Jump to content

True Detective Season 3 (SPOILERS)


Nictarion

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Astromech said:

I just assumed everything we are seeing is from Hay's perspective and memory and is therefore unreliable, frustrating as that may be.

But then he'd also be remembering West doing things on his own eg helping out the drunk dad. I guess this could be based on what West told Hays but then there's added unreliability as Hays  may be misremembering a  lie West told him. I hope this isn't the case as it takes me out of a show when 60% of the show is unreliable. I never fully got back into westworld once they established a similar thing eg objects not existing because that's how a character on screen saw it. Same with mr robot season 2. I just give up when there are no rules present in the narrative.

I'm not against unreliable narration but i prefer it to be in the style where it's clear that's What's on screen is the visualisation of a character's narration. I think there was an episode of buffy did this and it is usually pretty common in interview set-ups.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Igziabeher said:

yeah, the way I'm watching it, the scenes in the 90s and 80s are as they happened in the 90s and 80s, not his remembering of it.  the scenes of him in more modern time are where he sees things that aren't real.  

Thats how I see it too... the 80's & 90'd scenes aren't personal recollections... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

Good for pizzolato. To be fair he has never done this, the only parts that were unreliable were the opinions of those bring interviewed.

 

1 hour ago, Igziabeher said:

yeah, the way I'm watching it, the scenes in the 90s and 80s are as they happened in the 90s and 80s, not his remembering of it.  the scenes of him in more modern time are where he sees things that aren't real.  

Yeah, I'm totally onboard with Hay's present day recollection of events being unreliable as he has neurodegeneration but the events we see in the past are real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think West ever did get married. That's what he said at the dinner party, right - that marriage was a bit of a sore subject? That he wasn't the committing kind? I don't think that was wrong, and him thinking he had a wife and kids was probably just wishful thinking. 

So the real mystery is now revealed, I guess - who planted that stuff? Why did the letter get sent by the mom? And why did Hays and West kill Dan O'Brien? I'm guessing they also pinned something on the dad, but I don't know what yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe? I didn't think so, because I didn't think that the cops had the actual backpack in their possession. I figured it was whoever actually took Julie (assuming she was taken). 

I'm kind of hoping we're totally done with the 1980 timeline at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He’s the cop who immediately was like “isn’t that the dead boys backpack”when the other cop pulls it out. Just seems very likely to me that he planted it. He probably took the finger print out of evidence as well. 

Guessing Hays and Roland find out he’s dirty and he’s the one they kill. Not convinced they killed Dan O’ Brien.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

Well, that's a relief. But I'm still finding myself being suspicious of things.

Regarding Will's backpack,  it was a crime scene,  with only cops having access to the scene, so it was probably a cop, likely the one who disappeared.

And spoiler for ep5:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Astromech said:

Well, that's a relief. But I'm still finding myself being suspicious of things.

Regarding Will's backpack,  it was a crime scene,  with only cops having access to the scene, so it was probably a cop, likely the one who disappeared.

And spoiler for ep5:

 

To be fair, while it was a crime scene it was hardly a locked up place 24-7. I doubt they had posted guards or anything like that. A cop could have planted it (though the one that saw it seemed surprised about seeing it, and only noticed it when they did a flash of their camera), but it's not like a cop is the only one who could have gone there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To be fair, while it was a crime scene it was hardly a locked up place 24-7. I doubt they had posted guards or anything like that. A cop could have planted it (though the one that saw it seemed surprised about seeing it, and only noticed it when they did a flash of their camera), but it's not like a cop is the only one who could have gone there. 

It wasn't locked up but considering the number of people killed, and some of them being cops, it's most likely there were cops posted to that scene 24-7. The cop who disappeared may have been one of those posted to guard and preserve the scene. Could be when he planted the backpack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2019 at 3:56 PM, Zorral said:

Gads, yes.  It's that huge narrative writing error, to insert af flashback within a flashback.  Here are three nested inside each other, and that's truly screwing the pooch narrative-wise.  It also screws with characterization, not to mention the reader - watcher's capacity to know who what when and where (ya, that's the old school journalism format, but it still holds).  It's like those baroque - rococo cathedrals of endless ornamentation on top of ornamentation upon more decorative curlicues and spirals and twists and turns and spiky points too, and then drenched in gold foil.  It's too much extravagance, and not in a positive or even really creative manner.

 

I just don't like this season much (except for Ali), and I think the three timelines really hurts character development. Sometimes these moments happen that don't feel earned at all. The mom exploding at the teacher, or how one of the characters screams out as he's being beaten that he fought for their freedom. Or something. The husband and wife fights really feel unearned, and the three timelines I think contribute to this. Overall, this show feels like a platform for the creator to say, "See how smart I am?"

Ali is amazing though and keeps me watching.

One thing I dislike about shows in general is the breaking up of significant action. Like when a big fight is about to happen and the episode ends, then pieces of the fight are shown through the view of one of the other timelines. This seems like something that Breaking Bad did, and I loved Breaking Bad, but I think this ruins dramatic tension. The buildup and the payoff being so spread out just doesn't work for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nictarion said:

Best episode of the season so far for me. The scene at the end with old West and Hays was so good. I think Dorf is stealing the show tbh. 

For sure man. They’re both killing it. Impressive how natural they’re pulling off playing three different ages. Had only ever seen Dort in like one other thing before this but ya he’s been brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

So when Hays makes the connection to "children should laugh" from both the book and the note was to point the finger at Amelia, and if so, maybe a misdirection?  

Well, I think the idea is that it was Lucy, not Amelia, whom Hays takes to be implicated 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2019 at 7:51 AM, Nictarion said:

Best episode of the season so far for me. The scene at the end with old West and Hays was so good. I think Dorf is stealing the show tbh. 

I think dorf is going to come out of this the best. Everyone knows ali is excellent (from everything he's been in) but I'll be honest in "the vampire from blade" excelling. It also helos that his character is a lot more sympathetic. That's not to say ali/hays aren't great - the way his character is dealing with PTSD/anxiety in his negative thinking about his wife and how others see him is really well done. It might be the writers have done their research as a lot of neurodegenerative diseases have depression/other mental health issues before the later stages manifest.

 

Crackpot theory. The phone call was not about her real dad. It was about the high up police officer (or someone else in the video conference) and that's the person who kidnapped her. The dialogue in that scene was pointedly vague so that we could assume it was about her real dad but had enough room for it to be about another person she saw on the screen. Crackpot i know but a broken clock can be right twice a day. Throw enough ideas out and one might be correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your theory is interesting and I wouldn't be totally surprised if it was true, but would she be talking in such circumstances about "the person who acts like her dad" while not mentioning her real father at all? Somewhat doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...