Started the episode anyone know if his kid was the product of rape. I was confused by the interrogater
I'm surprised more people didn't expect them to be unable to defend the title for numerous reasons. Still early days but expectations should be brought way down I think.
I'll give you that they're all depressed, but the only one that seems to have a substance abuse problem is Colin Farrell's character. Rachel McAdams was seen drinking and gambling in one scene (maybe it was to excess since she was kicked out), but it didn't seem like she was an addict from that scene. She did just experience two frustrating family encounters, so I don't blame her for seeking an escape after that. I was under the impression that the other guy popped a viagra when he was "taking a shower". I'm not sure that constitutes a drug problem. I could be mistaken, though. He definitely has other issues. I personally enjoyed it. I went into this having no expectations.
There are several things about this that have me hooked. First off, what in the... was that crow head thing in the seat with the guy who was transporting Casper's body? So I'm inferring that Colin killed the rapist?? Taylor's character was in the Army and something happened to him when he was younger. Probably why he didn't want to sleep over, needs to pop the blue pill, and has that killer burn on him. Interested to see the Russians connection to this whole plot unfold. I love the Casino/Rail/Mayor/City planning aspect of this. Very Noir, or Chinatownesque, which are my favorite types of movies ever. Lot of weird sex things going on too... Casper's apartment When Colin tells the kid what he will do to his dad if he bullies again is worth the price of admission.
It may be a good idea to pump the brakes with all the judgment only one episode in. It's obvious that the pacing of that first episode was intentionally slow, and I'd imagine that it was that way for a reason. Don't forget that this is HBO, and they get it right more times then not.
So presuming that most people here were also disappointed with the season 1 finale, and payoff in general of the whole "carcosa" thing... is it safe to say this show is on a losing streak now? (TBH, I thought last night was fine... its an entirely new setting/characters/story, so they're going to have to have a "set the stage" episode. Perhaps they could have cut one of the three ongoing story-lines, but they do all tie in together at the end... so all of that was to simply get them to where they are now).
I have a bad feeling that True Detective season 1 (which seems a lot more like something that started strong then wrapped up with a lot more banal finish) was the product of Matthew McC beast moding some of the goofy dialogue and premise at the beginning, a good foil in Woody, and the rest of the show after that just unable to deliver other than a few basic shock/horror convetions. This season doesn't have him to pull it along but at least 3 actors going headlong into the "tortured soul" routine already in a way that seems as forced as the OH YEAH LET'S MAKE THIS MUSIC AND BACKGROUND SHOTS SUPER OMINOUS IS THAT OMINOUS ENOUGH BETTER TURN OMINOUS UP TO 11? that somebody noted above. The real ominosity for me was having to watch a show take itself so seriously for the next 9 weeks and me giving up after episode 3 or 4.
I actually like how the murder scene at the end of episode 1 brings together all three of our main protagonists. It was kind of like, "we have introduced you to each character separately but now from here you will see how they affect each other and how their lives intersect." Also I think the show being a SoCal thing will bring some great moments to the story too. SoCal is so "glamorous" on the outside but is really rotten on in the inside.
Yeah, much like backwoods Louisiana was a character in season 1... the seedy underbelly of SoCal will be heavily featured here. I still think they're playing with house money... the creator himself said that he really didn't have "much left" after season 1 (poured everything into that story), so its very likely there will be some themes repeated and similar plot-twists, and possibly another disappointing finale. However, I actually like watching Vince Vaughn trying to not be Vince Vaughn.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...undtable-the-western-book-of-the-dead/396245/ Long but good write-up on episode 1 from three perspectives. Spoiler
I lasted about 10 minutes into the first episode. They didn't even attempt to hook the audience in AT ALL. I am not going to give this show the benefit of the doubt because last season starred Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey. Show me something interesting to actually make me want to watch.
Why even attempt to watch at all if you're going to give up less than 25% of the way through the episode? Did you want it to be just like last season where there's a dead body right off the bat? Y'all have some ridiculous expectations. Many of you seem to be forgetting how slow the first few episodes of season 1 were.
what made season one great for me was rust's view of the world and it coinciding with his surroundings. won't judge it yet as the first 2 episodes of season one were extremely slow.
some people have extremely low attention spans. a lot of those people are probably incapable of sitting down and reading a book in full also.
What made season 1 great was McConaughey and Harrelson. I had zero faith that Vince Vaughn and Colin Farrell could keep the show interesting in season 2, but I still took the time to check it out. The show runner should have anticipated that a lot of the audience would be very skeptical and he should have provided something interesting to hook the audience into the new season, RIGHT OFF THE BAT. Instead, it started with an extended title sequence and then 10-15 minutes of complete boredom. I didn't find the first few episodes slow in season 1. Watching Harrelson and McConaughey was interesting enough. Vaughn and Farrell are no Harrelson and McConaughey...
