I wonder how much of Rust's currentday persona is an act. He's done deep undercover work for years at a time. He's totally capable of putting on an act of being a burnout drunk.
I wonder how much of Rust's currentday persona is an act. He's done deep undercover work for years at a time. He's totally capable of putting on an act of being a burnout drunk.
The scary part is that now that we've seen Hart privately and professionally, who is putting on the better act for the camera?
Another note as I rewatch the first three episodes:
I really like the tent revival preacher. His delivery is fantastic (as you'd hope; say what you will, but those guys are supposed to be pure charisma) but I also love the poetry of the language they gave him.
"...and his body is the stars, and the wind between the stars..."
or "this world is a veil. And the face you wear is not your own!"
While the church is full of grotesques (though to be fair, so is the entire world of the show) I like that the preacher himself seems polite, intelligent and helpful. Making him an oily villain would have been too obvious.
That language is why he's a suspect to me. That flowery language fits right in with cults that worship Cthulhu-esque abominations from beyond the stars. I do agree that he's to obvious a villain.
Yeah in a show with this much depth and nuance I'd actually really enjoy it if these zealotous religious people just end up being characters that are blissfully faithful and hopeful rather than characters putting on acts to hide their villainous intent.
The former is much more grounded than the latter, and would broaden the discussion about how religion in a small town can really color the whole landscape.
It would open up the show to play out in a fashion similar to the REAL West Memphis 3 case, where a town cannibalizes its own in the name of "fighting satanists" in order to make a grotesque murder go away quickly.
I'd be much more interested in that kind of social discussion than the "religious people seem nice but are evil and lecherous" cliche.
I’ve enjoyed reading people theorize about what’s going to happen because it’s a sign that you’re connecting. But I’m also sort of surprised by how far afield they’re getting. Like, why do you think we’re tricking you? It’s because you’ve been abused as an audience for more than 20 years. The show’s not trying to outsmart you. And really if you pay attention… if someone watches the first episode and really listens, it tells you 85 percent of the story of the first six episodes.
I wonder how much of Rust's currentday persona is an act. He's done deep undercover work for years at a time. He's totally capable of putting on an act of being a burnout drunk.
The scary part is that now that we've seen Hart privately and professionally, who is putting on the better act for the camera?
I think Hart's better at lying to himself than anything else.
im just surprised the unions aren't all over this with regards to having one writer, unless something changed recently i always thought it was a big nono for american tv to have one writer, a nono in the sense that the guilds or unions or whatever start shit up unless you have full room of paid writers. ah but who cares, industry speculation is fucking boring and this show is great.
im just surprised the unions aren't all over this with regards to having one writer, unless something changed recently i always thought it was a big nono for american tv to have one writer, a nono in the sense that the guilds or unions or whatever start shit up unless you have full room of paid writers. ah but who cares, industry speculation is fucking boring and this show is great.
I have an understanding of how the WGA operates and I wouldn't be surprised if even though we've been pitched the show as some kind of vignetted episodic show, in legal terms Pizzolatto wrote a mini-series, which most likely is less stringent about filling a room full of writers.
If he wrote the whole thing before it was sold, as opposed to having wrote the pilot episode, it'd be easily sold as a feature or a mini-series and what the network decides to do with it after that is of no concern to the WGA. It'd only be a problem, most likely, if he was writing as he went with an unstaffed room.
I’ve enjoyed reading people theorize about what’s going to happen because it’s a sign that you’re connecting. But I’m also sort of surprised by how far afield they’re getting. Like, why do you think we’re tricking you? It’s because you’ve been abused as an audience for more than 20 years. The show’s not trying to outsmart you. And really if you pay attention… if someone watches the first episode and really listens, it tells you 85 percent of the story of the first six episodes.
This is a funny response because it sounds really normal but is honestly a pretty deceptive way of answering that question.
"Why do you think we're tricking you? We've embedded just enough information into the first episode that if you watch it over and over you'll be able to figure out most of the story through veiled statements and out of context images. I don't get why people are coming up with so many theories!"
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY, NIC. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I can rewatch the first ep but I'm just gonna ask (since the third is playing as we speak)
there are dates shown for the interviews the cops are doing... who do they talk to/film first?
I believe they talk to Hart five days after they talk to Cohle.
I remember this being the case because I believe uproxx had an article where a prevailing theory was that Cohle had died between the interviews and that's why Hart talks about him in the past-tense.
I don't buy the theory but I think in that article they specifically mention that five days have passed.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I really love Hart's performance for the detectives. You can tell he's a practised liar, he plays to a common narrative, tries to create a rapport, and establishes himself as a normal guy, while the flashbacks establish his actual character.
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
+4
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I really like the cut of Pizzolatto's jib. He's intensely focused, but he doesn't come off, to me, as preening or puffed-up about it. And he anticipated some of the things I was wondering most - like, after three great episodes, will the show drop the ball in the final stretch? He says no; of course, he may be wrong, but the fact that that's even on his mind is heartening to me.
+2
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I’ve enjoyed reading people theorize about what’s going to happen because it’s a sign that you’re connecting. But I’m also sort of surprised by how far afield they’re getting. Like, why do you think we’re tricking you? It’s because you’ve been abused as an audience for more than 20 years. The show’s not trying to outsmart you. And really if you pay attention… if someone watches the first episode and really listens, it tells you 85 percent of the story of the first six episodes.
This is a funny response because it sounds really normal but is honestly a pretty deceptive way of answering that question.
"Why do you think we're tricking you? We've embedded just enough information into the first episode that if you watch it over and over you'll be able to figure out most of the story through veiled statements and out of context images. I don't get why people are coming up with so many theories!"
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY, NIC. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY.
I don't think he was asking why people are coming up with theories; as he said, it's a sign that they're engaged. He was expressing surprise at where some of the theories are coming from ("far afrield") and speculating that this is because the audience has been trained by previous experiences to expect triple-crosses and ridicuolous developments from way out in left field. He's saying that this is going to be more straightforward than people might be used to.
+3
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
I’ve enjoyed reading people theorize about what’s going to happen because it’s a sign that you’re connecting. But I’m also sort of surprised by how far afield they’re getting. Like, why do you think we’re tricking you? It’s because you’ve been abused as an audience for more than 20 years. The show’s not trying to outsmart you. And really if you pay attention… if someone watches the first episode and really listens, it tells you 85 percent of the story of the first six episodes.
This is a funny response because it sounds really normal but is honestly a pretty deceptive way of answering that question.
"Why do you think we're tricking you? We've embedded just enough information into the first episode that if you watch it over and over you'll be able to figure out most of the story through veiled statements and out of context images. I don't get why people are coming up with so many theories!"
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY, NIC. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY.
I don't think he was asking why people are coming up with theories; as he said, it's a sign that they're engaged. He was expressing surprise at where some of the theories are coming from ("far afrield") and speculating that this is because the audience has been trained by previous experiences to expect triple-crosses and ridicuolous developments from way out in left field. He's saying that this is going to be more straightforward than people might be used to.
Clearly that is nothing more than yet another misdirection! Let's figure out which character is definitely a robot.
I’ve enjoyed reading people theorize about what’s going to happen because it’s a sign that you’re connecting. But I’m also sort of surprised by how far afield they’re getting. Like, why do you think we’re tricking you? It’s because you’ve been abused as an audience for more than 20 years. The show’s not trying to outsmart you. And really if you pay attention… if someone watches the first episode and really listens, it tells you 85 percent of the story of the first six episodes.
This is a funny response because it sounds really normal but is honestly a pretty deceptive way of answering that question.
"Why do you think we're tricking you? We've embedded just enough information into the first episode that if you watch it over and over you'll be able to figure out most of the story through veiled statements and out of context images. I don't get why people are coming up with so many theories!"
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY, NIC. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY.
I don't think he was asking why people are coming up with theories; as he said, it's a sign that they're engaged. He was expressing surprise at where some of the theories are coming from ("far afrield") and speculating that this is because the audience has been trained by previous experiences to expect triple-crosses and ridicuolous developments from way out in left field. He's saying that this is going to be more straightforward than people might be used to.
Right; for me what he's expressing is best exemplified by how our conditioning at the hands of popular media has us hypothesizing "ridiculous developments" such as Hart's daughter growing up to become a copycat killer, rather than restraining our analyses and accepting that the daughter's drawings and dolls might just be there to further highlight the futility and consequences of Hart's efforts to keep his work and family separate.
In some ways this issue may be less due to conditioning and more an extension of how he describes viewers' reactions to McConaughey's monologues — that people are hearing a litany of "ten-dollar words" and largely disregarding the content as "stoner philosophy", yet the monologues nonetheless give cause to believe that the story of True Detective is as convoluted and ornate as Cohle's diction.
I dunno, nothing about the first 3 episodes of this show gave me the impression that it was going to try to do a Shmyalan tweeeeeest or get all crazy. I'll give people that the king in yellow and some of that stuff was obviously going to lead to speculation about how potentially culty or supernatural the show might go because we didn't have enough show under our belts yet to know and this is a guy who is brand spanking new to TV so we don't have a precedent by which to judge him. But I always saw it as something that'd probably be a pretty straight forward story, with an amazing atmosphere and some fantastic writing/acting that makes the characters really come alive.
+1
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I dunno, nothing about the first 3 episodes of this show gave me the impression that it was going to try to do a Shmyalan tweeeeeest or get all crazy. I'll give people that the king in yellow and some of that stuff was obviously going to lead to speculation about how potentially culty or supernatural the show might go because we didn't have enough show under our belts yet to know and this is a guy who is brand spanking new to TV so we don't have a precedent by which to judge him. But I always saw it as something that'd probably be a pretty straight forward story, with an amazing atmosphere and some fantastic writing/acting that makes the characters really come alive.
In the finale episode, it will be revealed that Hart is a werewolf.
And the clue was there all along: Hart. And what do werewolves eat? Hearts.
And then the older of the two detectives conducting the interviews, upon watching Hart wolf out (and eat the younger guy), will slide on a pair of sunglasses and pull out a katana.
Why?
Because: he's Blade.
The final twenty minutes of True Detective practically write themselves.
+8
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
Oh, no worries, I was curious what context the cap came from and that makes sense. Though of course now I'm wondering about that little inconsistency that I hadn't noticed, so thanks, ya jerk.
I actually didn't notice the dates and realize they might be relevant until the third time I watched it.
I don't want to classify true detective as best of 2014, because I feel game of thrones will be really amazing in wholly different ways than true detective
That was the most impressive unbroken shot since Children of Men. HBO really spares no expense, to have something like that in a TV show is fucking crazy. There's no way that any show this year tops this, just no way, it's already in my top 10 shows of all time.
Posts
The scary part is that now that we've seen Hart privately and professionally, who is putting on the better act for the camera?
That language is why he's a suspect to me. That flowery language fits right in with cults that worship Cthulhu-esque abominations from beyond the stars.
The former is much more grounded than the latter, and would broaden the discussion about how religion in a small town can really color the whole landscape.
It would open up the show to play out in a fashion similar to the REAL West Memphis 3 case, where a town cannibalizes its own in the name of "fighting satanists" in order to make a grotesque murder go away quickly.
I'd be much more interested in that kind of social discussion than the "religious people seem nice but are evil and lecherous" cliche.
I think Hart's better at lying to himself than anything else.
im just surprised the unions aren't all over this with regards to having one writer, unless something changed recently i always thought it was a big nono for american tv to have one writer, a nono in the sense that the guilds or unions or whatever start shit up unless you have full room of paid writers. ah but who cares, industry speculation is fucking boring and this show is great.
I have an understanding of how the WGA operates and I wouldn't be surprised if even though we've been pitched the show as some kind of vignetted episodic show, in legal terms Pizzolatto wrote a mini-series, which most likely is less stringent about filling a room full of writers.
If he wrote the whole thing before it was sold, as opposed to having wrote the pilot episode, it'd be easily sold as a feature or a mini-series and what the network decides to do with it after that is of no concern to the WGA. It'd only be a problem, most likely, if he was writing as he went with an unstaffed room.
This is a funny response because it sounds really normal but is honestly a pretty deceptive way of answering that question.
"Why do you think we're tricking you? We've embedded just enough information into the first episode that if you watch it over and over you'll be able to figure out most of the story through veiled statements and out of context images. I don't get why people are coming up with so many theories!"
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY, NIC. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY.
there are dates shown for the interviews the cops are doing... who do they talk to/film first?
I remember this being the case because I believe uproxx had an article where a prevailing theory was that Cohle had died between the interviews and that's why Hart talks about him in the past-tense.
I don't buy the theory but I think in that article they specifically mention that five days have passed.
I don't think he was asking why people are coming up with theories; as he said, it's a sign that they're engaged. He was expressing surprise at where some of the theories are coming from ("far afrield") and speculating that this is because the audience has been trained by previous experiences to expect triple-crosses and ridicuolous developments from way out in left field. He's saying that this is going to be more straightforward than people might be used to.
There's a date on Hart's interview, but not on Cohle's.
Clearly that is nothing more than yet another misdirection! Let's figure out which character is definitely a robot.
Are you positive? I could swear both were dated, with harts being later.
So excited for the next one.
Right; for me what he's expressing is best exemplified by how our conditioning at the hands of popular media has us hypothesizing "ridiculous developments" such as Hart's daughter growing up to become a copycat killer, rather than restraining our analyses and accepting that the daughter's drawings and dolls might just be there to further highlight the futility and consequences of Hart's efforts to keep his work and family separate.
In some ways this issue may be less due to conditioning and more an extension of how he describes viewers' reactions to McConaughey's monologues — that people are hearing a litany of "ten-dollar words" and largely disregarding the content as "stoner philosophy", yet the monologues nonetheless give cause to believe that the story of True Detective is as convoluted and ornate as Cohle's diction.
In the finale episode, it will be revealed that Hart is a werewolf.
And the clue was there all along: Hart. And what do werewolves eat? Hearts.
And then the older of the two detectives conducting the interviews, upon watching Hart wolf out (and eat the younger guy), will slide on a pair of sunglasses and pull out a katana.
Why?
Because: he's Blade.
The final twenty minutes of True Detective practically write themselves.
It's April 26th, 2012.
EDIT: I'll go ahead and not be lazy, and cap it...
My bad. I noticed it on a Reddit thread, but as it turns out they were discussing if Cohle's name not being in caps meant anything.
I actually didn't notice the dates and realize they might be relevant until the third time I watched it.
ahahahahahahahahahahaha
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1722001/true-detective-long-take.jhtml
it
made me
i
that's it
true detective wins TV for 2014. i'm not going to see anything on that level.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
but really HBO wins at everything
and marty (martyrdom) hart (heart)
have to mean something