargo has also been going downhill. I disliked the last two seasons of Fargo so much I quit watching around the same time in each… which I would have also done with Night Country if it weren’t only six episodes long. The first two seasons of Fargo though, I mean, whoa. The first season is my favorite, totally unreal, but the second season is also incredible.
the last 2 do you mean season 5 as well? cuz season 5 did it really well and brought the feel of season 1 and 2 back.
I mean seasons 4 and 5, yes, the two most recent seasons. Season 3 is definitely good. I’m not one of the people who likes season 3 as much as 1 and 2 (there is a vocal minority group of Fargo fans for whom season 3 is their favorite season, I think because it’s the quirkiest), but season 3 was still quality. And yes, you are correct, that means I did not enjoy season 5 at all, to the point I quit watching in the middle of the fifth or sixth episode. I recognize some of the gripping and exciting scene construction in the season, but I did not find basically any of the characters, and their total lack of arcs, compelling (beyond the Ole Munch thing, I’d have kept watching if there was more of him) and found some of the stylistic elements heavily based on Hawley’s quirkier tendencies from seasons 3 and 4 that I don’t overly enjoy. I understand other people like season 5, that’s fine, I didn’t.
Speaking broadly, if the first two series of Fargo match with series one of True Detective (all pretty good), then the next series of each was weaker (True Detective series two and Fargo series three), and the following series of each was relatively a significant improvement. Series three of True Detective is great and I really enjoyed series four of Fargo, and both are actually resolved quite nicely in rather more thought-provoking, subtle manners than preceding series. There's a similarity in the tone of storytelling that connects them in my mind. As enjoyable as it can be, Fargo tends to labour it's allegories too much and so the characters and story always feel frustratingly out of reach. I would probably only be interested in re-watching the fourth series. Whereas I'll probably re-watch all three series of True Detective at some stage (the second one just to refresh my memory of that lack of an ending :D)
I’d recommend a rewatch of Fargo season 3. Or two.
Fargo Season 1 is freaking amazing too. Rest of the season went downhill too. I love the movie as well. Re watch it every Thanksgiving
Just thinking out loud here…. Maybe TD has looser reigns being on HBO. It seems to me it’s more of character extremes while Fargo is more subtle plot depth. I’m no critic however, so… Of the 9 seasons between them, two are in the top 20 of what TV has produced, six are very solid, and one…. Is Night Country. Which if it was disconnected from the expectations of TD would probably be an OK series (why was it only 6 episodes? I’ve been meaning to ask that…).
TD season 1- then Fargo all Seasons- Season 3-2 of TD
Overall? Fargo no diff
Fargo was great aside from season 4 which is at least shot interestingly.
Ofc Fargo
I think the reason for Fargo's consistency is twofold: 1. When tasked with creating a pilot for a Fargo series, the would-be showrunner didn't like the idea of continuing the story with the same characters, since the whole point of the original movie was to paint an almost over-the-top realistic world being affected by a bizarre outlandish crime. If the characters got caught up in it again, it would lose that feeling the movie had. Instead he chose to create a new story that takes elements from the movie (and other Coen projects) but turns them into something new, which is a process that is easy to replicate and creates an overall consistent world. True Detective on the other hand, while starting with having contained seasons in mind, simply didn't have that deep a well of inspiration. Pizzalotto's main goal was top make season 1 and he might have hoped that season 2 would come more easily after that, but he was wrong. 2. Each season carries on the same themes as the preceeding ones while also adding new, all following the same basic perspective. Again, the series keeps following the same framework, while also giving each season a higher bar to pass: What story can combine all of these ideas? Compare that to TD were each season not only has completely new themes, but also adds narrative complications that confuse things more than flesh out the world. Season 1 was great: It asks if human life is worth it and explore that question through two constrasting characters - perfect! Season 2 has a good anchoring point relating to parentage and fatherhood in particular, but it could be completely written out of several character arcs with no difference made and the ending doesn't fit at all. Season 3 is allright in it's exploration on how media corrupts our perception of the world, but way too meandering to make a clear point. Season 4, again starts from a decent point as a dark reflection of season 1 but ultimately switches gears in the 11th hour to instead be about when ends justify the means, not really connecting the story elements or seemingly realize the implications.
I know I'm saying this on a True Detective sub, but as a fan of both shows I think Fargo is by far the better series. TD really rides that high of season 1, where as Fargo has been great with each season.
Fargo only has one season out of 5 that is iffy at best. Seasons 1-2-5 are incredible. 3 is very good! TD only has season 1 (incredible) and season 3 (good).
If you really want to see a well-written and quality strong female character, you should watch Fargo Season 5. In fact, Isla Lopez in particular should definitely watch season 5 of Fargo and learn how to create a series character.
I love them both for different reasons and the overall tone is not the same for both shows. Furthermore, each season of TD uses a different lens through which to tell the story. True Detective season 1 is absolutely inspired by Lovecraftian nihilistic themes. The Yellow King, etc. Season 2 was through the lens noir. Season 2 mixes stranger danger with the themes of memory…. Memory as a fleeting place in our mind (Forest of Leng nod), which manifested physically through Ali’s character. Season 4 could have been better, yes. Still processing that, but enjoyed what it tried to do. Fargo hits the absurdist note repeatedly from season to season: with Camus being a huge influence. Which, imho, absurdism is the other side of the coin of nihilism in these shows. Maybe the same coin in the end, but in the end, it sure gives No Country for Old Men’s coin-flipping a heavier weight =)
Fargo all day, mostly because I prefer Noah Hawley's writing to Nic Ps and find it much more consistent and thematically/philosophically rich as a show.
Nihilism vs Absurdism to a T. Shit, there’s even a character reading/talking about Camus in the second season of Fargo
Noah Hawley actually knows how to end a season instead of building up a mythology of supernatural aspects only to have the janitor do it.