True Detective IX - Cohle Logic

[Reposado]

Not from any description of the writing process. Or for any reason really.

There's nothing in the ending that indicates there was any confusion or indecision about what that ending was going to be about.

Just didn't live up to quality of the previous seven for me. ( though the last scene of episode 7 was the worst thing I've seen this year aside from dean Norris' performance in under the dome)

I wasn't expecting to be tricked or anything. Just something better than......that

[Diziet]

How is screaming at a girl being murdered and raped laughable, we dont know what sort of sick torture shit was on there.

If you think it's laughable to be truly horrified and scream at something like that it probably says more about you.

i thought the villain was creepy as shit.

Oh, please spare me this "if you no like something iz wrong with you" nonsense. It's not so much that he found it horrifying; of course he did, as would I or anyone else I know. But that reaction was unnatural, and inappropriate for the moment. I've seen many a horrifying crime scene and some murder tapes, but I don't recall anyone ever even coming close to blurting out a cartoon-ish scream in the way the sheriff did (which I guess is more likely if he were falling from a building or about to be crushed by a bulldozer.)

Note, I do think Marty's reaction was appropriate though, especially if you take into account the idea that "we let this guy go" had started to sink in at that moment.

[Diziet]

Nah, the whole thing was written before filming even started and filming was all done in one go.

It just turns out he was writing a story that wasn't trying to trick you or be super complicated.

He was trying to trick the audience into thinking that it was a super complicated story throughout. Which was the point.

[Anatúrinbor]

I liked the ending. If anything, I think they spent too much time on the killer. The last fifteen minutes of the finale were pure gold though.

As for Steve Geraci's scream, not gonna lie, I laughed out loud.

[Shryke]

He was trying to trick the audience into thinking that it was a super complicated story throughout. Which was the point.

No, he wasn't. The show never tries to present itself as complicated and even beyond the show the writer himself was going around in interviews telling people "It's not that complex guys, what are you on about?"

People read all sorts of complicated shit into the story because that's what they expect from TV these days.

[Diziet]

I'm discounting the interviews because they are not part of the show.

The show was definitely filled with clues everywhere and pointing in pretty much every direction (suspicious paintings, black stars, spirals, dolls, etc...) to give the impression that it's more complicated than it is. Of course in hindsight you might say that those weren't reliable clues to begin with, but that wasn't clear while the show was airing.

People read all sorts of complicated shit into the story because that's what they expect from TV these days.

And you think that the showrunners did not know that? They deliberately gave us a show that seemed super complicated only for us to find out that the story is pretty much straight forward.

[Castel]

And you think that the showrunners did not know that? They deliberately gave us a show that seemed super complicated only for us to find out that the story is pretty much straight forward.

If we're going to judge showrunner intent then I don't see how you can discount interviews.

As for the show: there was definitely some over-analyzing happening, even in cases where it wasn't encouraged at all. I recall this huge discussion on the nature of the unreliable narrator that came to nothing: we were explicitly told when they were being unreliable, and the mechanic was more convenient than anything.

I also don't know if clues in a detective story explain the sort of speculation I mentioned above.

[Diziet]

If we're going to judge showrunner intent then I don't see how you can discount interviews.

As for the show: there was definitely some over-analyzing happening, even in cases where it wasn't encouraged at all. I recall this huge discussion on the nature of the unreliable narrator that came to nothing: we were explicitly told when they were being unreliable, and the mechanic was more convenient than anything.

I also don't know if clues in a detective story explain the sort of speculation I mentioned above.

The claim was "the show was not trying to be complicated", you can't disregard the actual show and say the writer said in an interview that it wasn't so it's not. The second point about whether people read too much into the story or not is a different issue.

[Anatúrinbor]

I think around the third or fourth episode it became clear that the show had a straight forward plot, from the interviews among other things. That said, I agree with SBH, it's clear to me that they were trying to trick the audience into thinking that there was more to the mystery than there actually was early on.

eta: Which isn't to say that there wasn't any over analyzing going on.

[Shryke]

I'm discounting the interviews because they are not part of the show.

The show was definitely filled with clues everywhere and pointing in pretty much every direction (suspicious paintings, black stars, spirals, dolls, etc...) to give the impression that it's more complicated than it is. Of course in hindsight you might say that those weren't reliable clues to begin with, but that wasn't clear while the show was airing.

And you think that the showrunners did not know that? They deliberately gave us a show that seemed super complicated only for us to find out that the story is pretty much straight forward.

Let's not kid ourselves here. When you say "there were definitely clues", what you actually mean is "there was a child's painting in the background of this one scene for 10 seconds". Which is exactly the kind of ridiculous over-analysis I'm talking about. Every throw-away character was gone over with a fine-toothed comb looking for some small sign that would link them to some vast over-arching mystery.

They didn't deliberately give us anything. The viewers spun it out of background pieces in the set and imagination.

The show never establishes anything that it doesn't then confirm (though not necessarily resolve). And what it establishes is dead simple. Two detectives after a crazy guy out murdering people and said crazy guy has connections to a powerful local family that keeps it's own dirty business swept under the rug. It's not complicated.

Everything else is fantastical invention on the part of the viewer that isn't supported by the show itself. "OMG, Hart is actually the murderer!" "Maggie's father is the head of a crazy cult!" "Cthulu is the ultimate villain!!!" You tricked yourself. Nothing in the show supports it being that complicated. You have to blow up various inconsequential details to ridiculous proportions to think that. The writer was never trying to be Lindelof but you tried to read that into the show anyway.

[Diziet]

Let's not kid ourselves here. When you say "there were definitely clues", what you actually mean is "there was a child's painting in the background of this one scene for 10 seconds". Which is exactly the kind of ridiculous over-analysis I'm talking about. Every throw-away character was gone over with a fine-toothed comb looking for some small sign that would link them to some vast over-arching mystery.

I don't recall the show very well now, but there was a lot more than one painting for 10 seconds. There were several paintings, dolls, photoshopped images, black star tattoos on irrelevant characters, scars, etc... The writers deliberately threw all these things in almost every episode because they knew that the audience would think that they are clues to the mystery, even though they weren't. The director even said that some spiral images where thrown in during filming, on the spot. In other words, they tricked us to some extent.

The show never establishes anything that it doesn't then confirm (though not necessarily resolve). And what it establishes is dead simple. Two detectives after a crazy guy out murdering people and said crazy guy has connections to a powerful local family that keeps it's own dirty business swept under the rug. It's not complicated.

Everything else is fantastical invention on the part of the viewer that isn't supported by the show itself. "OMG, Hart is actually the murderer!" "Maggie's father is the head of a crazy cult!" "Cthulu is the ultimate villain!!!" You tricked yourself. Nothing in the show supports it being that complicated. You have to blow up various inconsequential details to ridiculous proportions to think that. The writer was never trying to be Lindelof but you tried to read that into the show anyway.

All this BS is irrelevant. I never came up with any of the theories that you've just invented. And this kind of theorizing is not what I'm talking about.

[Tobin]

I made this, :)

Sadly, something is wrong with the electrical, so it isn't lighting up like it should. I have to take it apart (again) to see what came loose.

I think it came out pretty well, but I have a list of improvements I want to make for my second build.

edit: woot! lights are back on!

[Shryke]

I don't recall the show very well now, but there was a lot more than one painting for 10 seconds. There were several paintings, dolls, photoshopped images, black star tattoos on irrelevant characters, scars, etc... The writers deliberately threw all these things in almost every episode because they knew that the audience would think that they are clues to the mystery, even though they weren't. The director even said that some spiral images where thrown in during filming, on the spot. In other words, they tricked us to some extent.

You are contradicting yourself. If the director threw it in during filming, obviously the writer didn't do it deliberately at all. The two are mutually exclusive.

Beyond that, "this chick has black star tattoos on her neck" is not them leading you on. It's you overthinking minor details. It's the audiecne scouring every inch and second of screen for hidden clues that aren't there.

All this BS is irrelevant. I never came up with any of the theories that you've just invented. And this kind of theorizing is not what I'm talking about.

Then what are you talking about? Cause so far all you've said is "they totally led us on!" while already admitting they didn't and that most of the details in question were thrown in at least post-writing and it would seem with zero intentions at hinting at anything.

[Martini Sigil]

I made this, :)

F'ing awesome.... nice work, good sir.

[cade]

Let's not kid ourselves here. When you say "there were definitely clues", what you actually mean is "there was a child's painting in the background of this one scene for 10 seconds". Which is exactly the kind of ridiculous over-analysis I'm talking about. Every throw-away character was gone over with a fine-toothed comb looking for some small sign that would link them to some vast over-arching mystery.

They didn't deliberately give us anything. The viewers spun it out of background pieces in the set and imagination.

The show never establishes anything that it doesn't then confirm (though not necessarily resolve). And what it establishes is dead simple. Two detectives after a crazy guy out murdering people and said crazy guy has connections to a powerful local family that keeps it's own dirty business swept under the rug. It's not complicated.

Everything else is fantastical invention on the part of the viewer that isn't supported by the show itself. "OMG, Hart is actually the murderer!" "Maggie's father is the head of a crazy cult!" "Cthulu is the ultimate villain!!!" You tricked yourself. Nothing in the show supports it being that complicated. You have to blow up various inconsequential details to ridiculous proportions to think that. The writer was never trying to be Lindelof but you tried to read that into the show anyway.

I completely agree. A lot of the fan theories struck me as contrived wishful thinking by people who wanted a different story than the one we were clearly being told.

[Howdyphillip]

Let's not kid ourselves here. When you say "there were definitely clues", what you actually mean is "there was a child's painting in the background of this one scene for 10 seconds". Which is exactly the kind of ridiculous over-analysis I'm talking about. Every throw-away character was gone over with a fine-toothed comb looking for some small sign that would link them to some vast over-arching mystery.

They didn't deliberately give us anything. The viewers spun it out of background pieces in the set and imagination.

The show never establishes anything that it doesn't then confirm (though not necessarily resolve). And what it establishes is dead simple. Two detectives after a crazy guy out murdering people and said crazy guy has connections to a powerful local family that keeps it's own dirty business swept under the rug. It's not complicated.

Everything else is fantastical invention on the part of the viewer that isn't supported by the show itself. "OMG, Hart is actually the murderer!" "Maggie's father is the head of a crazy cult!" "Cthulu is the ultimate villain!!!" You tricked yourself. Nothing in the show supports it being that complicated. You have to blow up various inconsequential details to ridiculous proportions to think that. The writer was never trying to be Lindelof but you tried to read that into the show anyway.

First of all, great post. I can fully see how you have brought yourself to this conclusion, and in the end of things, you are right in what you say the show was about.

I disagree with the premise that there wasn't a ton of misdirection in the writing though. The very nature of the characters themselves forced you to try and view the world in a non traditional manner. With hallucinations thrown in for good matter, the writer was asking you to see things from different angles. There were red herring clues scattered throughout the series.

I see this show as a straight forward tale told from a circular perspective.

[Tony Soprano]

" Show won't last more than three years, casting rumors absolutely false. " - Pizzolato

I guess the show not outlasting its stay is for the best. It should burn out, not fizzle.

But I'm pretty bummed about how casting hasn't even started. I was really looking forward to seeing Brad Pitt on TV, but I guess nothing's gonna come of that. Still, I'm sure they're gonna get a bunch of talented actors for Season 2, so I'm really curious who it's gonna be.

[cade]

" Show won't last more than three years, casting rumors absolutely false. " - Pizzolato

I guess the show not outlasting its stay is for the best. It should burn out, not fizzle.

But I'm pretty bummed about how casting hasn't even started. I was really looking forward to seeing Brad Pitt on TV, but I guess nothing's gonna come of that. Still, I'm sure they're gonna get a bunch of talented actors for Season 2, so I'm really curious who it's gonna be.

Love this quote:

"Not a single rumour about casting that has been printed anywhere has any truth to it whatsoever. I've seen entertainment reporters say 'my sources say' and there are no sources. There's me and two other guys and they don't even know what I'm doing," he said.

So many liars posing as reporters out there.

[Tobin]

F'ing awesome.... nice work, good sir.

Thank you, :)

I just dropped it off for a charity auction a week from Saturday - I'm hoping that others will think it's as cool as we do and start a bidding war!

(oh, and I'm a lady, ;))

[Elder Sister]

I completely agree. A lot of the fan theories struck me as contrived wishful thinking by people who wanted a different story than the one we were clearly being told.

Totally agree with you and Shryke. It got hysterical, the amount of sleuthing that was going on via the internet. Photos of Maggie's, blouse, a vase of flowers on her mantle....it had gotten beyond ridiculous the things that people were coming up with.

Plus, all of this sleuthing detracted from the Ginger fun that we were having.