I'm willing to give it another chance. True Detective Season 3 Finally Confirmed: Here's How It Can Repair the Damage For a show which was almost universally disliked, mocked or considered disappointing, a hell of a lot has been written about season 2 of True Detective. As one of the seemingly few people who truly enjoyed it (and not in an ironic sense - or not just in an ironic sense) I've written a lot too, like True Detective season 2: The Good, The Bad and the Bizarre. My point being this: the sustained level of interest in discussing this show - it's firmly a part of pop culture now, with season 2 parodies (some great) stacking up fast - clearly demonstrates that there's an appetite for more. Rachel McAdams did excellent work in season 2 Recently Steve Golin, the head of Anonymous Content (who produce TD), spoke with surprising honesty about the failures of the second season: Look, I think that the scripts weren't as good, and Nic (Pizzolatto) felt like he really didn't want to go with the one-director plan, which was something that I think really added an extra value to it... sometimes you have a good [season], sometimes you don't. But Nic is wildly talented, but I think that this one just wasn't as good ... Now we're gonna do season 3 and I think that one will be better. There's quite a lot to digest in Golin's words, particularly in regards to the question of one or multiple directors. We've seen shows like House of Cards and Fargo do well with a revolving door of directors, but Cary Fukunaga's steady hand was such a big influence in season 1 that the decision to go with a new director in each episode in the season inevitably could be felt in what played out screen. There was a lack of cohesion, ideas and story strands coming and going without resolution. Reading between the lines, it sounds as if the guys at Anonymous are keen to go back to the one-director model. And of course, the confirmation that a third series is in the works - something that was until recently up in the air despite HBO renewing their deal with Pizzolatto - is great news for fans, and for those salivating at the prospect of more "hate-viewing". You can watch Golin's interview in full right here. A Question of Character If True Detective needs a little guidance when it returns next, it could do worse than looking over its shoulder at FX's Fargo. The two shows aren't that dissimilar. Both are anthologies, and both strike a tone quite different to anything else on television, although their approach to death is quite different - Fargo finding a lot of comedy in its rising bodycount, and all of True Detective's comedy being entirely unintentional. Fargo: As good as television gets But where Fargo excels - season 2 has been rapturously received by critics (boasting an unbelievable 96 on Metacritic), and in my opinion is by far the best TV series of 2015, even accounting for Jessica Jones' late arrival on the scene - is in the incredible way it draws its characters. The storyline isn't particularly original, and not especially believable either, but it's a joy to spend time with these characters. They feel like people who you might really encounter if you ever went to the Godforsaken titular town for some misguided reason. The characterisation of True Detective just can't compete. Ani was by and large well-drawn, and by the end we came to believe in Ray (in my opinion, he was season 2's greatest asset) - but Frank was a preposterous disaster who spoke like somebody who'd spent far too much time with his head in a thesaurus, and did not in any way resemble a real-life gangster or shady business mogul. Sure, he was fun, and in the final episode we got a glimpse of the character he could and should have been all along, but it was all too late. Little point in even paying lip service to Paul Woodrugh, whose purpose in season two proved to be a far greater mystery than the question of who killed Ben Caspere. It's been said numerous times already that True Detective is not beyond repair. Season 2 contained plenty of brilliance, in its own, ridiculous way. But season 3 needs streamlining. One director, a greater vision, and half an eye on the competition. Whatever happens before then, people we keep on talking about this show - and that can only be a good thing.
So location always plays a role in this series, where do you think they go to next? East Coast? Boston?
Season 1 was one of my all time favorite television seasons ever. Season 2 was an all time disappointment/dropoff in television history. I'm willing to see if they can rebound.
Don't forget guys, i think 60% of why season 2 was miserable was because the original director had beef with Pizzolatto and split. What ended up happening was someone new came into direct every episode this past season.
I was a HUGE fan of season one, but only made it through two or three episodes of season two. Honestly, I had forgotten all about True Detective until I saw this thread.
Very much enjoyed TD Season 1. LOVED the characters and the setting. TD season 2 - characters were meh and the setting was stock. I am all up for TD season 3, but tight up the show, focus on the characters and get a better setting.
There is something to be said for authenticity, season one taking place in Louisiana with McConaughey and Harrelson had a truer sense of place and felt authentic. Both of those guys played their roles without having to venture too far from themselves (since McConaughey is a little nitty anyway). Season two started out with a 'Chinatown' (movie) type of feel but never really captured it later on. The characters seemed deliberately off instead of just naturally eccentric. And there was no underlying sense of the supernatural, kind of an all pervasive voodoo, that made the back story so menacing without ever being fully explained. But there is to much talent involved not to give 3 a chance. Sophomore follow up seasons are always the hardest.
Harrelson and McConaughey had amazing chemistry. Season 2 was an island of misfit toys. No one was convincing in any role. McAdams didn't want to take her character "there" nor did Taylor. Only Farrell had a somewhat convincing role but the writing was so poor it just couldnt make up for it. The whole season was just like....blue balls in your heart.
I've always thought a Season 3 set in some exotic European setting with Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister of Game of Thrones) and Ian Mcshane (Al Sweargin of Deadwood) and put in a 3rd younger actor (Maybe Edward Norton?) would be incredible. Both of them have history's of doing HBO series, did excellent work and are probably accessible. Plus since they are both European actors they could easily pull off a show set in Europe somewhere.
+me. i loved Loved season 1. it was the only thing i have seen on tv that is perfection besides breaking bad, seinfeld, first 3 seasons of Lost. ill watch season 2 one day though. it will be better probably if i dont have the expectations of season 1 throwing my off while watching it.
Season 2 just didn't really go anywhere, I thought it had an interesting setup but just never progressed. Season 1 really didn't have that great of an ending but the characters were so good it didn't matter.
Yeah that's the biggest issue from season 2, the character just never worked. Farrell was the only interesting one and there was only so much he could do with that writing. I'd be willing to get it another go since it'll be a whole new cast and story.
Location is what made season one great. Lake Charles and they kept it out of the casinos. It was not in one of the usual spots (NY, LA, Chicago, Boston, Miami, Vegas, ect...) that gives a been there done that vibe.
I made it to the 3rd episode of season 3 and gave up. I kept falling asleep. I'd give them another chance though, season 1 was one of the greatest shows I'd ever seen.
One of the main problems with Season 2 was the mixture of these key elements- -LA Crime Noir -Existentialism -Ritual secret society corruption -mob/cop drama -lifetime drama sexually abused strong woman story -political/corporate corruption -David Lynch/Twin Peaks wierdery -Sprawling Highway helicopter shots All of those elements have their place in a TV show or movie, but it was a hail mary pass to try and make all of these things work in an 8 hour one season show. Add in the miscasting of Vince Vaughn, and other bad scripting errors.... and you have True Detective Season 2. True Detective Season 3 can still be great, but first off it needs to figure out what it is going to be... rather than trying to be too many things at one time.
