re: Three episodes in, is True detective S2 living up to the name?

the problem is that there are way too many leads and it's killing the pacing.

I don't think the acting is all that bad. Everyone hates Vaughn in this but he's had by far the worst lines.

"Behold what was once a man"? "A good woman helps mitigate our baser tendencies"? That entire water stains monologue from E02? Terrible. He was far better in E03 now that he's starting to drop that veneer of respectability he was trying to hard to project.

I know Pizzolatto said he "said all he had to say about the buddy cop genre," and that's fine but 4 leads is wayyyyyy too many if you're going to try to write a super intricate whodunit plot in only 8 episodes. Season length has been a big issue for this show both seasons. It needs to be 10 episodes.

Velcoro is great and Farrell has played him perfectly. He's been a wonderful addition to the TD pantheon of great acting. But I don't care about McAdams being a secret perv or Kitsch being a angsty closet case and there isn't enough time to focus on these aspects of their characters and fill out this crazy plot.

The magic in S01 was that we learned so much about Rust & Marty WHILE still advancing the plot. In S02, we're having to switch between learning about these people or advancing the plot.

quote:

---

Don't need every season to be in Louisiana but somewhere more interesting than L.A. would've been nice.

---

it's an anthology series. EVERY season is different. S2 isn't even the same genre as S1. what place would you recommend?

quote:

---

Anywhere but the usual L.A. or NYC would be a start.

---

Exactly.

The expanse of Montana. The woods of Maine. The harbors of Maine. The campus of Notre Dame. The Everglades. The border of Texas and Mexico. Taos, NM. The Ozarks. The coal mines of Kentucky. A logging village of Oregon.

Something different and something that could really show NEW characters in a NEW environment experiencing a familiar plot.

Catching a serial killer isn't new. Setting it in rural Louisiana and bringing in some of the occult/Mardi Gras shite was new.

Well we do know that Rachel McAdams looks good in a pair of jeans. Would love to see her without them - front and rear.

quote:

---

In all honesty, the story for Season One was not really that entertaining. What made Season One so good was the casting of McConaughey and Harrelson (plus throw in the nudity of Alexandra Daddario). If you had Colin Farrell and Rachel McAdams (or Vince Vaughn) in the same roles as Matthew and Woody had in Season One, no one would really have liked it, either.

Maybe, McConaughey and Harrelson could make Season Two better, too. I agree that the story is weak so far; but, I'll keep watching.

---

you are right, MM and harrelson carried season 1. The story could have been great had NP focused the last few episodes on the whole mystery rather than going off on weird philosophical tangents. The whole premise of the yellow king was really cool, unfortunately the show was never supposed to be a whodunit, but rather the buddy cop character study.

I'm really enjoying the S2 and I thought S1 was the best thing on TV. Picking up steam now in ep3.

i've only seen ep 1 and i thought it was exceptionally cheesey while trying to imitate season 1

it was just one episode, but it's a 180 from the first episode last year

of course, this sets the season up for a much more consistent overall season b/c it can't fall off a cliff

that's weird. i watched 1 on HBOGO but have them DVR'd i think. i will try ep2 tonight via HBOGO hopefully and report back

Not the greatest, but not as bad as people are saying it is.

Too many people are expecting it to be like season 1, when they are completely different in nature. It's a lot slower, but it is also setting up for a much better ending than last season. Several big story lines have yet to be explored in depth