In fact the plot in S2 was pretty straightforward as you say. Yes the way things linked up took time, and you did have to pay attention to it. Unlike 90% of television there mostly weren't great long exposition scenes (there were one or two). Like everyone else, I wouldn't pretend that it was as good as S1, but it wasn't as bad as made out.
To be clear, this is an all or nothing series. You don't dip in and out. Maybe the lack of a single director this series didn't help. I don't have any problem with an auteur theory of television. In the UK that's actually how we get most of our TV - short run series written by a single person. With one or two exceptions there are no such things as writers' rooms. TV doesn't have to follow a formula, and that's what I like about True Detective. I don't know whether it's a buzz thing or not. I suspect that a series like this will never do gangbusters Game of Thrones numbers, but award nominations will do nicely, and whatever you thought of this season's story, technically its up there with the very best. I can quite easily see a S3, although I can also see HBO making sure that Pizzolatto has enough time to do it how he wants. Adam On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:11 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:43 AM, 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV < > tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> Beyond the opaque incoherence of Season 2, my quick take on why it was so >> bad was that, last year, Harrelson and McConnnaughey are good enough actors >> and Cary Fukunaga a good enough director that they all realized they were >> working on a piece of pulpy cheese and approached it from that direction, >> making it all seem to work. (That it didn't really is beside the point.) >> This season, although most of the actors were good enough (despite the >> reliance on non-Americans - and seriously, did Farrell become more southern >> every week accidentally or on purpose?), they all believed the press and >> took the whole thing deadly seriously, which killed it. >> > > Okay - so this is the start of the conversation I am looking for > (someplace, if not here). I don't think I agree with your analysis that > they took it more seriously than last year, though there may be something > in that just because both of the lead actors from S1 carry with them an > undertone of hyperbole or satire, even in dramatic roles where it is > completely unintended and unwarranted (though I agree in the case of TD:S1 > this worked well). But what I am interested in is this claim that somehow > S2 was more "opaquely incoherent" than S1. Perhaps that conversation is not > possible without more spoilers than would be appropriate here; but my point > is specifically that this is not an accurate description. In fact, I think > the plot from S1 was significantly more opaque and incoherent than S2. I > think I could adequately summarize the S2 main plot (What was the initial > crime, who committed it and why) in one or two direct sentences, while > trying the same for S1 would be far more challenging (though a better and > more concise writer than I might be able to do it). > > Just to beat this dead horse a bit more, I was bitching about this out > loud earlier today to some people, and someone gave me what seemed like a > pretty good hypothesis: S1 got a lot of internet buzz. Lots of people who > never watched S1 (most of whom probably correctly judged initially that > this was not their cup of tea, but now wanted to see what they had been > missing) decided to watch S2. When they did not like it, they assumed that > they would have loved S1 (since all the cool kids did) and that the reason > they did not like S2 was because it stank. In reality, this kind of show is > just not their style, and they probably would not have liked S1 either. Of > course, that does not rule out that some people (like, apparently, our Dave > here) did really like S1, but hated S2. > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
