Jump to content
Nictarion

True Detective Season 3 (SPOILERS)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

If she is the daughter, do you think her father is whoever kidnapped the missing girl?  And she knows who that is?

Well, perhaps it would be more of, she wants to know who her mother (and, presumably, father) really was, why she would go with whoever it was she did and perhaps explain her upbringing.  Presumably, in this case, she must not have known her parents.  Was she a product of rape?  Or some kind of sex slavery thing?  Did her mom love her?  What about her dad?  Why aren't they there now?

I'm not sure if I buy it, but I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility.

I'm still waiting on the show to explain that cryptic insinuation that something happened between Julie and her father in the 90s.  I'm presuming it was just contact or some kind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good episode, but it was hard to make out parts of the conversation between Hays and West at the end.  Too much low mumbling.

So West was never married? What else is Hays misremembering? Does he even have a daughter? Is Amelia even dead?

The backpack was an obvious plant the moment it appeared on screen under Woodard's porch.

I now think both Hays and West offed O'Brien, not just West.

I thought it was possible Julie ran away or left with the mysterious friend to escape her unhappy home life. Sounds like her dad, Tom, may have been more the problem than her mom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hays doesn't have a daughter we are in really dodgy territory as it means everything we are seeing in the past is from an unreliable narrator. Afterall his daughter was very clearly in the shopping mall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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... 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, regarding Hayes looking younger in the 90s than 80s, look at any mid 80s Tony Gwynn baseball card and compare it to early 90s ones.  Some black people just age backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


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

who planted that stuff? . 

I think it was made pretty clear it was planted by the cop (think his name was Harris) who disappeared during the investigation in 90 (probably taken out by Hays) 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Mark Antony

Share this post


Link to post
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:

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

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

×