spacemanrich wrote:Liked the whole first season : great storyline and characters. Seemed like the storyline tied up well in the end. I don't think Matthew McConnaghey (spelling?) and Woody Harrelson will reprise their roles for season 2 ?
Great acting from WH + especially MM. But storyline tied up well? Doesn't that depend how you define success in the context of this genre?
I thought (and it was confirmed following further info from Nic Pizzolatto) the loose ends were not supposed to neatly tie together, like in the denouement of an episode of CSI or Morse?
Surely the whole point of the story exposition was that we ended up with both questions answered, plus plenty left open? More fodder for the imagination is usually a good thing...
My interpretation regarding the rationale behind the final episode of S1 was that whilst it may have initially have left viewers unsatisfied and unsatiated ... once you understood the series primary focus was the story of the detectives rather than the victims, the season reached a natural resolution and makes perfect sense.
What made season 1 of True Detective interesting for me was how smartly it inverted the regular TV detective genre. I'm about to begin watching season 2; I hope it manages to be as entertaining as S1 - I'm trying to put aside all the hints and other bits of information I've accidentally managed to pick up!
The anthology style envisaged by the writer suggests any future seasons will not feature the same characters, though I suspect I'm not the only person who would like to see a follow-up story after Rust and Marty reconciled in the hospital; surely that's simply a credit to great storytelling - leaving the audience wanting more...
If you're a man in charge and claim you're a staunch feminist? Then give a woman your job, or shut the fuck up! (Mark Kozelek)