Well, obviously, I thought Season 2 got far more complicated than Season 1 - and needlessly so. Yes, the basic plot of committing murder to gain control of the railroad land was simple, but the convolutions needed to get there: who murdered Caspere? Why the bird mask? Why not kill Velcoro the first time? Why so many cops? Why all the obsession with children? Why Vaughn's obsession with houses and ceiling stains? Even paying attention, there were more red herrings than at the Fulton Fish Market. I admit that, in any good mystery, you need blind alleys and misdirection, but it reminded me of nothing so much as Seth Rogen's version of "The Green Hornet," which plays like something dreamed up by two guys who smoked way too much dope saying "Wouldn't it be cool if ... ?" No; no, it wouldn't.
My take on Season 1 was that it was about the human need to create connections and stories where there are none; that, sometimes, seemingly unrelated events and facts are, indeed, unrelated, and that television (in particular) has, for a long time, been about creating stories that have long arcs and tie disparate elements together. (How persistent were people in trying to decipher how "The King in Yellow" fit into everything?) I found it breathtaking to see that it was all (as far as I was concerned) a shaggy dog story that - intentionally - didn't add up. This season read to me as Vince Vaughn desperately wanting to be taken seriously as an actor, Kitsch being hopelessly out of his depth and trying to give gravitas to an unplayable part, and McAdams showing what a badass she could be. It needed a strong directorial hand (like last year) to give it coherence, and I don't think Pizzolatto was/is ever going to cede that much control again. Back to you. -- Dave Sikula On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:11:41 PM UTC-7, PGage wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:43 AM, 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Beyond the opaque incoherence of Season 2, my quick take on why it was so >> bad was that, last year, Harrelson and McConnnaughey are good enough actors >> and Cary Fukunaga a good enough director that they all realized they were >> working on a piece of pulpy cheese and approached it from that direction, >> making it all seem to work. (That it didn't really is beside the point.) >> This season, although most of the actors were good enough (despite the >> reliance on non-Americans - and seriously, did Farrell become more southern >> every week accidentally or on purpose?), they all believed the press and >> took the whole thing deadly seriously, which killed it. >> > > Okay - so this is the start of the conversation I am looking for > (someplace, if not here). I don't think I agree with your analysis that > they took it more seriously than last year, though there may be something > in that just because both of the lead actors from S1 carry with them an > undertone of hyperbole or satire, even in dramatic roles where it is > completely unintended and unwarranted (though I agree in the case of TD:S1 > this worked well). But what I am interested in is this claim that somehow > S2 was more "opaquely incoherent" than S1. Perhaps that conversation is not > possible without more spoilers than would be appropriate here; but my point > is specifically that this is not an accurate description. In fact, I think > the plot from S1 was significantly more opaque and incoherent than S2. I > think I could adequately summarize the S2 main plot (What was the initial > crime, who committed it and why) in one or two direct sentences, while > trying the same for S1 would be far more challenging (though a better and > more concise writer than I might be able to do it). > > Just to beat this dead horse a bit more, I was bitching about this out > loud earlier today to some people, and someone gave me what seemed like a > pretty good hypothesis: S1 got a lot of internet buzz. Lots of people who > never watched S1 (most of whom probably correctly judged initially that > this was not their cup of tea, but now wanted to see what they had been > missing) decided to watch S2. When they did not like it, they assumed that > they would have loved S1 (since all the cool kids did) and that the reason > they did not like S2 was because it stank. In reality, this kind of show is > just not their style, and they probably would not have liked S1 either. Of > course, that does not rule out that some people (like, apparently, our Dave > here) did really like S1, but hated S2. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
