Jump to content
Nictarion

True Detective Season 3 (SPOILERS)

Recommended Posts

Hays doesn't remember. Thats the horror here - he doesn't remember why he left the force or what hoyt did. 

And west backed off because he just killed a guy and had nothing to show for it. He was never as driven as hays. Hays just quits the force, stops talking to west, abandons all of it after finding it all out.

And then loses his memory.

And doesnt know why his wife didn't write the sequel. Or why he quit. Or why his daughter is estranged. But all of that he did know in 1990.

Heck, here's an out there one - what if his wife wanted to continue later and they killed her for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Heck, here's an out there one - what if his wife wanted to continue later and they killed her for it?

No too far out there, I had the same thought for West's fiancee too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm liking this more than most of the people on this thread......lol... however the finale will truly determine the success of this season.... it can go either way, but I have a feeling that it'll (mostly) satisfy.... I'll check back in Monday to see if I have to eat crow....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The finale was tonight and not one comment!? Unfortunately for myself it felt kind of like a chore to get through it. The reveal of the crime was very underwhelming, and seemed to come out of nowhere(I’m assuming I missed/forgot stuff from early on about Isabel). Wayne’s talks with Amelia were just exhausting too. Didn’t care for them at all by the end.

The season wasn’t all bad but the 3 timelines were a bit much, and it never felt like it got into a flow. It felt like a jumbled mess with the plot being stuck in the mud. The acting was stellar all around though, can’t knock anyone’s performance. Also cool to see how Roland became a dog person, beside the obnoxious fight scene. 

I never felt fully invested in the season. I usually watch episodes of a series like this twice in a week so I don’t miss stuff but just never wanted to with this. Interested to see what everyone else thinks. 

Edited by Ramsay B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramsay B. said:

The finale was tonight and not one comment!? Unfortunately for myself it felt kind of like a chore to get through it. The reveal of the crime was very underwhelming, and seemed to come out of nowhere(I’m assuming I missed/forgot stuff from early on about Isabel). Wayne’s talks with Amelia were just exhausting too. Didn’t care for them at all by the end.

The season wasn’t all bad but the 3 timelines were a bit much, and it never felt like it got into a flow. It felt like a jumbled mess with the plot being stuck in the mud. The acting was stellar all around though, can’t knock anyone’s performance. Also cool to see how Roland became a dog person, beside the obnoxious fight scene. 

I never felt fully invested in the season. I usually watch episodes of a series like this twice in a week so I don’t miss stuff but just never wanted to with this. Interested to see what everyone else thinks. 

I actually thought the scene leading up to the fight was pretty funny, so I didn’t mind it. West and the dog was probably my favorite part of the finale. 

Overall the season was a success for me, as I actually looked forward to watching every week. The case itself wasn’t particularly strong, but like Mark said, the Hays/West relationship was good. It’s not on par with S1, but miles better than S2. 

Too bad Michael Rooker didn’t have a bigger part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking Scooby Doo ending and not one "meddling kids and their dog" uttered :( 

Once again Pizzolato can't stick the landing. I grew very weary of Wayne and Amelia's relationship and the writers ended the season on it. Sigh. I suppose the actual resolution with Mike and Julie was ok, but I was banging my head against the wall when Wayne oh so conveniently fell into his memory lapse.

To improve the finale and season, I'm convincing myself Henry was in on the conspiracy all along and was slipping something into Wayne's drinks. He slipped the same into Roland's at the end and little Lucy also slipped it into Wayne's glass of water.

The season was ok, saved by the acting really.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

I actually thought the scene leading up to the fight was pretty funny, so I didn’t mind it. West and the dog was probably my favorite part of the finale. 

Overall the season was a success for me, as I actually looked forward to watching every week. The case itself wasn’t particularly strong, but like Mark said, the Hays/West relationship was good. It’s not on par with S1, but miles better than S2. 

Too bad Michael Rooker didn’t have a bigger part. 

I agree with all of this. 

Mahershala Ali deserves an Emmy to go along with his Oscars. The performances overall were the definitive highlight; the actors raised a fairly nondescript story up to the level of very good television. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my opinion will echo everyone else. Very strong performance by everybody, but the story was just not all that engaging. The interviewer bit this season felt completely unnecessary.

 

I laughed my ass off though when Roland asked Wayne if he felt closure because he didn't. I think he was talking about the audience as well !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon as the Mike said his daughter's name was Lucy I knew she was  Julie's daughter, but I thought Julie had still died until they suggested later that the nuns had lied about it.   When imaginary Amelia was telling Hayes to tell the story of Julie's happy ending, I was thinking, no just leave her in peace.  So was kinda of happy he forgot why he drove out there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shitshow of an ending. 

We get a massive infodump of finding out everything that, for the most part, we couldn't possibly have pieced together as far as details go. And it makes sense, sort of, though we don't find out anything about what happened to Isabel later, or who sent Harris out to kill the wife, or who killed the cousin, or any of that. None of them get punished - hell, no one saves Harris gets punished, and that's not even publicly done. No justice for Steve either - I'm not sure anyone actually figured out Harris killed him, or why. 

The Hoyt/Hays scene was great, full of menace and implication, but ultimately didn't do shit. And Hays dropped everything for 25 years not because of a threat, but because of Amelia? Come on. We don't  find out why he's estranged with his daughter or even if that was accurate. 

Just very unsatisfying, long, and dull. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We get a massive infodump of finding out everything that, for the most part, we couldn't possibly have pieced together as far as details go.

I thought the contrary -- pretty much everything Junius said was stuff that had been figured out by some viewers. It certainly fell in to pretty much what I thought once we saw Tom finding the room in Hoyt's secret basement. The only real twist was the reveal regarding Julie.

Quote

And it makes sense, sort of, though we don't find out anything about what happened to Isabel later

She killed herself after Julie/Mary July ran away, Junius said. Put on her wedding dress and took all of her pills.

Quote

, or who sent Harris out to kill the wife, or who killed the cousin, or any of that.

I mean, all of these are Harris. What I'm not sure about is the idea that Harris was doing at entirely at the behest of Isabel and Junius. Seems to me that despite Hoyt's denials, he must have known what his daughter got into, and decided to task Harris with basically "taking care" of any hiccups like Tom finding the Pink Rooms, Dan trying to sell info the police, etc. I suspect Harris basically understood that he could do whatever he felt was necessary to protect Isabel and her secret, and Hoyt preferred to be kept ignorant to try and assuage his conscience.

Quote

None of them get punished - hell, no one saves Harris gets punished, and that's not even publicly done. No justice for Steve either - I'm not sure anyone actually figured out Harris killed him, or why. 

I took it that it was understood by them, but sure, they didn't say it explicitly. It feels like a slight loose-end that Roland didn't bring it up when they sat down with Junius, given that he and Tom were friends (and possibly lovers at some point?).
ETA: Re: Hays and his daughter, apparently it was a scene that was edited out. They aren't really estranged, per Pizzolatto on Twitter, it's just that they fell out of touch in part because Amelia was the one who was always the one keeping the connection going. 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ran said:

I thought the contrary -- pretty much everything Junius said was stuff that had been figured out by some viewers. It certainly fell in to pretty much what I thought once we saw Tom finding the room in Hoyt's secret basement. The only real twist was the reveal regarding Julie. 

I don't think we knew anything about why Isabel was wanting Julie, or what she was doing with the kids, or who had been supplying the toys. We knew that Julie had been in the basement, but we didn't know why she escaped, or why she was being pursued, or anything. 

1 minute ago, Ran said:

She killed herself after Julie/Mary July ran away, Junius said. Put on her wedding dress and took all of her pills. 

Fair enough. I missed that. Why a crazy woman who is part of the Hoyt empire isn't part of every rumor mill in town is a bit beyond me, but so it goes. Isabel being batshit crazy is another one of those things that came out of left field. 

1 minute ago, Ran said:

I mean, all of these are Harris. What I'm not sure about is the idea that Harris was doing at entirely at the behest of Isabel and Junius. Seems to me that despite Hoyt's denials, he must have known what his daughter got into, and decided to task Harris with basically "taking care" of any hiccups like Tom finding the Pink Rooms, Dan trying to sell info the police, etc. I suspect Harris basically understood that he could do whatever he felt was necessary to protect Isabel and her secret, and Hoyt preferred to be kept ignorant to try and assuage his conscience. 

 

I doubt very seriously Harris by himself offered Lisa massive money to shut up, and then went to go kill her at no one's behest at all. Harris isn't the kind of person that ties his shoes without asking permission. Also, it's a bit peculiar that Harris was able to kill Tom, kill Dan, stage Tom's suicide note at the original place AND dump Dan's body in a quarry somewhere all within the space of what, 8 hours? How does Harris do that? How does he get the money? 

And Hoyt, if he's to be believed, is suggesting that other parties might get interested. Maybe he's just talking about himself, but my implication was that there were others out there who would care in some way. And if he doesn't have Harris to do this shit, who does he have now? 

Hell, why were the DA and the others so hellbent on closing the case despite the bullshit evidence? 

1 minute ago, Ran said:

I took it that it was understood by them, but sure, they didn't say it explicitly. It feels like a slight loose-end that Roland didn't bring it up when they sat down with Junius, given that he and Tom were friends (and possibly lovers at some point?).

I'm not convinced that they knew Tom was killed. Roland certainly doesn't seem to think that. And they never even bother wondering why Tom would be killed. (I don't know why I want to call him Steve, other than Steve Purcell the author). Tom dying should be as much of a mystery as anything else, maybe even the biggest one, and they don't ever solve it. He's just dead, and that's just done, and the best we get is Roland fighting a biker bar in his honor and adopting a dog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kalbear said:

I don't think we knew anything about why Isabel was wanting Julie

We had been told somewhere in the first half of the season that Isabel lost her husband and daughter in a horrible accident. Something to do with that Hoyt-sponsored foundation for children, IIRC.

Just now, Kalbear said:

, or what she was doing with the kids, or who had been supplying the toys. We knew that Julie had been in the basement, but we didn't know why she escaped, or why she was being pursued, or anything. 

Do we need to know why a child abducted from her family and locked up in some rooms for years might try to escape? That was one part I never really wondered about. And the reason they would pursue her would, presumably, be because they didn't want her out there given that they abducted her in the first place...

Just now, Kalbear said:

I doubt very seriously Harris by himself offered Lisa massive money to shut up, and then went to go kill her at no one's behest at all. Harris isn't the kind of person that ties his shoes without asking permission. Also, it's a bit peculiar that Harris was able to kill Tom, kill Dan, stage Tom's suicide note at the original place AND dump Dan's body in a quarry somewhere all within the space of what, 8 hours? How does Harris do that? How does he get the money? 

It sounds like Isabel and June had access to Hoyt's money -- possibly Isabel had her own bank accounts and all, she was a grown woman after all, and though she had become unstable it's clear she was not committed -- but I do doubt Hoyt would not have noticed what was going on. There's no way they set up those rooms in the mansion and he didn't know what was happening. But as I said, I think what we're to take out of it is that Hoyt basically gave Harris carte blanche to take care of any issues arising from what Isabel did, and then guilt churned at him as he made his vain attempt at keeping ignorant. Hence, I guess, that heavy drinking we saw back in 1990.
 

Just now, Kalbear said:

Hell, why were the DA and the others so hellbent on closing the case despite the bullshit evidence? 

Wasn't it a matter of election years both in 1980  and 1990? They wanted results, fast, to look good or at least to not look bad. Yes, it was done in such a way to feed into the idea that there was a conspiracy going on, some high-level nexus of politicians and millionaries with a pedophile ring -- much as the documentary director thought -- but essentially that was Pizzolatto undermining what was expected.

I do understand a sense of dissatisfaction with how it wrapped up. It was not particularly elegant to have Junius basically say it all explicitly, and I'm not sure how I feel about Julie being alive and then Wayne forgetting about it. It feels like Pizzolatto stretched himself a bit too far. But the basic idea of the story, the way it's really about relationships -- good ones, bad ones, and the fact that sometimes they're the same thing -- felt like the right tack to take. I think, were I Pizzolatto, I would have left it decidedly more unfinished. Have them head out to find Junius, only for him to already be dead and buried, and basically never let them know what the truth was. Sometimes detectives simply never solve their cases, and they have to just live with the burden of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ran said:

We had been told somewhere in the first half of the season that Isabel lost her husband and daughter in a horrible accident. Something to do with that Hoyt-sponsored foundation for children, IIRC. 

We got a very quick blurb, but we still didn't have any inkling that she was crazy, much less crazy enough to abduct a kid and cover it up. 

Ooh, here's another one - who sent the note? The wife? Isabel? 

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Do we need to know why a child abducted from her family and locked up in some rooms for years might try to escape? That was one part I never really wondered about. And the reason they would pursue her would, presumably, be because they didn't want her out there given that they abducted her in the first place...

Except that's not what Hoyt said. He didn't care about her as long as everyone thought she was dead. He was absolutely fine with her being gone. 

As to her wanting to escape and then not tell any single person about it at all? Yeah, that deserved some better explanation than the last minute infodump we got. Her escaping makes perfect sense. Her not going to the cops or to her family or to anyone came out of left field entirely. 

I feel like a lot of these things should have been answered earlier in some way. For example, have the detectives find out that Julie 'died', get the interview with the nuns, find out about her disassociative personality and that she had almost no memory of her brother or her real parents and had evidence of massive psychoactive drug abuse as a kid - and find that out in, say, ep 6, as a nun got interviewed by the documentary folks to find out what really happened with Julie. Then it places in our heads that something Really Wrong happened to Julie beyond just getting kidnapped, but we don't know why - yet. 

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

It sounds like Isabel and June had access to Hoyt's money -- possibly Isabel had her own bank accounts and all, she was a grown woman after all, and though she had become unstable it's clear she was not committed -- but I do doubt Hoyt would not have noticed what was going on. There's no way they set up those rooms in the mansion and he didn't know what was happening. But as I said, I think what we're to take out of it is that Hoyt basically gave Harris carte blanche to take care of any issues arising from what Isabel did, and then guilt churned at him as he made his vain attempt at keeping ignorant. Hence, I guess, that heavy drinking we saw back in 1990. 

But when did Isabel die? I thought it was before Julie's reappearance. If it's after, then why wasn't Isabel hunting for her? Neither makes sense to me - I don't see how Isabel wouldn't be going apeshit to get Juile back, and I don't see how her death doesn't make massive news to everyone before this. The heiress to a giant company killing herself should have shown up at some point, and even the documentarian didn't bring it up. 

2 minutes ago, Ran said:


Wasn't it a matter of election years both in 1980  and 1990? They wanted results, fast, to look good or at least to not look bad. Yes, it was done in such a way to feed into the idea that there was a conspiracy going on, some high-level nexus of politicians and millionaries with a pedophile ring -- much as the documentary director thought -- but essentially that was Pizzolatto undermining what was expected. 

I guess. It felt a lot less like that and a lot more like they were pushing on this to go away - twice - with some incredibly flimsy evidence, and not because they wanted to get elected.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

I do understand a sense of dissatisfaction with how it wrapped up. It was not particularly elegant to have Junius basically say it all explicitly, and I'm not sure how I feel about Julie being alive and then Wayne forgetting about it. It feels like Pizzolatto stretched himself a bit too far. But the basic idea of the story, the way it's really about relationships -- good ones, bad ones, and the fact that sometimes they're the same thing -- felt like the right tack to take. I think, were I Pizzolatto, I would have left it decidedly more unfinished. Have them head out to find Junius, only for him to already be dead and buried, and basically never let them know what the truth was. Sometimes detectives simply never solve their cases, and they have to just live with the burden of it.

At the end of detective stories you find out what happened. You might not get a perfect resolution and the guilty might get away, but it's still finding out what happened which matters. 
 

Mostly, I think the framing mechanism never pays off. Hays doing dick all about the case for 25 years and then picking it up because of the interviews? Why then, if it was eating at him? Why spend so long with the 1980 part that ended up being such a big waste of time? Why never get any kind of justice for Tom, or even consider that he was wrongfully framed for the murder of his son? Seriously, the whole world thinks Tom killed his son, made his daughter run away and then killed himself - and Roland is cool with that? 

And ending the story with the 1980 fight with Hays and Amelia and then them getting back together doesn't make much sense either dramatically; we know that they are going to be okay in 1990, and they were still together until her death - so what does 1980 matter? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Kalbear, a dull, unremarkable and unsatisfactory finale.  It boiled down to a basic story with very little going for it and the who mystery part in the "whodoneit" is a character that never even appears in the show until the rather unbelievable infodump confession.

Also, Lisa.  She gets paid a boatload of cash from the Hoyt family and neither the police or the residents of this small town ever question how the mother in the highly publicized case got so flush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ooh, here's another one - who sent the note? The wife?

 

Yes, as Hays realized when he read Amelia's account of her conversation with Lucy.

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except that's not what Hoyt said. He didn't care about her as long as everyone thought she was dead. He was absolutely fine with her being gone. 

Except in 1990, she's not dead. Everyone's looking for her. 

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As to her wanting to escape and then not tell any single person about it at all?

She did tell people. She was just fucked up from her time there and didn't really have a way of explaining it that made sense to anyone. Remember, she was the princess of the pink rooms...

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

At the end of detective stories you find out what happened. You might not get a perfect resolution and the guilty might get away, but it's still finding out what happened which matters. 
 

Mostly, I think the framing mechanism never pays off. Hays doing dick all about the case for 25 years and then picking it up because of the interviews?

Picking it up because his wife recently died, more likely. He was already starting to look at it all again when his son brought the documentarian to him.

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why then, if it was eating at him? Why spend so long with the 1980 part that ended up being such a big waste of time?

Because without 1980 you get very little about the characters involved in the initial disappearance. 

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why never get any kind of justice for Tom, or even consider that he was wrongfully framed for the murder of his son? Seriously, the whole world thinks Tom killed his son, made his daughter run away and then killed himself - and Roland is cool with that? 

It's Chinatown, Jake.

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And ending the story with the 1980 fight with Hays and Amelia and then them getting back together doesn't make much sense either dramatically; we know that they are going to be okay in 1990, and they were still together until her death - so what does 1980 matter? 

Because 1980 was when most of the clues about what happened were laid out. Why would you jump into a story about a child murder/disappearance from a point 10 years after most of the significant events that shaped how it played out happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I was unclear. Why end the actual show with 1980 and hays and Amelia breaking up and getting together? What purpose does that serve in the narrative arc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ran said:

Yes, as Hays realized when he read Amelia's account of her conversation with Lucy. 

It's not confirmed though. It was just his thought. 

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Except in 1990, she's not dead. Everyone's looking for her. 

Until her fingerprints show up, no one cares about her. Hoyt doesn't. That's what he says, at least. He was happy to just let it go. So was Harris. But Dan wants more money, Tom is nosing around, the police are reopening the case. 

2 hours ago, Ran said:

She did tell people. She was just fucked up from her time there and didn't really have a way of explaining it that made sense to anyone. Remember, she was the princess of the pink rooms...

Right - and we had no idea why she would be doing this. That's sort of an issue. Why should she be acting insane? Why would she forget her family? The show wanted to at least insinuate that it might have been Tom and make us guess, but I think that was a mistake. 

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Picking it up because his wife recently died, more likely. He was already starting to look at it all again when his son brought the documentarian to him. 

I don't think Amelia recently had died. Wasn't it like 5 years ago? 

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Because without 1980 you get very little about the characters involved in the initial disappearance. 

Because 1980 was when most of the clues about what happened were laid out. Why would you jump into a story about a child murder/disappearance from a point 10 years after most of the significant events that shaped how it played out happened?

I'm fine doing stuff with 1980; what was stupid was having the three jumps. TD1 only had two jumps - the 'present' and the flashbacks, which ended entirely after episode, what, 5 or 6? The whole thing doesn't work particularly well by comparison here. We know in 1980 that the wrong man got pinned, we know that after 1990 Julie isn't found. We know that from the first episode, so there's very little dramatic oomph in going back there. It's like Chronicles of a Death Foretold if it sucked. 

Another way to say it is this: what if you did the show in chronological order entirely. Start in 1980, show us all of it, and then move to 1990. What do we lose by that? What value is there in jumping around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I hated the ending... for the life of me, I don;t understand why they didn;t introduce Isabel earlier, to make the ending a swerve instead of whatever the fuck this was... 

"Hey, now that you've been watching for 7 weeks, we think we'll just wrap it up with the killer/kidnapper being a character you've never seen or heard of before.... surprise!!!!." FFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×