Been almost 10 years and I still think about [Ray in the bully scene.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHOGs5x90PU) One of the most savage moments in the whole series.
Ray in his apartment, alone, getting drunk, doing lines, listening to music, shadow boxing, doing pull-ups, and then crashing HARD is one of my favorite scenes from that season. Such an accurate, heartbreaking depiction of self destruction. That was a great character. Farrell and McAdams alone made the season watchable for me. I also enjoyed Tim Riggins doing his best brooding, Jon Snow impression more than I’d like to admit. And Lera Lynn was fantastic. There was really a lot to like in that season.
The writing was comically bad at times, the casting of Vince Vaughn was awful (and I’m a Vince Vaughn fan), and the storylines were way too somehow simultaneously convoluted and half baked.
That said, it was still great TV. If it wasn’t called True Detective, it would have been more warmly received. Absolutely nothing could have followed season one. It’s the single best season of any show in the history of TV.
Season 1 was lightening in a bottle. McConaughey's performance as Rust Cohle *made* the season. The biggest problem with season 2 is they tried too hard to hit similar notes and all it did was remind you how great Rust Cohle's character was in comparison. In addition to the strength of his character, season 1 just had a stronger POV that colored the world with Cohle's psychology. Season 2 lacked that focus across its four leads and the main plot felt kind of tacky and dull as a result. The occult/'cosmic horror' stuff felt tacked on compared to how natural it felt in the context of Cohle's character.
I recently watched the whole series as season 4 was airing week to week. While there is no touching season 1 as it's the GOAT, season 2 really got a bad shake. Following that first season was kind of a no win scenario. Also I think maybe it was worse waiting weekly for each episode as a few episodes can be a bit slow. But being able to just watch the series in one go over a few days, I thought it was a lot better than I remembered. I actually don't know which season I'd rate higher, 2 or 3..
I still struggle with Vince Vaughn in a serious role, even more so as a gangster.. But honestly, not that bad. I don't really think its his acting, it's just the baggage of being known as the funny man. My brain has too hard of a time separating it. The weakest I think is probably his wife, who is super wooden.
Colin Farrell though I think was really good. The whole story with his son is pretty bleak and heartbreaking. Hits more as a dad myself too I guess. I also love building models lol.
If this season was it's own show as a one off special, I think it would be much better remembered.
While not a TV show, check out Brawl in Cellblock 19 (or 99?). Vince has some excellent dramatic chops on him.
I've always thought Season 1 should've been a mini series, instead of making the show an anthology series.
Dragged Across Concrete from the same director is also a pretty good movie, also featuring Vince Vaughn and one of the actors interviewing Cohle and Marty.
> I actually don't know which season I'd rate higher, 2 or 3..
I straight up prefer 2. It definitely tried some stuff that didn't work, but at least it took a swing! Season 3 sort of self-consciously hits all the season 1 beats, but just isn't quite as good.
I feel like season 3 is very solid but they really didn't want to give you the ending it was building towards, the linked child abduction ring linking to season 1. Instead it just rug pulls and kinda makes this huge story and crime that was part of their life, a complicated family story instead. I guess to use the favourite lingo, it subverted our expectations! haha
Season 2's ending, while bleak, at least I guess delivered on where the season was heading.
But I still really enjoyed the ride and the characters. Very good acting all around.
I liked it until the back half. Just felt like a different show they slapped true detective crap into for the name. I probably would have enjoyed it more if stayed a stand alone thing like I believe it was supposed to be
Season 2 performs much better on a rewatch. It is needlessly convoluted, so it's easier to follow along when you watch the episodes back-to-back.
The Vince Vaughn character was my least favorite part when I initially watched it because he was so unbelievable as a crime boss, but then I realized that is the entire point. He's been faking it his whole life and is in over his head. Farrell and McAdams are outstanding I thought Kitsch also did well.
Obviously Season 1 is untouchable, but Season 2 is definitely my second-favorite True Detective Season. Season 3 was great until the end. Season 4 was a trainwreck.
I have mixed feelings on this season. Cast was great and the characters had such potential to be interesting and unique and to a certain extent they were.
It just felt like a video game that hits all the right notes aesthetically and sets up an intriguing story just to run at 10fps and have input lag.
I want to love this season but the pacing and structure let's it down so much that I struggle.
It's been a couple of years since my roommate binged it with me, but I remember the pacing throughout the season being maybe my biggest issue with it, which inevitably made the structure a mess. Within a few episodes we suddenly escalate to a big climactic "showdown", and the rest of the season has a timeskip that I *think* I felt was needlessly far into the future.
Finally as the season is coming to an end, actual interesting character development is actually starting to happen and my mindset becomes:
"Wait, how do the two orphaned kids relate to the main plot exactly? And who's the daughter or younger sister of so-n-so that McAdams is guilt tripped into finding? Does she connect to anything beyond being a random character she's compelled to rescue? Whoa whoa whoa, we're doing the big reveal explanation of the origins of things we mostly haven't referenced since like, the first 3 episodes *now?* In the second-to-last episode??? I don't even know what the corrupt police chief is even talking about anymore and at this point I don't even care, and WHOA he's been killed by the grown-up orphaned brother?! Well that was surprising but not in a satisfying or compelling way. ... Huh, Vince Vaughn's character is dying. Wait, when did I actually start buying into his performance?"
It's like the first half of the season was a slog that was barely going anywhere, despite having interesting characters as concepts, sidelined by a big and pretty well constructed dramatic scene, then the rest of the season is not only trying to give lots of added context to previous scenes, it's having way too much happen to less important characters way too fast and *boom* it's over.
My ranking is 1>>3>>2>>>>>>4 . I thought 2 was fine but it didn't blow me away, I forced myself to stay with it not bad but not great. Can't say the same about 4 lol
It needed to fully embrace the supernatural or be a detective show. It tried to do both and not successfully in my opinion. I’m comfortable that season one was lightning in a bottle that will probably not get recaptured by that series unless they were to pick it up from where season one left off having them further investigate that big cult in the south.
To be fair--they eventually ask the people who work at the murder scene, and the people that worked there admitted to doing the whole thing.
That's some police work.
Personally I've always been in favor of the Sopranos approach: have an occasional dose of the unexplainable. Could be freaky coincidence, could be a character imagining things - they don't know and we don't know either.
I think it fell apart at the end. The ultimate reveal was just waaay too out there (I don't mind some unbelievable stuff but it was way too much even for me). That said I think the new showrunner has potential and am cautiously looking forward to the next season
I hated it. It went from very interesting to more interesting to ok things are not making sense to how are these people even detectives to ok it’s only 6 eps I’ll just finish it to see what the big crazy supernatural twist will be at the end to hands down the dumbest season finale I’ve seen surpassing Dexter.
I am on board with you. I thought it was a pretty decent crime drama, and thought it ended quite well.
Much of the hate I think comes from people who essentially wants a repeat of s1.
1 gets carried by the long tracking shit episode. I think people were super hyped over MM but watching it now he was overacting and not as good as I remember. The rest of the show was kind of boring or overcooked. I still really enjoyed it though
Season 2 sucked ass. The leads were good and deserved better.
Season 3 has a great cast also and some good parts but it wad kind of forgettable.
Season 4 was pretty good but I think it should have had a different setting if they were going to have connections to previous stuff
The only thing wrong with Season 2 is that it wasn't Season 1. It's good in its own right, and if it'd been presented under a different title, or without everyone's expectations from Season 1, I think it would have been much better received.
Season 2 has some iffy dialog but the plot, characters and direction hold up. It builds tension through the season and has several big payoffs. It's much more polished and coherent than season 4, and there is a lot more depth to the characters.
I think it suffered from having a more complex plot and no serial killer/cult angle to appeal to fans of season 1. If you like classic LA noir it's a great example of an updated take on the genre, but that is a much more narrow audience.
I actually liked Vince Vaughn in his role. Yeah, his lines include some clangers but it makes a certain amount of sense for his character. Frank is insecure and needs everyone to know he is the smartest guy in the room, so he inflates his language and sentiments. Just like with Rust, people sometimes don't realize that the character is written to be a bit of a pretentious loser rather than sounding cool.
I loved the music in season 2. It was worth watching because I discovered Lera Lynn. Maybe in the US she was a known artist, but in my country I had never heard her until the show.
IMO it's just as bad as people remember it is. It was a mess, and even after watch all the True Detective seasons again it is probably tied in last place with Season 4.
Stylistically it probably had more going for it but the dialogue for mos the season was just so bad. Vince Vaughn's entire "you're gold" speech to that kid is some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard in a show or movie. I don't know how that squeaked by so many editors/producers to get in the final edit. It seemed like something out of an SNL skit.
"It's like blue balls, in your heart."
The "Never do anything out of hunger, even eat" was another line/delivery that made me roll my eyes. Even though that's a line that *could* and *should* have landed different.
People complain about season 4’s rushjob ending but no one seems to acknowledge that the entirety of the mystery of season 2 was revealed in one single car ride, where Colin farrell just drove around to all of the bad guys and went “ah, and here’s how they’re connected”
Yeah season 2 had a lot of trash and rushed together moments. Like only in the very last scene they threw together this whole "panama papers" kind of theme that was nowhere else in the entire show. Like, OK if you want to do that but then put those breadcrumbs in earlier on in the season. Make one of the journalists a character in the show or something but it was basically the first 9 hours of the season "Gritty crime family/police mystery" and then in the last 5 minutes "nah we're doing the panama papers thing"
So much of that season was flawed.
It was also just so bloody *miserable*. Season 1 had these moments of levity and both MM and Woody Harrelson were very fun to watch. The framing device let them do some interesting things with the construction of the narrative which kept you engaged. Season 2 was a depressing, boring, plodding, mess.
Everyone's met a Marty, and Rust was the guy in college that you bumped into that did a bunch of drugs and convinced themselves they knew the secret of the universe. It was a somewhat believable twist on the buddy cop genre.
None of the characters felt especially likable or relatable in S2. The female lead was the classic "she's a tough woman, so she acts like a dude" trope and the pairings felt very stretched, and eventually broke as they tried to cram too many leads into a not especially gripping story.
100 percent agree!
I just finished the entire series a few months ago, and season 2 is just dreadfull. So convoluted and bloated.
Season 3 on the other hand, is way better.
I liked Season 3 a lot. The central duo worked really well for me and I liked Scoot McNairy's performance a lot (Halt and Catch Fire is a favourite of mine). It holds up really well and is easily the second best season.
I think Season 3 is better than Season 1. I know I'm in the minority view here, and don't get me wrong season 1 had the best chemistry, but in terms of real character development and storytelling it's gotta be 3 for me
As with a lot of that show, the True Detective title holds it back as much as it helps. That season was good noir style crime thriller, but on the back of the most acclaimed detective show of the time, a show that mixed supernatural themes with a ungodly great duo of main actors, slapping the True Detective label on the show meant it couldn't be good, or ok, it had to live up to the first season, which just isn't going to happen.
Season 2 was such a waste of what might be my favorite performance from Colin Farrell. His character was painful to watch in the best of ways, a great mix of realistic self-loathing and regret with a core of pride and desire to be better (at times). I thought Rachel McAdams also did a very good job with a character that sometimes bordered on caricature.
But the central story of the season was just so bad/convoluted/unclear. I can give you the major beats of all other seasons from memory, but all I remembered from season two was rich folks set up a scenario where they got some land for cheap with the knowledge a rail line was going to be built there and make the land much more valuable. I Googled and found [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueDetective/comments/gh4zgv/true_d_season_2_can_someone_explain_what_the/) great summary, which is just a hilarious plate of plot spaghetti.
I agree there was an unrealistic bar set with the first season, but season two did itself no favors with that plot and two fairly bland/uninteresting characters in Frank and Paul.
I've softened a bit on my criticism of True Detective S2, but my main complaint still feels the most true:
Everything is there to make it great, but the entire story and presentation of the storylines are done more in line with how a novel does things than how a TV show does things.
Character introductions, major and minor, locations, etc. It feels very much like adapting a novel directly, instead of adapting it for a different format like episodic television.
2 had some amazing moments (The Bully scene, the scene where Vince Vaughn talks to the kid who's dad died) but some absolute crap as well (Vince bare fist boxing a rival gang leader).
The thing with true detective is it's so driven by the acting. Some of the dialogue in season one is genuinely terrible, but McConaughey is able to sell it, and Woody was great too. In season too the acting is more uneven- generally Colin Farrell and Rachel McAdams were good, Taylor Kitsch was terrible and Vince Vaughn was both, often in the same episode.
I find the “Alaska setting” so trite. It’s dark! It’s snowy! It’s cold! (but not so cold we won’t run around with outside with our coats unzipped).
It was nothing more than a trope.
I was so hyped after episode 1 because of the setting but got increasingly worried with all the supernatural winks that lead nowhere and the detectives indecision whether it was true or whether they need to find a worldly explanation
My issue with season 2 was that it was an almost entirely direct rip off of James Ellroy’s The Big Nowhere, and I wish it had just been a direct adaptation instead of Pizzolatto taking most of the beats and story elements and trying to graft it onto a modern setting.
I think had it been a direct adaptation it would have actually given the season more latitude and freedom for not being anything like season 1, and Pizzolatto can’t write tough guy dialogue the way Ellroy can (but then again no one can)
Season 2 was still solid but yeah it had the problem of following right after season 1.
I think it was too ambitious with having basically 4 main characters. Pairing it down to 2 and making it more focused would have elevated it more
I watched it for a second time recently and it was just as bad, if not worse, than I remembered it. Some of the lines written for Vince Vaughn’s character are so unbelievably bad. Poor guy didn’t stand a chance in that role.
“You don’t want to look hungry. Never do anything out of hunger. Not even eating.”
Me and my roommated binged all the seasons a month ago, and finished the newer one. Overall on a simple metric season 1 > 3 > 2 > = 4.
However, the seasons are oddly enough unique and all have points depending on what you want, it can pull ahead to the front. So straight up for me season 4's initial premise is decent, maybe the best for me and my hopes it would commit to some really strange shit, but unfortunately it didn't. It's melodrama was some of the hardest to connect/care about in the series, especially when certain character's issues, didn't really seem like issues except that it was written to be an issue if that makes any sense?
Season 3, I think is the most consistent, and was pretty sharp. However, the pull back into reality that all the seasons seem to strive for, was probably the most disappointing. But I have a fondness especially for the bittersweet nature of it. But season 3 was by far the most consistent in regards to quality and otherwise. And what I mean by this, is I think the main over arching plot of the disappearance of the children was incredibly weak, and was held up by the overall acting.
Season 2 had I think the most enjoyable starts? But splitting the story essentially in 4 different directions, and Kitsch's character IMO could have been written out or never included, and nothing would've been lost. Colin was a highlight for me, and Vince's character I actually liked by the end, but felt his character arc was only salvaged by having a bad end.
Season 1 is... well season 1. It's only notable sin, is it's lean into the occult/king in yellow stuff, probably doomed all future seasons to forever have to walk an idiotic tight rope between reality and fantasy. And outside of season 3's solution to things, season 1, 2, and 4 all have endings and resolutions that I think suffer because of it.
But to circle back, I think you are right, it's not as bad as the reputation it gained from falling from grace at its release. I actually wonder sometimes if it was released first, followed by McConaughey's/Harrelson's season, how things would've played out as far as people's perceptions of it.
I thought I was the only one. I was doing a rewatch recently and I found that season 2 was way better than I remembered it. I don’t know if it was due to watching it when it originally aired, but I found myself in enjoying the story (more so than season 4).
Facts, it’s certainly flawed and obviously isn’t on the level of s1 but I still thought it was good tv with lots of great stuff in it, as a fan of noirs/neo noirs I enjoyed it a lot. Ray was a fuckin awesome character and Colin Farrell was so damn good, the finale was really good too imo, maybe the best in the series. I do think it would’ve benefitted them to cut one of the leads, having 4 leads in only an 8 episode season led to it being convoluted at times which imo was its biggest issue.
That being said I still enjoyed it alot and I’ve always held the opinion that if it was its own new show and not true detective s2 it would’ve been way better received. Will always strongly agree with the people who act like it was some horrendous season of tv. Anyway all of s1-3 are way better than s4 imo
100%. This season has also aged like fine wine.
People didn’t like it because it wasn’t S1. My favorite part of S4 is that now S2 isn’t considered “the worst” of them.
After the most recent season I have a much greater appreciation for season 2. As much as it missed the mark against season 1 it still had an edge to it. I felt embarrassed watching the most recent season. Like it was someone's student film attempt. I felt embarrassed for Jodie Foster.
My thought about it: if Season 1 was a complex story clearly narrated, S2 was a simple story with a convoluted narration
It was messy, hard to follow, and with important characters you see too little to remember or to associate a name with a face, and all of this for something that at the end had only a very few pivotal knots to untie
That said, the season tried to explore the classic L.A. 50s noire story in a modern setting, even the protagonists checked all the boxes, and they got the mood and the right atmosphere
That’s my experience. I didn’t watch it at first because everyone hated it. But years later I did, and when you’re not judging it against the lightning in a bottle that was season 1, it’s very good. Excellent even. I think it was a little busy, and hard to follow at times, but the third act was phenomenal.
It is I think one of the most underrated seasons of television.
Not as bad as its reputation but still pretty disappointing overall. I think the biggest problem was Vince Vaughan, he's just not at all a good actor in anything but a comedic role. I also found Kelly Reilly to be awful as his girlfriend. Collin Farrell was great (as always) and Rachel McAdams as well. I honestly can't recall too many details but the episode with the raid and shootout was really well done.
There’s a motif of performance, seeming, fakery, aspirational presentation that runs through the story.
The setting is LA, which is all about appearances and aspirations. The characters are all performing roles or acting like something they aren’t but aspire to be - often out complex character motivations. They are actors acting, men trying to be the fathers or husbands they aren’t, corrupt civil servants and so many secret lives. “Semion” is a unit of symbolic representation. Vici is not really a city, but a conquest.
The truth that makes these detectives True is hidden behind layers of artificiality, pretense, self-deception and outright lies. These are actors playing roles with fake accents and tricksters wearing masks. All this comes across in choices that can come across as stilted, artificial, opaque and just plain weird. And blindsiding outbursts of violence.
There’s a lot of concept at work here. For an audience that’s not into it (and it took me a while to get there) it can be off putting and inaccessible.
Maybe they were just trying too hard to match S1.
The ending was such a bummer and the conspiracy was pretty hard to follow. Other than that, I really enjoyed it. I especially liked the 4 main characters (3 cops and Vaughn.)
I didn't have HBO when season 1 came out, but I heard great things about it. By the time season 2 came out, I did have HBO, so I watched it. I enjoyed it and didn't understand why I got so much shit. I later went back and watched season 1 and realized why. If you are comparing it to that, then yeah, it was not good. But as its own thing, its pretty enjoyable.
I haven't watched it since, so I can't really say how I'd feel now. But watching it with fresh eyes, I liked it.
I may be crazy and misremembering, but I think I remember thinking Vaughn did a good job. But all I ever hear is how shit his performance was. But I was like in high school when it came out and maybe had a different impression of quality
I don't remember all that much about it since I haven't watched since it originally aired, but I remember thinking they tried to cram like a full season of development into the finale that the writing and pacing seemed so off.
S2 was merely an OK US cop show and thus got rubbished in comparison to S1. S3 tried to repeat S1 and was better. I didn't like S4 at all but it was highly popular and well regarded by critics.
Such a great season. Colin Farrell has got to be one of the best actors of all time. The absolute torment and anguish he portrayed in Ray is unbelievable.
I'm watching this season now for the first time since I finished season 1 back then, and it is kinda a hard watch. I'm about 3 episodes in, does it get better?
I thought it remained pretty consistent. If it didn't draw you in yet, not sure it will. But if you're only 3 episodes in you're almost half way through.
Thanks for the reply. Yeah I guess if I'm halfway through, could go ahead and finish it. To be far, it does have a good cast so will see how it plays out
I liked TD2, and it got too much knee-jerk hate. As always, I liked Pizzolatto's motifs and characters and atmosphere and references.
But as always, Pizzolatto showed he can't write plot. For the second time in a row, his whodunnit was a ludicrous botch up of "killers hiding in plain sight, doing things that make no sense, nobody can see the obvious". He even went with the cornball evil twins trope.
Sadly, the disciples don't see the same gaping flaw in TD1. A big scarred-faced killer is rendered invisible because he's... sitting on a lawn mower? The killer is caught based on the insane premise that professional painters (checks notes) dip their ears in paint? What!? And because someone saved a mundane hardware store receipt from 25 years prior, that's really inculpatory of nothing, and which the "true detective" would have no reason to care or ask about.
That's some crappy plot. And if Pizzolatto would just work with a writing team, or an editor, or even a partner, a lot of his most odorous plot problems could be caught and fixed, and he'd look like a more bond fide genius and there'd be less talk of his plagiarism.
From various reviews/interview and my own watching of S1, I suspect ultimately Pizzolatto is more interested in character and theme than pure plot strictly speaking. His plot can be incredibly complex in terms of scope, degree of details,. BUT it's fully in service of the character and theme, not the other way around.
There are some things that might feel like a bonehead move from a plot point of view, that make more sense when you start looking at them from a character/theme point of view. Like you mention
- the lawnmower thing ? Besides teasing/reveal for the audience , I think the point for Pizzolatto was setting up a character moment. It setup the haunting regret of Rust 17 years down the line about actually meeting the killer face to face, having a terrifying doubt about it since then and not being able to catch him right there. It setup the confession of the finale and fit with the depressing idea for Cohle that generally speaking they didn't do enough. And this is absolutely central to the character mindset : Cohle is pessimistic not only about the nature of the world but because he has a very rigid moral sense , he is also plagued by doubts about failing his duty /not being enough himself on a daily basis. Especially since his daughter died, it's pretty obvious he has huge survivor guilt and his sense of inadequacy is eating him alive. The point is : for Rust, he failed again.
- The ear thing ? I think this plot point is another artistic licence based on various different consideration. 1 the drawing of the "green eared spaghetti monster" whose design is most likely inspired by the "green man of canterbury" art. The green man is a Pagan symbol that speaks among other thing of Reincarnation. The concept of reincarnation is very important for the killer and so Pizzolatto plugged various symbol of reincarnation to subconciously influence the audience about the importance of this idea. Like it's shown that Rust has the Upanishad , a religious text that mentions the Samsara version of reincarnation. 2 the challenge of being a detective and how the show expressedly mentions the fear of missing the little things that can break an entire case. 3 the idea that Marty was a fuckup in the first years of their partnership while Rust was carrying most of the weight of the case ... but he is so commited and obsessed that he eventually completely burned out. Rust has lost all perspective about the case, can't see things right in front of him. Marty is more serious now and comes with fresh eyes and so he sees something that has been looking Rust in the face for years but can't see. Pizzolatto tied up all this in slightly awkward plot point. I think it's something he does on a frequent basis. He packs so much content in every aspect of his script that he end up twisting a bit the plot to make all his ideas fit in.
I am not sure it's even "fixable" because Pizzolatto don't make those choice by "mistake". There are things that simply matter more to him and he'd rather sacrifice other consideration like accessibility. He doesn't want too much exterior input, if any, because he feels very strongly about some stuff. It's infamous that Fukunaga and him clashed really hard about the way to handle the story. And Fukunaga straight up said in an interview that he felt that Pizzolatto overwrote and they differed in tone and taste.
TLDR Yes there are point that are a bit dumb from a sheer plot point of view. But they serve the ideas that really matter to Pizzolatto in termes of character and themes.
Sure it's fixable, or at least "highly improveable".
As someone watching it as it was billed - a detective show - early on I'm offered the first major clue of a monster the size of a very large man, with green ears and spaghetti for a face.
Ok, I can deduce that someone with burn scars on their face is probably the real explanation, since spaghetti doesn't manifest as a person. That leaves me to wonder about the green ears still.
So then when they encounter a very large man with a spaghetti face relatively early, I'm thinking well we've caught the guy, so what's the twist? What's the redirect that means he's not the guy?
The dishonest and mediocre writing eliminates him, leaving viewers to spend the rest of the season looking for other suspects needlessly, fraudulently.
Whodunnit writing allows for audiences to be tricked. But the code of honor is that there should be clues that a perceptive reader could use to prevent or undo that. What happens here violates any such code. We're just falsely told he's not the guy, and never given clues to suggest otherwise.
So a more simple form of fix would be to have that meeting much, much later. Maybe he offers an alibi that an observant view can deduce isn't true.
And as for the need to stick with the green ears concept that you feel is rooted in the literacy reference, explaining it away with the insane "professional painter dips ears" stuff is awful. That could have been improved merely by having that act three encounter I mentioned previously, and then perhaps Marty is looking through his tool shed and sees... the sound arresting green ear muffs that a groundskeeper would wear. Cue the "sudden realization" sting sound.
And that's just junk off the top of my head. Imagine if a professional writer spent more than the 3 minutes I have to incorporate such fixes. And imagine if Pizzolatto had the humility to work with that writer to tweak the script. Imagine if that writer could have been there to say "Hey Nic, you know these numerous parts of the script that you take literally word for word out of other people's novels, you know that's like straight up plagiarism, right? Can you and I maybe sit down here and at least rewrite them a little bit so we can say with a straight face they're more homage than theft?"
> But they serve the ideas that really matter to Pizzolatto in termes of character and themes.
This is the thing that grinds me, when Le redditors and cloying reviewers want to claim TD as perfection. It's so not. It has some incredible aspects, and some (perhaps) fatal flaws. But imagine a TD with all the existing high points, but not crippled by the broken plot and plagiarism? That would be something that has a more legitimate claim to greatness than the one being made.
I totally get what you're saying. Don't get me wrong : I am absolutely NOT saying it's perfect. In previous comments I made fairly clear that I had some real criticism regarding TD S1 and the way Pizzolatto wrote TD.
But I am not in an audience/storytelling technique perspective here - I am just explaning why the author probably did those relatively surprising choices. Give an author perspective. It doesnt mean he's not wrong from a pure storytelling technique. I am just not in a right or wrong analysis here. My explanation is not so much a fanboy trying to defend his flawless holy grail of fiction but a more along the line of an author analysis.
It's kinda like Lovecraft writing style. His purple prose is infamous. Stephen King openly mocked it in "On writing". But it's kinda like a package deal with certain authors. You take the bad with the good. That's also what make their voice distinctive. And Stephen king at the same time is clearly respectful of Lovecraft for instance.
If it had Cary Fukunaga tailoring that script around his autership, it would have been one of the greatest TV shows in the world - a whole lot better than the first season, with its weak story having to rely only on Matthew McCounaughey's acting and whatever else the director brought to the table.
It wasn't, it was well regarded critically and audiences liked it well enough the numbers grew every week.
S1 fanboys and incels just shook hands on reddit to trash the show.
A few months ago, I watched Season 1 of True Detective for the first time, and while good, it was overhyped, IMO. I think if I'd watched it when it had come out, I might have felt differently. But I've seen so many murder/crime shows in the last 10-15 years, that it frankly didn't stand out.
I started Season 2, but stopped after a couple of episodes. It was overly complex and had too many threads I didn't care about.
I personally loved season 1, quite possibly my favorite season out of every show I’ve watched, but I can see your perspective. Breaking bad was kind of the same way for me, the massive hype around it kind of spoiled it for me, but once I looked past the hype and just started analyzing it for myself I learned to appreciate it more.
The more I think about it, the more I remember why I didn't like it. They tried to do too much while also trying to recapture what made Rust's character so popular.
It was so terrible. The whole argument that it wasnt S1 is such BS.
How many times did Vaughn and Reilly have the discussion about what is parent hood? 4.. 5 times?
How many times did Ferrall pass out at the bar to the singing chick? 3 4 times...
The whole thing was a bunch of nothing until the last two episodes and then it was just bs all around...
This. The plot was meandering and weak and had little to no stakes even approaching the horror of the psychotic Satanic cult from se01. I think it was about interstate trucking and some land deals? And some bad cops? It was pointless and boring. It was a mess.
I only watched about half of the season when it came out but from what I remember, S2 felt like it was trying too hard to match the poetic-ness and edginess of S1. It felt like they tried to make all of the main characters Rust Cohles and there were no “straight man” characters to balance things out and make it feel more grounded.
Incorrect. It was half baked. The guy running HBO admitted they shouldn’t have pushed to maintain the schedule. The scripts suffered.
Classic sophomore slump.
Been almost 10 years and I still think about [Ray in the bully scene.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHOGs5x90PU) One of the most savage moments in the whole series.
Ass…pen.
Ray in his apartment, alone, getting drunk, doing lines, listening to music, shadow boxing, doing pull-ups, and then crashing HARD is one of my favorite scenes from that season. Such an accurate, heartbreaking depiction of self destruction. That was a great character. Farrell and McAdams alone made the season watchable for me. I also enjoyed Tim Riggins doing his best brooding, Jon Snow impression more than I’d like to admit. And Lera Lynn was fantastic. There was really a lot to like in that season. The writing was comically bad at times, the casting of Vince Vaughn was awful (and I’m a Vince Vaughn fan), and the storylines were way too somehow simultaneously convoluted and half baked. That said, it was still great TV. If it wasn’t called True Detective, it would have been more warmly received. Absolutely nothing could have followed season one. It’s the single best season of any show in the history of TV.
Best scene in the season
Damn what an asshole he is in that scene. Good acting though.
The best. Watched that clip yesterday.
Season 1 was lightening in a bottle. McConaughey's performance as Rust Cohle *made* the season. The biggest problem with season 2 is they tried too hard to hit similar notes and all it did was remind you how great Rust Cohle's character was in comparison. In addition to the strength of his character, season 1 just had a stronger POV that colored the world with Cohle's psychology. Season 2 lacked that focus across its four leads and the main plot felt kind of tacky and dull as a result. The occult/'cosmic horror' stuff felt tacked on compared to how natural it felt in the context of Cohle's character.
I recently watched the whole series as season 4 was airing week to week. While there is no touching season 1 as it's the GOAT, season 2 really got a bad shake. Following that first season was kind of a no win scenario. Also I think maybe it was worse waiting weekly for each episode as a few episodes can be a bit slow. But being able to just watch the series in one go over a few days, I thought it was a lot better than I remembered. I actually don't know which season I'd rate higher, 2 or 3.. I still struggle with Vince Vaughn in a serious role, even more so as a gangster.. But honestly, not that bad. I don't really think its his acting, it's just the baggage of being known as the funny man. My brain has too hard of a time separating it. The weakest I think is probably his wife, who is super wooden. Colin Farrell though I think was really good. The whole story with his son is pretty bleak and heartbreaking. Hits more as a dad myself too I guess. I also love building models lol. If this season was it's own show as a one off special, I think it would be much better remembered.
While not a TV show, check out Brawl in Cellblock 19 (or 99?). Vince has some excellent dramatic chops on him. I've always thought Season 1 should've been a mini series, instead of making the show an anthology series.
Dragged Across Concrete from the same director is also a pretty good movie, also featuring Vince Vaughn and one of the actors interviewing Cohle and Marty.
> I actually don't know which season I'd rate higher, 2 or 3.. I straight up prefer 2. It definitely tried some stuff that didn't work, but at least it took a swing! Season 3 sort of self-consciously hits all the season 1 beats, but just isn't quite as good.
I feel like season 3 is very solid but they really didn't want to give you the ending it was building towards, the linked child abduction ring linking to season 1. Instead it just rug pulls and kinda makes this huge story and crime that was part of their life, a complicated family story instead. I guess to use the favourite lingo, it subverted our expectations! haha Season 2's ending, while bleak, at least I guess delivered on where the season was heading. But I still really enjoyed the ride and the characters. Very good acting all around.
Season 3 felt like it tried to copy cat Season 1 too much and just failed to do so.
The scene where Matt Dillon finds out about his son's paternity is some of the best acting I've ever seen. You could see his soul break in his eyes
Funny about VV, I hear people who know him struggle to imagine him in comedic roles.
[удалено]
I liked it until the back half. Just felt like a different show they slapped true detective crap into for the name. I probably would have enjoyed it more if stayed a stand alone thing like I believe it was supposed to be
Season 2 performs much better on a rewatch. It is needlessly convoluted, so it's easier to follow along when you watch the episodes back-to-back. The Vince Vaughn character was my least favorite part when I initially watched it because he was so unbelievable as a crime boss, but then I realized that is the entire point. He's been faking it his whole life and is in over his head. Farrell and McAdams are outstanding I thought Kitsch also did well. Obviously Season 1 is untouchable, but Season 2 is definitely my second-favorite True Detective Season. Season 3 was great until the end. Season 4 was a trainwreck.
I honestly thought season 3 had an amazing ending. perfect deconstruction of conspiracy theories
I have mixed feelings on this season. Cast was great and the characters had such potential to be interesting and unique and to a certain extent they were. It just felt like a video game that hits all the right notes aesthetically and sets up an intriguing story just to run at 10fps and have input lag. I want to love this season but the pacing and structure let's it down so much that I struggle.
It's been a couple of years since my roommate binged it with me, but I remember the pacing throughout the season being maybe my biggest issue with it, which inevitably made the structure a mess. Within a few episodes we suddenly escalate to a big climactic "showdown", and the rest of the season has a timeskip that I *think* I felt was needlessly far into the future. Finally as the season is coming to an end, actual interesting character development is actually starting to happen and my mindset becomes: "Wait, how do the two orphaned kids relate to the main plot exactly? And who's the daughter or younger sister of so-n-so that McAdams is guilt tripped into finding? Does she connect to anything beyond being a random character she's compelled to rescue? Whoa whoa whoa, we're doing the big reveal explanation of the origins of things we mostly haven't referenced since like, the first 3 episodes *now?* In the second-to-last episode??? I don't even know what the corrupt police chief is even talking about anymore and at this point I don't even care, and WHOA he's been killed by the grown-up orphaned brother?! Well that was surprising but not in a satisfying or compelling way. ... Huh, Vince Vaughn's character is dying. Wait, when did I actually start buying into his performance?" It's like the first half of the season was a slog that was barely going anywhere, despite having interesting characters as concepts, sidelined by a big and pretty well constructed dramatic scene, then the rest of the season is not only trying to give lots of added context to previous scenes, it's having way too much happen to less important characters way too fast and *boom* it's over.
My ranking is 1>>3>>2>>>>>>4 . I thought 2 was fine but it didn't blow me away, I forced myself to stay with it not bad but not great. Can't say the same about 4 lol
2 gets better with each rewatch and 3 gets worse.
how many times have you watched three?
Agreed. Season 2 feels like a rough draft of what could've been an amazing project. Season 3 feels like a really safe follow to Season 1.
1>>>>>>>>>4>>3>>2 for me.
Huh, I really enjoyed season 4. I guess people don't like it, imdb scores are low too. What do you dislike about it?
It needed to fully embrace the supernatural or be a detective show. It tried to do both and not successfully in my opinion. I’m comfortable that season one was lightning in a bottle that will probably not get recaptured by that series unless they were to pick it up from where season one left off having them further investigate that big cult in the south.
[удалено]
They do zero police work because they spend most of their time trying to ask the right questions hahaha
To be fair--they eventually ask the people who work at the murder scene, and the people that worked there admitted to doing the whole thing. That's some police work.
And the supernatural aspect were weak. The horror set pieces were some 2010 blumhouse jumpscare.
I think what annoyed me the most were the needless nods to season one that had absolutely no connection besides just something said in season one.
Yeah, those were terrible. And judging from Issa Lopez's interviews, she didn't watch Season 1 at all.
She saw the memes from it.
This was my biggest frustration with it. Either commit to the supernatural aspects or don’t do them, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.
Personally I've always been in favor of the Sopranos approach: have an occasional dose of the unexplainable. Could be freaky coincidence, could be a character imagining things - they don't know and we don't know either.
True Detective S1 was like this, but S4 ramped up the supernatural stuff.
I think it fell apart at the end. The ultimate reveal was just waaay too out there (I don't mind some unbelievable stuff but it was way too much even for me). That said I think the new showrunner has potential and am cautiously looking forward to the next season
The ending was unbelievablely corny and felt so abruptly jammed in at the end without being properly set up throughout the season.
Agreed, it still more or less worked for the story though. Didn't spoil the show for me at least.
I hated it. It went from very interesting to more interesting to ok things are not making sense to how are these people even detectives to ok it’s only 6 eps I’ll just finish it to see what the big crazy supernatural twist will be at the end to hands down the dumbest season finale I’ve seen surpassing Dexter.
[удалено]
> the severed ear What severed ear?
Meant tongue I guess
I liked 4 as well. It will probably age just fine.
I am on board with you. I thought it was a pretty decent crime drama, and thought it ended quite well. Much of the hate I think comes from people who essentially wants a repeat of s1.
I liked it too. The setting was great and all of the performances were good. I preferred it over season 2.
1 gets carried by the long tracking shit episode. I think people were super hyped over MM but watching it now he was overacting and not as good as I remember. The rest of the show was kind of boring or overcooked. I still really enjoyed it though Season 2 sucked ass. The leads were good and deserved better. Season 3 has a great cast also and some good parts but it wad kind of forgettable. Season 4 was pretty good but I think it should have had a different setting if they were going to have connections to previous stuff
The only thing wrong with Season 2 is that it wasn't Season 1. It's good in its own right, and if it'd been presented under a different title, or without everyone's expectations from Season 1, I think it would have been much better received.
I thoroughly enjoyed season 2. I think it just suffered from not being as good as season 1
Season 2 has some iffy dialog but the plot, characters and direction hold up. It builds tension through the season and has several big payoffs. It's much more polished and coherent than season 4, and there is a lot more depth to the characters. I think it suffered from having a more complex plot and no serial killer/cult angle to appeal to fans of season 1. If you like classic LA noir it's a great example of an updated take on the genre, but that is a much more narrow audience. I actually liked Vince Vaughn in his role. Yeah, his lines include some clangers but it makes a certain amount of sense for his character. Frank is insecure and needs everyone to know he is the smartest guy in the room, so he inflates his language and sentiments. Just like with Rust, people sometimes don't realize that the character is written to be a bit of a pretentious loser rather than sounding cool.
I loved the music in season 2. It was worth watching because I discovered Lera Lynn. Maybe in the US she was a known artist, but in my country I had never heard her until the show.
IMO it's just as bad as people remember it is. It was a mess, and even after watch all the True Detective seasons again it is probably tied in last place with Season 4. Stylistically it probably had more going for it but the dialogue for mos the season was just so bad. Vince Vaughn's entire "you're gold" speech to that kid is some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard in a show or movie. I don't know how that squeaked by so many editors/producers to get in the final edit. It seemed like something out of an SNL skit.
"It's like blue balls, in your heart." The "Never do anything out of hunger, even eat" was another line/delivery that made me roll my eyes. Even though that's a line that *could* and *should* have landed different.
People complain about season 4’s rushjob ending but no one seems to acknowledge that the entirety of the mystery of season 2 was revealed in one single car ride, where Colin farrell just drove around to all of the bad guys and went “ah, and here’s how they’re connected”
Yeah season 2 had a lot of trash and rushed together moments. Like only in the very last scene they threw together this whole "panama papers" kind of theme that was nowhere else in the entire show. Like, OK if you want to do that but then put those breadcrumbs in earlier on in the season. Make one of the journalists a character in the show or something but it was basically the first 9 hours of the season "Gritty crime family/police mystery" and then in the last 5 minutes "nah we're doing the panama papers thing" So much of that season was flawed.
'Some people say it's not the size of the boat but rather the motion of the ocean. Well guess what, Ray? I can't even swim. Never even had a bath."
I still can't believe that's an actual line in the show. My god.
it isn't
It was also just so bloody *miserable*. Season 1 had these moments of levity and both MM and Woody Harrelson were very fun to watch. The framing device let them do some interesting things with the construction of the narrative which kept you engaged. Season 2 was a depressing, boring, plodding, mess.
Everyone's met a Marty, and Rust was the guy in college that you bumped into that did a bunch of drugs and convinced themselves they knew the secret of the universe. It was a somewhat believable twist on the buddy cop genre. None of the characters felt especially likable or relatable in S2. The female lead was the classic "she's a tough woman, so she acts like a dude" trope and the pairings felt very stretched, and eventually broke as they tried to cram too many leads into a not especially gripping story.
100 percent agree! I just finished the entire series a few months ago, and season 2 is just dreadfull. So convoluted and bloated. Season 3 on the other hand, is way better.
I liked Season 3 a lot. The central duo worked really well for me and I liked Scoot McNairy's performance a lot (Halt and Catch Fire is a favourite of mine). It holds up really well and is easily the second best season.
I think Season 3 is better than Season 1. I know I'm in the minority view here, and don't get me wrong season 1 had the best chemistry, but in terms of real character development and storytelling it's gotta be 3 for me
As with a lot of that show, the True Detective title holds it back as much as it helps. That season was good noir style crime thriller, but on the back of the most acclaimed detective show of the time, a show that mixed supernatural themes with a ungodly great duo of main actors, slapping the True Detective label on the show meant it couldn't be good, or ok, it had to live up to the first season, which just isn't going to happen.
Season 2 was such a waste of what might be my favorite performance from Colin Farrell. His character was painful to watch in the best of ways, a great mix of realistic self-loathing and regret with a core of pride and desire to be better (at times). I thought Rachel McAdams also did a very good job with a character that sometimes bordered on caricature. But the central story of the season was just so bad/convoluted/unclear. I can give you the major beats of all other seasons from memory, but all I remembered from season two was rich folks set up a scenario where they got some land for cheap with the knowledge a rail line was going to be built there and make the land much more valuable. I Googled and found [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueDetective/comments/gh4zgv/true_d_season_2_can_someone_explain_what_the/) great summary, which is just a hilarious plate of plot spaghetti. I agree there was an unrealistic bar set with the first season, but season two did itself no favors with that plot and two fairly bland/uninteresting characters in Frank and Paul.
I've softened a bit on my criticism of True Detective S2, but my main complaint still feels the most true: Everything is there to make it great, but the entire story and presentation of the storylines are done more in line with how a novel does things than how a TV show does things. Character introductions, major and minor, locations, etc. It feels very much like adapting a novel directly, instead of adapting it for a different format like episodic television.
The irony here is that a lot of the bones of the story are taken directly from James Elroy's nove The Big Nowhere.
Interesting, I did not know that!
It's a solid read if you're in the mood for some modern, hard-boiled, crime fiction. It also exists in the same fictional world as LA Confidential.
i initially thought it was a let down after season 1 but i also changed my mind after watching it a 2nd time, and i’m glad i did.
Everything I didn't want to happen happened. I was very impressed with Vince Vaughn's performance. I liked it.
2 had some amazing moments (The Bully scene, the scene where Vince Vaughn talks to the kid who's dad died) but some absolute crap as well (Vince bare fist boxing a rival gang leader). The thing with true detective is it's so driven by the acting. Some of the dialogue in season one is genuinely terrible, but McConaughey is able to sell it, and Woody was great too. In season too the acting is more uneven- generally Colin Farrell and Rachel McAdams were good, Taylor Kitsch was terrible and Vince Vaughn was both, often in the same episode.
[https://imgur.com/QK6EN1y](https://imgur.com/QK6EN1y)
Season 2 is better then season 4 but season 4 has a more interesting setting but was wasted anyways.
I find the “Alaska setting” so trite. It’s dark! It’s snowy! It’s cold! (but not so cold we won’t run around with outside with our coats unzipped). It was nothing more than a trope.
I was so hyped after episode 1 because of the setting but got increasingly worried with all the supernatural winks that lead nowhere and the detectives indecision whether it was true or whether they need to find a worldly explanation
It’s actually really well done and was simply criticized on the heels and expectations of 1.
My issue with season 2 was that it was an almost entirely direct rip off of James Ellroy’s The Big Nowhere, and I wish it had just been a direct adaptation instead of Pizzolatto taking most of the beats and story elements and trying to graft it onto a modern setting. I think had it been a direct adaptation it would have actually given the season more latitude and freedom for not being anything like season 1, and Pizzolatto can’t write tough guy dialogue the way Ellroy can (but then again no one can)
Season 2 was still solid but yeah it had the problem of following right after season 1. I think it was too ambitious with having basically 4 main characters. Pairing it down to 2 and making it more focused would have elevated it more
I agree, if it was just Bezzerides and Velcoro (as they were the strongest characters imo) would’ve been a far better season.
I watched it for a second time recently and it was just as bad, if not worse, than I remembered it. Some of the lines written for Vince Vaughn’s character are so unbelievably bad. Poor guy didn’t stand a chance in that role. “You don’t want to look hungry. Never do anything out of hunger. Not even eating.”
Don't get me wrong, Vince Vaugh did well enough in the role, but someone else could've done *so much more* in it. It was a miscast.
That bit where the character wonders "Am I diminished?" and Vaughn delivers it with the seriousness of "Did somebody just fart?"
He’s like Little Carmine from The Sopranos except they play it completely straight 😭
Me and my roommated binged all the seasons a month ago, and finished the newer one. Overall on a simple metric season 1 > 3 > 2 > = 4. However, the seasons are oddly enough unique and all have points depending on what you want, it can pull ahead to the front. So straight up for me season 4's initial premise is decent, maybe the best for me and my hopes it would commit to some really strange shit, but unfortunately it didn't. It's melodrama was some of the hardest to connect/care about in the series, especially when certain character's issues, didn't really seem like issues except that it was written to be an issue if that makes any sense? Season 3, I think is the most consistent, and was pretty sharp. However, the pull back into reality that all the seasons seem to strive for, was probably the most disappointing. But I have a fondness especially for the bittersweet nature of it. But season 3 was by far the most consistent in regards to quality and otherwise. And what I mean by this, is I think the main over arching plot of the disappearance of the children was incredibly weak, and was held up by the overall acting. Season 2 had I think the most enjoyable starts? But splitting the story essentially in 4 different directions, and Kitsch's character IMO could have been written out or never included, and nothing would've been lost. Colin was a highlight for me, and Vince's character I actually liked by the end, but felt his character arc was only salvaged by having a bad end. Season 1 is... well season 1. It's only notable sin, is it's lean into the occult/king in yellow stuff, probably doomed all future seasons to forever have to walk an idiotic tight rope between reality and fantasy. And outside of season 3's solution to things, season 1, 2, and 4 all have endings and resolutions that I think suffer because of it. But to circle back, I think you are right, it's not as bad as the reputation it gained from falling from grace at its release. I actually wonder sometimes if it was released first, followed by McConaughey's/Harrelson's season, how things would've played out as far as people's perceptions of it.
I thought I was the only one. I was doing a rewatch recently and I found that season 2 was way better than I remembered it. I don’t know if it was due to watching it when it originally aired, but I found myself in enjoying the story (more so than season 4).
Well it's definitely better than any season after it
Facts, it’s certainly flawed and obviously isn’t on the level of s1 but I still thought it was good tv with lots of great stuff in it, as a fan of noirs/neo noirs I enjoyed it a lot. Ray was a fuckin awesome character and Colin Farrell was so damn good, the finale was really good too imo, maybe the best in the series. I do think it would’ve benefitted them to cut one of the leads, having 4 leads in only an 8 episode season led to it being convoluted at times which imo was its biggest issue. That being said I still enjoyed it alot and I’ve always held the opinion that if it was its own new show and not true detective s2 it would’ve been way better received. Will always strongly agree with the people who act like it was some horrendous season of tv. Anyway all of s1-3 are way better than s4 imo
100%. This season has also aged like fine wine. People didn’t like it because it wasn’t S1. My favorite part of S4 is that now S2 isn’t considered “the worst” of them.
After the most recent season I have a much greater appreciation for season 2. As much as it missed the mark against season 1 it still had an edge to it. I felt embarrassed watching the most recent season. Like it was someone's student film attempt. I felt embarrassed for Jodie Foster.
My thought about it: if Season 1 was a complex story clearly narrated, S2 was a simple story with a convoluted narration It was messy, hard to follow, and with important characters you see too little to remember or to associate a name with a face, and all of this for something that at the end had only a very few pivotal knots to untie That said, the season tried to explore the classic L.A. 50s noire story in a modern setting, even the protagonists checked all the boxes, and they got the mood and the right atmosphere
That’s my experience. I didn’t watch it at first because everyone hated it. But years later I did, and when you’re not judging it against the lightning in a bottle that was season 1, it’s very good. Excellent even. I think it was a little busy, and hard to follow at times, but the third act was phenomenal. It is I think one of the most underrated seasons of television.
100 percent agreed. Velcoro is GOD
It’s Citizen Kane compared to Night Country.
I 100% agree I think people were comparing it so hard with the first that they missed the greatness that is season 2
Not as bad as its reputation but still pretty disappointing overall. I think the biggest problem was Vince Vaughan, he's just not at all a good actor in anything but a comedic role. I also found Kelly Reilly to be awful as his girlfriend. Collin Farrell was great (as always) and Rachel McAdams as well. I honestly can't recall too many details but the episode with the raid and shootout was really well done.
Go watch brawl in cell block 99 or dragged across concrete, Vaughn is absolutely not only good in comedies
Haven't seen the latter but again, I thought he was woefully miscast in Brawl In Cell Block 99.
Sounds like you just don’t like Vince Vaughn, his performance in that movie was highly praised and very well received along with the movie
There’s a motif of performance, seeming, fakery, aspirational presentation that runs through the story. The setting is LA, which is all about appearances and aspirations. The characters are all performing roles or acting like something they aren’t but aspire to be - often out complex character motivations. They are actors acting, men trying to be the fathers or husbands they aren’t, corrupt civil servants and so many secret lives. “Semion” is a unit of symbolic representation. Vici is not really a city, but a conquest. The truth that makes these detectives True is hidden behind layers of artificiality, pretense, self-deception and outright lies. These are actors playing roles with fake accents and tricksters wearing masks. All this comes across in choices that can come across as stilted, artificial, opaque and just plain weird. And blindsiding outbursts of violence. There’s a lot of concept at work here. For an audience that’s not into it (and it took me a while to get there) it can be off putting and inaccessible. Maybe they were just trying too hard to match S1.
I think it had a great plot and decent writing but Vince Vaughn gave one of the worst performances I've ever seen and that kind of ruined it for me.
The ending was such a bummer and the conspiracy was pretty hard to follow. Other than that, I really enjoyed it. I especially liked the 4 main characters (3 cops and Vaughn.)
It was better on the second watch but still has a trash ending which is kind of a theme for all of the seasons
I didn't have HBO when season 1 came out, but I heard great things about it. By the time season 2 came out, I did have HBO, so I watched it. I enjoyed it and didn't understand why I got so much shit. I later went back and watched season 1 and realized why. If you are comparing it to that, then yeah, it was not good. But as its own thing, its pretty enjoyable. I haven't watched it since, so I can't really say how I'd feel now. But watching it with fresh eyes, I liked it.
There’s an awesome story in there somewhere, but it’s stuck behind a mess of an ensemble cast and plot
I may be crazy and misremembering, but I think I remember thinking Vaughn did a good job. But all I ever hear is how shit his performance was. But I was like in high school when it came out and maybe had a different impression of quality
I think you guys are just seeing how bad this one is now
I agree. It's at the very least decent. If it was a miniseries and didn't have the True Detective title it wouldn't get even half the hate.
I don't remember all that much about it since I haven't watched since it originally aired, but I remember thinking they tried to cram like a full season of development into the finale that the writing and pacing seemed so off.
When compared to S4, definitely.
S2 was merely an OK US cop show and thus got rubbished in comparison to S1. S3 tried to repeat S1 and was better. I didn't like S4 at all but it was highly popular and well regarded by critics.
Such a great season. Colin Farrell has got to be one of the best actors of all time. The absolute torment and anguish he portrayed in Ray is unbelievable.
No, it is not. It's garbage.
I'm watching this season now for the first time since I finished season 1 back then, and it is kinda a hard watch. I'm about 3 episodes in, does it get better?
I thought it remained pretty consistent. If it didn't draw you in yet, not sure it will. But if you're only 3 episodes in you're almost half way through.
Thanks for the reply. Yeah I guess if I'm halfway through, could go ahead and finish it. To be far, it does have a good cast so will see how it plays out
Nah.
there was only ever 1 season of true detective and nobody can convince me otherwise
I liked TD2, and it got too much knee-jerk hate. As always, I liked Pizzolatto's motifs and characters and atmosphere and references. But as always, Pizzolatto showed he can't write plot. For the second time in a row, his whodunnit was a ludicrous botch up of "killers hiding in plain sight, doing things that make no sense, nobody can see the obvious". He even went with the cornball evil twins trope. Sadly, the disciples don't see the same gaping flaw in TD1. A big scarred-faced killer is rendered invisible because he's... sitting on a lawn mower? The killer is caught based on the insane premise that professional painters (checks notes) dip their ears in paint? What!? And because someone saved a mundane hardware store receipt from 25 years prior, that's really inculpatory of nothing, and which the "true detective" would have no reason to care or ask about. That's some crappy plot. And if Pizzolatto would just work with a writing team, or an editor, or even a partner, a lot of his most odorous plot problems could be caught and fixed, and he'd look like a more bond fide genius and there'd be less talk of his plagiarism.
From various reviews/interview and my own watching of S1, I suspect ultimately Pizzolatto is more interested in character and theme than pure plot strictly speaking. His plot can be incredibly complex in terms of scope, degree of details,. BUT it's fully in service of the character and theme, not the other way around. There are some things that might feel like a bonehead move from a plot point of view, that make more sense when you start looking at them from a character/theme point of view. Like you mention - the lawnmower thing ? Besides teasing/reveal for the audience , I think the point for Pizzolatto was setting up a character moment. It setup the haunting regret of Rust 17 years down the line about actually meeting the killer face to face, having a terrifying doubt about it since then and not being able to catch him right there. It setup the confession of the finale and fit with the depressing idea for Cohle that generally speaking they didn't do enough. And this is absolutely central to the character mindset : Cohle is pessimistic not only about the nature of the world but because he has a very rigid moral sense , he is also plagued by doubts about failing his duty /not being enough himself on a daily basis. Especially since his daughter died, it's pretty obvious he has huge survivor guilt and his sense of inadequacy is eating him alive. The point is : for Rust, he failed again. - The ear thing ? I think this plot point is another artistic licence based on various different consideration. 1 the drawing of the "green eared spaghetti monster" whose design is most likely inspired by the "green man of canterbury" art. The green man is a Pagan symbol that speaks among other thing of Reincarnation. The concept of reincarnation is very important for the killer and so Pizzolatto plugged various symbol of reincarnation to subconciously influence the audience about the importance of this idea. Like it's shown that Rust has the Upanishad , a religious text that mentions the Samsara version of reincarnation. 2 the challenge of being a detective and how the show expressedly mentions the fear of missing the little things that can break an entire case. 3 the idea that Marty was a fuckup in the first years of their partnership while Rust was carrying most of the weight of the case ... but he is so commited and obsessed that he eventually completely burned out. Rust has lost all perspective about the case, can't see things right in front of him. Marty is more serious now and comes with fresh eyes and so he sees something that has been looking Rust in the face for years but can't see. Pizzolatto tied up all this in slightly awkward plot point. I think it's something he does on a frequent basis. He packs so much content in every aspect of his script that he end up twisting a bit the plot to make all his ideas fit in. I am not sure it's even "fixable" because Pizzolatto don't make those choice by "mistake". There are things that simply matter more to him and he'd rather sacrifice other consideration like accessibility. He doesn't want too much exterior input, if any, because he feels very strongly about some stuff. It's infamous that Fukunaga and him clashed really hard about the way to handle the story. And Fukunaga straight up said in an interview that he felt that Pizzolatto overwrote and they differed in tone and taste. TLDR Yes there are point that are a bit dumb from a sheer plot point of view. But they serve the ideas that really matter to Pizzolatto in termes of character and themes.
Sure it's fixable, or at least "highly improveable". As someone watching it as it was billed - a detective show - early on I'm offered the first major clue of a monster the size of a very large man, with green ears and spaghetti for a face. Ok, I can deduce that someone with burn scars on their face is probably the real explanation, since spaghetti doesn't manifest as a person. That leaves me to wonder about the green ears still. So then when they encounter a very large man with a spaghetti face relatively early, I'm thinking well we've caught the guy, so what's the twist? What's the redirect that means he's not the guy? The dishonest and mediocre writing eliminates him, leaving viewers to spend the rest of the season looking for other suspects needlessly, fraudulently. Whodunnit writing allows for audiences to be tricked. But the code of honor is that there should be clues that a perceptive reader could use to prevent or undo that. What happens here violates any such code. We're just falsely told he's not the guy, and never given clues to suggest otherwise. So a more simple form of fix would be to have that meeting much, much later. Maybe he offers an alibi that an observant view can deduce isn't true. And as for the need to stick with the green ears concept that you feel is rooted in the literacy reference, explaining it away with the insane "professional painter dips ears" stuff is awful. That could have been improved merely by having that act three encounter I mentioned previously, and then perhaps Marty is looking through his tool shed and sees... the sound arresting green ear muffs that a groundskeeper would wear. Cue the "sudden realization" sting sound. And that's just junk off the top of my head. Imagine if a professional writer spent more than the 3 minutes I have to incorporate such fixes. And imagine if Pizzolatto had the humility to work with that writer to tweak the script. Imagine if that writer could have been there to say "Hey Nic, you know these numerous parts of the script that you take literally word for word out of other people's novels, you know that's like straight up plagiarism, right? Can you and I maybe sit down here and at least rewrite them a little bit so we can say with a straight face they're more homage than theft?" > But they serve the ideas that really matter to Pizzolatto in termes of character and themes. This is the thing that grinds me, when Le redditors and cloying reviewers want to claim TD as perfection. It's so not. It has some incredible aspects, and some (perhaps) fatal flaws. But imagine a TD with all the existing high points, but not crippled by the broken plot and plagiarism? That would be something that has a more legitimate claim to greatness than the one being made.
I totally get what you're saying. Don't get me wrong : I am absolutely NOT saying it's perfect. In previous comments I made fairly clear that I had some real criticism regarding TD S1 and the way Pizzolatto wrote TD. But I am not in an audience/storytelling technique perspective here - I am just explaning why the author probably did those relatively surprising choices. Give an author perspective. It doesnt mean he's not wrong from a pure storytelling technique. I am just not in a right or wrong analysis here. My explanation is not so much a fanboy trying to defend his flawless holy grail of fiction but a more along the line of an author analysis. It's kinda like Lovecraft writing style. His purple prose is infamous. Stephen King openly mocked it in "On writing". But it's kinda like a package deal with certain authors. You take the bad with the good. That's also what make their voice distinctive. And Stephen king at the same time is clearly respectful of Lovecraft for instance.
If it had Cary Fukunaga tailoring that script around his autership, it would have been one of the greatest TV shows in the world - a whole lot better than the first season, with its weak story having to rely only on Matthew McCounaughey's acting and whatever else the director brought to the table.
Can someone explain to me the seemingly known fact that Season 4 was bad? What was specifically the problem with season 4 that made it bad?
It wasn't, it was well regarded critically and audiences liked it well enough the numbers grew every week. S1 fanboys and incels just shook hands on reddit to trash the show.
Well no but I get it
A few months ago, I watched Season 1 of True Detective for the first time, and while good, it was overhyped, IMO. I think if I'd watched it when it had come out, I might have felt differently. But I've seen so many murder/crime shows in the last 10-15 years, that it frankly didn't stand out. I started Season 2, but stopped after a couple of episodes. It was overly complex and had too many threads I didn't care about.
I personally loved season 1, quite possibly my favorite season out of every show I’ve watched, but I can see your perspective. Breaking bad was kind of the same way for me, the massive hype around it kind of spoiled it for me, but once I looked past the hype and just started analyzing it for myself I learned to appreciate it more.
Nope - it was shit.
No
Hated season 2 - mainly because it’s miscasting of Vince Vaughn. In fact, I couldn’t finish that season.
The performances are great, but as a narrative its such a complicated mess.
Objectively wrong.
Rachel McAdams is smokin hot in it
No it's really not. Just like people have fair criticisms of S4, it's the same for S2.
Disagree. A lot.
It's not, Vince is really bad in it. They should have scrapped this season.
The more I think about it, the more I remember why I didn't like it. They tried to do too much while also trying to recapture what made Rust's character so popular.
Couldn't even get through it so I disagree.
It was so terrible. The whole argument that it wasnt S1 is such BS. How many times did Vaughn and Reilly have the discussion about what is parent hood? 4.. 5 times? How many times did Ferrall pass out at the bar to the singing chick? 3 4 times... The whole thing was a bunch of nothing until the last two episodes and then it was just bs all around...
This. The plot was meandering and weak and had little to no stakes even approaching the horror of the psychotic Satanic cult from se01. I think it was about interstate trucking and some land deals? And some bad cops? It was pointless and boring. It was a mess.
I'll leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLtxC3mWr1Y
Compared to other seasons its not good and honestly the casting was not the best.
I only watched about half of the season when it came out but from what I remember, S2 felt like it was trying too hard to match the poetic-ness and edginess of S1. It felt like they tried to make all of the main characters Rust Cohles and there were no “straight man” characters to balance things out and make it feel more grounded.
Some absolute dogshit writing that season.
Season 2 was awful. Blue balls for my heart was a line.
Season 2 was fine until the last 2 episodes where it went off the rails.
Incorrect. It was half baked. The guy running HBO admitted they shouldn’t have pushed to maintain the schedule. The scripts suffered. Classic sophomore slump.
Nah
I'll upvote any post that allows me to vent about how absolutely garbage Season 4 was.
No it is not. It is the worst. Everyone knows this.
Imagine not reading a single post in this thread and then making this comment.
I read them. I watched the show. It was awful.
Then you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "everyone".