Television True Detective | Season 2 Spoilers

It's only a 1 minute trailer with very little given away but my hunch is Vaughn might just pull this off and emerge as a favourite.
 
He's bound to. Take an actor/tress who's not been in anything requiring any acting in living memory. Combine with a brilliant writer, director etc in a best-thing-around quality programme. It always works. Regardless of the crap they're willing to do for money, these people rarely make it so big without having the talent in them somewhere. Hell, look where McConaughey's reputation was before Mud, Dallas Buyers Club etc.
 
I think they're both good picks. It's the director that worries me. My guess is it will be decent but get panned anyway, due to the enormous expectations coming off the first one.
 
Vaughn is quite a good actor, quite like him. Don't watch a few of the films he appears in, especially just lately but the ones I have seen he has been so money, man.

Seems to have lost none of it's grittiness from the feel of the trailer. Can't wait.
 
Second season's first three episodes seem to be polarizing critics so far, although I sort of expected that given it's looking like a radical departure from the first.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...s-arrive-for-true-detective-season-2-20150612

The good:
Which brings us to season two, and its batshit premiere episode—dead bodies, Internet porn, drugs, drinking, corruption, beatings, brass knuckles, and charming bon mots like, "I'll butt-feck your father on this lawn with your mother's headless corpse," all in the first hour—and which should chase away any lingering doubt about what 'True Detective' ever was, and clearly still is. It's still trash shined up like gold. The trash is a bit trashier this time, and the gold a bit less shiny, but the same theory still abides.
----
Did I mention that the show also still a ton of fun? Pizzolatto is far too shrewd, and far too base, to let his grander meditations get in the way of a rollicking story. Unlike with season one, which was set in Louisiana and unfolded at a bayou-worthy pace, season two begins with its four main characters careening off the rails, and they're only gathering more speed.
Click to expand...

The bad:
Those expecting anything approaching the magic conjured by the original Matthew McConaughey-Woody Harrelson pairing should immediately temper their enthusiasm for “True Detective’s” second season. Impeccably cast around its marquee stars, the new plot possesses the requisite noir-ish qualities, but feels like a by-the-numbers potboiler, punctuated by swooping aerial shots of L.A. courtesy of new director Justin Lin, whose intense close-ups bring to mind a Sergio Leone western. Although generally watchable, the inspiration that turned the first into an obsession for many seems to have drained out of writer Nic Pizzolatto’s prose, at least three hours into this eight-episode run.
----
Once the ball gets rolling, though, the new “Detective” feels increasingly mundane — in tone and style, a bit like a lesser Michael Mann movie stretched out in episodic form. Part of that might have to do with the necessity of serving the multiple leads, at the expense of the focus on two that the first enjoyed.
Click to expand...
 
Never expected the second season of True Detective to be as good as the first anyways. That first season was a one-off. Amazing combination of great casting/acting, directing, and story all while set in the Louisiana Bayou. Even if they tried to do a second season with the same cast as before, it wouldn't be as good. Still very much looking forward to the second season mind you, just tempering my expectations.
 
Tbf though all the reviews are based off the first 3 episodes. Where the story goes after that will seriously affect everyone's opinion of the show. Positively or Negatively. I'll be giving it a chance to hook me in anyway, since I LOVED the first season.
 
Just rewatched season one. I'll never know how Dion Dublin landed such a role. Also, Beth is undoubtedly the hottest on the show.
 
FCBarca said:
Don't agree at all. McAdams has never shown she has the slightest bit of acting range, same performances over & over
Click to expand...
She's done comedy (Mean Girls, Midnight in Paris), thrillers (State of Play, A Most Wanted Man), romantic rubbish (The Notebook, The Vow) and a Terence Malick film (To The Wonder). That's a pretty good spread.
 
Rachel McAdams is a good actress, she's definitely got a decent range, agree with Archie there. It will really depend on the quality of writing for her character.
 
No real surprise. He could never repeat the same formula that made the first season great.

Also his novel is awful. Cliched beyond belief.
 
Rooney in Dublin said:
I'd be a bit wary about reviews, I think people are going to be unnecessarily harsh after the hype created by season 1.
Click to expand...
Yep, and it's getting some really good reviews too.

General consensus is that it lacks the spark of Louisiana and the fact that the first sprawled through different timelines, but that was always going to be the case anyway.
 
After all the feminist attacks on season 1, it'd be pretty funny if McAdams plays a lesbian in this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.