No. I should have expected half the point of your post, which was the screenshot from an actually aired episode. Not the casting information about the last two episodes. It's simple, don't post things that we wouldn't know about just from watching the show.
Television True Detective | Season 2 Spoilers
- Thread starter Dirty Schwein
- Start date
No. I should have expected half the point of your post, which was the screenshot from an actually aired episode. Not the casting information about the last two episodes. It's simple, don't post things that we wouldn't know about just from watching the show.
Don't fecking click spoilers then. You can't be spoiled by something that's already aired, hence the name "spoilers"
The issue wasn't what was already aired. The issue is you saying who is appearing in what opposites. Obviously.
Future episode spoilers should be clearly labelled as such. The rule is followed in other threads as well.
We were posting about a character who might've done it. If you have an issue you shouldn't have read the bloody post. Stop crying. It's not definitive anyway as I'll explain.
While he might be involved, he mightn't be the yellow king. The yelllow king is known to be tall, giant-esque with scars. The guy on the lawnmower is 5"10, doesn't seem to have noticable facial scarring.
Or ideally people should read the post properly before clicking the fecking thing. It was clearly replying to a theory about a potential killer, which is all over the net at the minute.
How are you seriously not understanding this? The issue is not the picture. The issue is that you said he was appearing in the next two episodes based on imdb.
Are you intentionally just missing the point? The post was in response to whether or not that guy had scars on his face. How are we to guess you're going to ruin a future episode in your response to a simple question?
I hope not, I don't rate them as actors.
Whatever. I'm done arguing it. You read it? My bad. If you really base this show on a whodunit. Good for you. There's far too much depth in this show to cry about finding out about a killer. (Who isn't definitively him anyway, lot of missing facts)
As far as we know, there's 5 involved. 5 horseman, rust has cut 5 figures out of cans. The lawnmower guy isn't tall enough to be the yellow king, but he seems to be involved
What the feck are you even talking about? Are you pretending to be so incredibly bad at reading comprehension or is this real life?
No way I'm clicking on that spoiler.
I would appreciate it if you left the insults out of this thread. Haven't you read the latest rules Niall posted?
It's not that bad. If anything it adds a big doubt as to whether he's the actual yellow king.
No way I'm clicking on that spoiler.
I would appreciate it if you stopped hurting my brain with your stupidity.
Brother Mouzone was probably worst character in The Wire.
Shut your whore mouth.
How do we know that the yellow king is the tall (giant) man with scars ? I don't think he was described like that once. I don't think the Yellow King was physically described even once. Aren't you making the assumption that the giant man is the YK without anything confirmed yet ?
I really didn't like Marlo, but Mouzone felt like he was plucked from a completely different show.
The women at the revival tent said he was a tall man, with burns that looked shiny around the chin. The girl Cohle rescued called him the giant. The person we were previously talking about is listed as being 5"10. Not the height of a giant.
Honestly, and my theory is the real horror of this show will be the level of the cover up, not the revelation of the killer.
That's what I mean, that's the description of the giant and I am not trying to act like an expert or anything like that but that horrible man mentioned hasn't been concluded to be the yellow king (at least not yet).
Again, that's what I'm saying. What I posted, doesn't conclude anything. It might mean he's involved in the cult, but this seems to be a far larger issue than 3-4 guys. I honestly think the Yellow King will be a little less obvious, and might not be a character we've seen before.
Ok my bad for misunderstanding it and yes I definitely agree with you. It's been said that the lawn mower guy has a scar on his cheek but I can barely see it.
I can't see scars. And he lacks the height to be Yellow King. Someone as in tune as Rust would not have taken 10 years to find this guy seeing as how the school was later filled with artefacts. Like I said in a previous post, doesn't mean he's not involved though.
I've seen different pictures of the lawnmower guy that quite clearly show he has scars on his face.
Lynk, have you seen those pictures floating around /tv/ linking Maggie to the cult now?
Lynk, have you seen those pictures floating around /tv/ linking Maggie to the cult now?
The height isn't a problem, they could give the actor some big ass shoes and that would be solved.
Agreed. Although I found the asylum scene frustrating for the simple reason that I can't fathom how this girl couldn't have been asked these directed questions years ago already.
Apart from that, thought most of it was quite good, per usual. I don't think it will be Lost-esque in that reason & logic will be thrown into the bin so the resolution should be both plausible and apparent to viewers. That being said, lawnmower man does seem to move to the front of the queue although I have a hard time believing some lawnmower guy is at the center of a massive coverup that involves Tuttle, the police et al. Feels a bit more like a red herring or at best, just a member of this killing cult
Well True Detective was pitched as a 'anthology' apparently, so each series will have a new cast / plot. Nic Pizzolatto also tweeted and then removed this comment the other day:
Big sign that the next season could have two female leads, or at least one.
Or maybe a dog.
Sam Rockwell and a Jack Russell would work for me.
Or Joaquin Phoenix and a poodle.
Watched the first five eps last week after the bajillionth person saying it's the best thing since swiss cheese ice cream.
Overall a bit 'meh'. The latest in a line of 'dark-gritty-deep' shows worshipped by pimple-faced kids and a generation of lapsed (insert religion here) who don't realize why they so gravitate towards these shows. But technically it's very well-executed, so I poked around and read a few articles and two things stuck out.
First was an interview where the writer seemed to imply that they're out to sublimate crime show cliches; there's really only one way you can do that - and even that's a bit hackneyed. Long story short it points to X-Files-ing the ending. Fair enough. If they're going where I think they're going, the last ep is going to be a visual feast. These kidults are going to go absolutely nuts, foaming at the mouth and climbing over each other to proclaim it as the bestest thing evar. Also then 'the affair' isn't just a link in the paint-by-numbers chain. It heavily influences the finale.
Second was an interview where the writer says - with a straight face - that McConaughey's monologues are 'so much more than bland freshman year dorm room discussions' (paraphrased). Now that is an absolutely monumental red flag, considering A. his description is exactly what those monologues are, and B. that sort of gaffe is a classic symptom of the Lindelof generation. They put up their hands and say "No, seriously, you're not hearing me; this shit is, like deep." I doubt very much HBO would let stuff like that slide without having a kick-ass ending, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Hope they finish strong but that second quote is more than a bit troubling.
Overall a bit 'meh'. The latest in a line of 'dark-gritty-deep' shows worshipped by pimple-faced kids and a generation of lapsed (insert religion here) who don't realize why they so gravitate towards these shows. But technically it's very well-executed, so I poked around and read a few articles and two things stuck out.
First was an interview where the writer seemed to imply that they're out to sublimate crime show cliches; there's really only one way you can do that - and even that's a bit hackneyed. Long story short it points to X-Files-ing the ending. Fair enough. If they're going where I think they're going, the last ep is going to be a visual feast. These kidults are going to go absolutely nuts, foaming at the mouth and climbing over each other to proclaim it as the bestest thing evar. Also then 'the affair' isn't just a link in the paint-by-numbers chain. It heavily influences the finale.
Second was an interview where the writer says - with a straight face - that McConaughey's monologues are 'so much more than bland freshman year dorm room discussions' (paraphrased). Now that is an absolutely monumental red flag, considering A. his description is exactly what those monologues are, and B. that sort of gaffe is a classic symptom of the Lindelof generation. They put up their hands and say "No, seriously, you're not hearing me; this shit is, like deep." I doubt very much HBO would let stuff like that slide without having a kick-ass ending, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Hope they finish strong but that second quote is more than a bit troubling.
hungrywing stahp.
Seriously though, elaborate on the bolded part? Not quite sure what you're getting at.
We've got a live one here.Could you link the articles you are referring to hungrywing?
The 4th dimension stuff was dorm room bollocks tbf. And there were times in the first couple of episodes where the only thing stopping Cohle's idiosyncracies seeming trite were Hart's reaction to them.
Once you settle into it though HW, the character becomes more of a character and less an author proxy.
Once you settle into it though HW, the character becomes more of a character and less an author proxy.
Last edited:
The entertainment forum is a flat circle.
It's long and boring, involving bloodlust and sacrifice and the history of television advertising and moral vacuum and collective unconscious. Okay maybe not that last one. I'll put the long version in a spoiler.
So short version, crime shows are very explicitly designed to deliver to the viewer a very particular 'morality' fix. It's no different from a sitcom being laugh fix, or Oprah being a oh-the-feels fix. No matter what's going on in the big-bad-world - mass genocide, corporate fraud, dirty politicians, starving children, etc - each and every week you can count on being able to tune in and root for your 'good guys' delivering that one-liner to the bad guy by 8:58 PM. Certain forces in the US TV landscape, motivated by money, took advantage of certain cultural developments to be able to push these shows on an emerging generation of the American workforce who'd left their religion-centric homes and, being human, increasingly reliant on this very particular packaged dose of morality in their lives. With the US being the largest exporter of TV media at the time, this eventually affected TV trends worldwide. You can track its spread across Southeast Asia, for example. So it has nothing to do with western religion and more with a general moral vacuum created by leaving a belief system.
Longer version (which incorporates an explanation of how this happened):
During the 90s' US TV market there developed a very particular demographic in baby-boomer kids who'd migrated from the Heartland to the coasts/cities to go to college. In four years or so these kids would become influential in the workforce. This did not go unnoticed by advertisers, who were then-currently sandwiched between their corporate customers and not one but two major markets in the US: the coasts/cities vs. "America's Heartland".
This generation of kids became a tipping point in a long-standing war between the religiously-conservative "Heartland" and the coasts over TV advertising dollars. Those parents back home were getting old, and the kids were poised to be the major spenders now. In the late 90s corporate pressure led to a law being changed - my memory's a bit fuzzy, I'll try to track down the name of the law (I call it the CSI law because that's the show that the corporations were pushing) - that severely restricted local TV stations' ability to pick and choose their primetime programming.* There was a big public outcry over concerns that this would lead to 'lowest common denominator' programming and decreased censorship standards - if not outright pressure from the corporations to push more sensational content. Basically this pitted the moms and dads vs their kids, who by this time were under huge peer pressure to 'fit in' and 'be cool' and 'break free'.
For a huge number of lapsed Methodists/Baptists/etc. these shows became their 'morality' fix which replaced the religious narratives they'd grown up with. Most of them don't even realize the scientific reasons - crime shows stimulating a lot of the same neurochemical reactions that religious morality stimulates - why this happened. But if you think about it, it's the same shit. Murder bad. Adulterer gets caught. And so on. It's no accident that those shows got what, eight spinoffs in total? And then shows like Criminal Minds and Bones and whatnot just popped up everywhere like mushrooms after a rain. All you need to do is look at a comparison of Nielsen top ratings for scripted shows (excluding reality shows) between like, 1995 and 2002 and 2006. 1995 is dominated by sitcoms and dramas with a couple 'edgy' shows in the mix. 2002 shows the beginning of the CSI/L&O craze with a sitcom or two, and from around 2004 on it's just crime shows across the board - CSI, NCIS, L&O, Criminal Minds etc. Any chart later than that is kind of skewed because of the rise of internet distribution, but you get the picture.
*TV and film markets are just like any other wholesale trade show. You go around and see what the networks are selling and go, "Yeah, we can sell that to our customers," or "No thanks, we stock that and we go broke." Before that law was changed, literally there were many places in the US where for example you couldn't watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer or CSI because the station couldn't buy it or their customers would threaten to boycott their advertised products.
This generation of kids became a tipping point in a long-standing war between the religiously-conservative "Heartland" and the coasts over TV advertising dollars. Those parents back home were getting old, and the kids were poised to be the major spenders now. In the late 90s corporate pressure led to a law being changed - my memory's a bit fuzzy, I'll try to track down the name of the law (I call it the CSI law because that's the show that the corporations were pushing) - that severely restricted local TV stations' ability to pick and choose their primetime programming.* There was a big public outcry over concerns that this would lead to 'lowest common denominator' programming and decreased censorship standards - if not outright pressure from the corporations to push more sensational content. Basically this pitted the moms and dads vs their kids, who by this time were under huge peer pressure to 'fit in' and 'be cool' and 'break free'.
For a huge number of lapsed Methodists/Baptists/etc. these shows became their 'morality' fix which replaced the religious narratives they'd grown up with. Most of them don't even realize the scientific reasons - crime shows stimulating a lot of the same neurochemical reactions that religious morality stimulates - why this happened. But if you think about it, it's the same shit. Murder bad. Adulterer gets caught. And so on. It's no accident that those shows got what, eight spinoffs in total? And then shows like Criminal Minds and Bones and whatnot just popped up everywhere like mushrooms after a rain. All you need to do is look at a comparison of Nielsen top ratings for scripted shows (excluding reality shows) between like, 1995 and 2002 and 2006. 1995 is dominated by sitcoms and dramas with a couple 'edgy' shows in the mix. 2002 shows the beginning of the CSI/L&O craze with a sitcom or two, and from around 2004 on it's just crime shows across the board - CSI, NCIS, L&O, Criminal Minds etc. Any chart later than that is kind of skewed because of the rise of internet distribution, but you get the picture.
*TV and film markets are just like any other wholesale trade show. You go around and see what the networks are selling and go, "Yeah, we can sell that to our customers," or "No thanks, we stock that and we go broke." Before that law was changed, literally there were many places in the US where for example you couldn't watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer or CSI because the station couldn't buy it or their customers would threaten to boycott their advertised products.
Not believing in this stuff, doesn't make it bollocks. (anyway, that's for another thread)
Personally, i've known people who talks like Cohle (really, very similar to him), so as a TV character in a show that tries to be realistic, i can accept him because i know there are guys like him in the "real" world too.
You're not really supposed to just sit there and believe everything he says though, are you? I think a lot of what he says is fairly nonsensical, which is a bit ironic given his views on Religion and the people around him. I think it's just there so you can see that he's both mental and brilliant.