True Detective - HBO series [SUPER, INSANELY, LITHIUM-ESQUE, HEAVY SPOILERS. PS: There are spoilers in this thread]

[wasted]

I think that Audrey stuff was just stray symbolism. Similar to the tension created by Rust's monologues. Or even Marty's misogynist streak. In a show that is a police procedural where the audience is looking for answers you have to be careful what you show them. I think they wanted to keep people guessing though because without it it's just a basic genre piece.

[wasted]

secret occult history of the United States transportation system

[Broskirose]

After rewatching the episode, I've gotta say that whole scene with Mary and his family at the hospital was fucking weird. The music...everything...wtf?

[wasted]

After rewatching the episode, I've gotta say that whole scene with Mary and his family at the hospital was fucking weird. The music...everything...wtf?

I think it was weird how he touched that giant wedding ring that Edwin Tuttle gave Maggie when they got married.

[Guest NGOG]

Although I was very content that Rust was given a lease of life:

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that Errol literally swiveled the knife around Rust's vital organs, and physically lifted him using the knife handle. There is absolutely no way somebody could have survived such knife injuries - especially given that Rust pulled the knife from his body (which is an absolute no no in terms of survival).

[Guest NGOG]

Also, if you read Fukunaga's latest interview, he doesn't even remember the spiral imagery being subtly associated with Audrey. For such a seemingly well planned show, that's very bizarre. Fukunaga tries to blame Audrey's behavior as being the product of her father's neglect, that she was trying to garner attention. But how would a child understand that gang rape and Yellow King imagery is the way to secure her father's attention?

Why did they have a scene depicting Audrey protecting her sister from a yellow crown? Why were they so concious of their grandfather's presence? That's not just something that people have falsely picked up on, it's what we've actually been pointed towards.

Edited March 11, 2014 by NGOG

[downzy]

Also, if you read Fukunaga's latest interview, he doesn't even remember the spiral imagery being subtly associated with Audrey. For such a seemingly well planned show, that's very bizarre. Fukunaga tries to blame Audrey's behavior as being the product of her father's neglect, that she was trying to garner attention. But how would a child understand that gang rape and Yellow King imagery is the way to secure her father's attention?

Why did they have a scene depicting Audrey protecting her sister from a yellow crown? Why were they so concious of their grandfather's presence? That's not just something that people have falsely picked up on, it's what we've actually been pointed towards.

I interpreted his answer to mean that the focus on the show wasn't what the audience projected it to be. As has been pointed out in this thread, kids draw all sorts of stuff, including spirals. While I agree that the show allows for the audience to read into certain imagery, I don't begrudge the show for not following through, especially if the associations that people picked up upon were not intentional or meant to be associated with the larger murder plot. As Fukunaga points out, this is a show about the detectives, their lives, and how their jobs affect those around them. The points you outline in your second paragraph (Audrey and the yellow crown, suspicious grandfather) were in the end just foreshadowing of things to come for Audrey as Marty's daughter. While the "yellow king" victimized unknown women throughout the series, personal demons at Marty's home became eventual damage to one of Marty's daughters. Agreed, it's a far simpler explanation, and perhaps not as satisfying to those who spent weeks needlessly theorizing. But I would have a hard time calling the show dishonest.

[Nobodys_Fault]

Also, if you read Fukunaga's latest interview, he doesn't even remember the spiral imagery being subtly associated with Audrey. For such a seemingly well planned show, that's very bizarre. Fukunaga tries to blame Audrey's behavior as being the product of her father's neglect, that she was trying to garner attention. But how would a child understand that gang rape and Yellow King imagery is the way to secure her father's attention?

Why did they have a scene depicting Audrey protecting her sister from a yellow crown? Why were they so concious of their grandfather's presence? That's not just something that people have falsely picked up on, it's what we've actually been pointed towards.

I interpreted his answer to mean that the focus on the show wasn't what the audience projected it to be. As has been pointed out in this thread, kids draw all sorts of stuff, including spirals. While I agree that the show allows for the audience to read into certain imagery, I don't begrudge the show for not following through, especially if the associations that people picked up upon were not intentional or meant to be associated with the larger murder plot. As Fukunaga points out, this is a show about the detectives, their lives, and how their jobs affect those around them. The points you outline in your second paragraph (Audrey and the yellow crown, suspicious grandfather) were in the end just foreshadowing of things to come for Audrey as Marty's daughter. While the "yellow king" victimized unknown women throughout the series, personal demons at Marty's home became eventual damage to one of Marty's daughters. Agreed, it's a far simpler explanation, and perhaps not as satisfying to those who spent weeks needlessly theorizing. But I would have a hard time calling the show dishonest.

Some of the details surrounding Audrey were clearly open to interpretation; the black stairs, the tiara - fair enough. But the scene where she arranges the dolls is not. It wasn't foreshadowing. It was a blatant call out to events that had already been partially revealed and were then expanded on in later episodes. It wasn't even in the background, it was front and centre. There's a lengthy reaction shot of Harrelson and the score emphasizes that this is something the audience should be paying attention to. If that scene had nothing to do with the plot(which now appears to be the case) then that is a very poor piece of directing.

I don't begrudge the show for not giving all the answers. I'm pretty sure that would have ruined it. I'm just not completely satisfied with the answers they did give.

[downzy]

Also, if you read Fukunaga's latest interview, he doesn't even remember the spiral imagery being subtly associated with Audrey. For such a seemingly well planned show, that's very bizarre. Fukunaga tries to blame Audrey's behavior as being the product of her father's neglect, that she was trying to garner attention. But how would a child understand that gang rape and Yellow King imagery is the way to secure her father's attention?

Why did they have a scene depicting Audrey protecting her sister from a yellow crown? Why were they so concious of their grandfather's presence? That's not just something that people have falsely picked up on, it's what we've actually been pointed towards.

I interpreted his answer to mean that the focus on the show wasn't what the audience projected it to be. As has been pointed out in this thread, kids draw all sorts of stuff, including spirals. While I agree that the show allows for the audience to read into certain imagery, I don't begrudge the show for not following through, especially if the associations that people picked up upon were not intentional or meant to be associated with the larger murder plot. As Fukunaga points out, this is a show about the detectives, their lives, and how their jobs affect those around them. The points you outline in your second paragraph (Audrey and the yellow crown, suspicious grandfather) were in the end just foreshadowing of things to come for Audrey as Marty's daughter. While the "yellow king" victimized unknown women throughout the series, personal demons at Marty's home became eventual damage to one of Marty's daughters. Agreed, it's a far simpler explanation, and perhaps not as satisfying to those who spent weeks needlessly theorizing. But I would have a hard time calling the show dishonest.

Some of the details surrounding Audrey were clearly open to interpretation; the black stairs, the tiara - fair enough. But the scene where she arranges the dolls is not. It wasn't foreshadowing. It was a blatant call out to events that had already been partially revealed and were then expanded on in later episodes. It wasn't even in the background, it was front and centre. There's a lengthy reaction shot of Harrelson and the score emphasizes that this is something the audience should be paying attention to. If that scene had nothing to do with the plot(which now appears to be the case) then that is a very poor piece of directing.

I don't begrudge the show for not giving all the answers. I'm pretty sure that would have ruined it. I'm just not completely satisfied with the answers they did give.

Fair enough, I've only watched the scene once, so you might be right. When I get more time I'm going to give the series another go with "fresh eyes," as Rust would say.

[Guest NGOG]

Also, if you read Fukunaga's latest interview, he doesn't even remember the spiral imagery being subtly associated with Audrey. For such a seemingly well planned show, that's very bizarre. Fukunaga tries to blame Audrey's behavior as being the product of her father's neglect, that she was trying to garner attention. But how would a child understand that gang rape and Yellow King imagery is the way to secure her father's attention?

Why did they have a scene depicting Audrey protecting her sister from a yellow crown? Why were they so concious of their grandfather's presence? That's not just something that people have falsely picked up on, it's what we've actually been pointed towards.

I interpreted his answer to mean that the focus on the show wasn't what the audience projected it to be. As has been pointed out in this thread, kids draw all sorts of stuff, including spirals. While I agree that the show allows for the audience to read into certain imagery, I don't begrudge the show for not following through, especially if the associations that people picked up upon were not intentional or meant to be associated with the larger murder plot. As Fukunaga points out, this is a show about the detectives, their lives, and how their jobs affect those around them. The points you outline in your second paragraph (Audrey and the yellow crown, suspicious grandfather) were in the end just foreshadowing of things to come for Audrey as Marty's daughter. While the "yellow king" victimized unknown women throughout the series, personal demons at Marty's home became eventual damage to one of Marty's daughters. Agreed, it's a far simpler explanation, and perhaps not as satisfying to those who spent weeks needlessly theorizing. But I would have a hard time calling the show dishonest.

While your post makes a good attempt at rationalizing a lot of the "Audrey concerns", you omitted this:

There is no subtlety to that, it literally mirrors the video used to convince Marty.

[Ace Nova]

I think a lot of the symbolism and what we are currently referring to as "red herrings" now, could turn out to be ways for Pizzolatto to eventually tie in future seasons. I think it's a very smart way for him to "leave the door open" for a larger story.

[Sixes]

I think a lot of the symbolism and what we are currently referring to as "red herrings" now, could turn out to be ways for Pizzolatto to eventually tie in future seasons. I think it's a very smart way for him to "leave the door open" for a larger story.

i think that's just wishful thinking at this point

[Ace Nova]

I think a lot of the symbolism and what we are currently referring to as "red herrings" now, could turn out to be ways for Pizzolatto to eventually tie in future seasons. I think it's a very smart way for him to "leave the door open" for a larger story.

i think that's just wishful thinking at this point

Possibly....but Pizzolatto himself has stated that he's not sure yet - either way - whether futures seasons will come together to tell a larger story. The fact that next season's storyline will also be based around the occult, certainly leaves that door open.

[wasted]

It seems unlikely. It drags the Yellow king into the next story which we then already know about. Then he'd have to write a way for Audrey not to be involved.

I just think the the show was very simple. The two decs just to do a basic investigation. Just finding a clue a following it up. So there was no danger. They could go wild with the symbolism and characters.

The point was they mixed character development and plot points. Pizz even said Marty and Rust have traits of the killer. Marty kind of hunts women, Rust has a psycho mind set. If they don't think that could be misinterpreted...

The point was that a true detective stays focused on the facts of the case.

They talk about the 4th wall but its only to possibly fill out the conspiracy, effects on the family, the supposed corruption of police, not solve the case. How the audience is meant to know that I don't know.

There was no need for Audrey to stage the rape. Maggie fucking Rust is wild in room full of dead kid pics, Marty beating those kids not necessary, rust saying I'm police I can do things with impunity. The level was ambiguity was intentional to keep us guessing. Take that stuff out and there's nothing to watch.

It's sort of like The Wire but the wire doesn't have characters doing crazy shit or acting odd.

Edited March 12, 2014 by wasted

[wasted]

Also, if you read Fukunaga's latest interview, he doesn't even remember the spiral imagery being subtly associated with Audrey. For such a seemingly well planned show, that's very bizarre. Fukunaga tries to blame Audrey's behavior as being the product of her father's neglect, that she was trying to garner attention. But how would a child understand that gang rape and Yellow King imagery is the way to secure her father's attention?

Why did they have a scene depicting Audrey protecting her sister from a yellow crown? Why were they so concious of their grandfather's presence? That's not just something that people have falsely picked up on, it's what we've actually been pointed towards.

I interpreted his answer to mean that the focus on the show wasn't what the audience projected it to be. As has been pointed out in this thread, kids draw all sorts of stuff, including spirals. While I agree that the show allows for the audience to read into certain imagery, I don't begrudge the show for not following through, especially if the associations that people picked up upon were not intentional or meant to be associated with the larger murder plot. As Fukunaga points out, this is a show about the detectives, their lives, and how their jobs affect those around them. The points you outline in your second paragraph (Audrey and the yellow crown, suspicious grandfather) were in the end just foreshadowing of things to come for Audrey as Marty's daughter. While the "yellow king" victimized unknown women throughout the series, personal demons at Marty's home became eventual damage to one of Marty's daughters. Agreed, it's a far simpler explanation, and perhaps not as satisfying to those who spent weeks needlessly theorizing. But I would have a hard time calling the show dishonest.

While your post makes a good attempt at rationalizing a lot of the "Audrey concerns", you omitted this:

There is no subtlety to that, it literally mirrors the video used to convince Marty.

Well, at least not have 5 guys around the girl. Matching what Rust made of cans.

I don't think they can take for granted the audience reaction. That was why Pizzolatto shadowed the season dispelling theories. Too much ambiguity for a TV show that is seen once. Too much atmosphere from the director.

You can't use the 4th wall and Chinatown ending ever season either.

[downzy]

Also, if you read Fukunaga's latest interview, he doesn't even remember the spiral imagery being subtly associated with Audrey. For such a seemingly well planned show, that's very bizarre. Fukunaga tries to blame Audrey's behavior as being the product of her father's neglect, that she was trying to garner attention. But how would a child understand that gang rape and Yellow King imagery is the way to secure her father's attention?

Why did they have a scene depicting Audrey protecting her sister from a yellow crown? Why were they so concious of their grandfather's presence? That's not just something that people have falsely picked up on, it's what we've actually been pointed towards.

I interpreted his answer to mean that the focus on the show wasn't what the audience projected it to be. As has been pointed out in this thread, kids draw all sorts of stuff, including spirals. While I agree that the show allows for the audience to read into certain imagery, I don't begrudge the show for not following through, especially if the associations that people picked up upon were not intentional or meant to be associated with the larger murder plot. As Fukunaga points out, this is a show about the detectives, their lives, and how their jobs affect those around them. The points you outline in your second paragraph (Audrey and the yellow crown, suspicious grandfather) were in the end just foreshadowing of things to come for Audrey as Marty's daughter. While the "yellow king" victimized unknown women throughout the series, personal demons at Marty's home became eventual damage to one of Marty's daughters. Agreed, it's a far simpler explanation, and perhaps not as satisfying to those who spent weeks needlessly theorizing. But I would have a hard time calling the show dishonest.

While your post makes a good attempt at rationalizing a lot of the "Audrey concerns", you omitted this:

There is no subtlety to that, it literally mirrors the video used to convince Marty.

As I stated previous, I understand why people feel duped. The show lent itself towards this kind of speculation (though not all speculation, some of the more insane theories should have been discredited a long time ago). It wasn't until the end of the show that the audience was given perspective as to what the previous suggestions meant (or didn't mean). Like I said, now that the series has run its course, we can go back and watch the show and all of its references and symbolism for what they are; reflections and extensions of who the main characters are and how their lives affect those around them.

[downzy]

Really great review and summation of the final episode and the series in general:

http://michaelmhughes.com/wordpress/true-detective-season-one-finale-review/

[wasted]

Rusts hallucination was just another easier fix in a finale full of them. On one hand it's not supernatural but suddenly that exists if its needed to change a pessimist into a believer in under 2 minutes.

Eps 5 & 6 were obviously made to make you question or speculate. Make you look at ep 1-4 again and generally distract you from the green eared monster.

Why anyone would want to rewatch it as an exercise in character development is beyond me. Two relatively normal detectives get de-balled and left ruined after failing to solve a case for 17 years. When all the philosophy adds up to nothing too. We know Rust and Marty end up broken pussies by the end so why put yourself through that again.

[downzy]

Rusts hallucination was just another easier fix in a finale full of them. On one hand it's not supernatural but suddenly that exists if its needed to change a pessimist into a believer in under 2 minutes.

Eps 5 & 6 were obviously made to make you question or speculate. Make you look at ep 1-4 again and generally distract you from the green eared monster.

Why anyone would want to rewatch it as an exercise in character development is beyond me. Two relatively normal detectives get de-balled and left ruined after failing to solve a case for 17 years. When all the philosophy adds up to nothing too. We know Rust and Marty end up broken pussies by the end so why put yourself through that again.

Because there are some out there who appreciate the type of show TD is, and not what others wanted it to be. If your focus is on nothing but the who done it aspect, then I understand the frustration. But personally I'm kind of tired of those kinds of shows, the ones that end up lying to the audience just to tack on some contrived ending. For the same reasons people harped on about the finale for Breaking Bad are the same reasons why I loved it. TD ended the way it should. It proved me wrong in several of my assumptions, but I'm okay with that. I won't disparage a show because the final destination doesn't meet my own predictions. Now knowing how the show wraps, a second viewing can be enjoyed with a proper focus on the characters and not the crime. In the end there's a reason why the show is called "True Detective" and not "True Crime." Edited March 13, 2014 by downzy

[wasted]

Rusts hallucination was just another easier fix in a finale full of them. On one hand it's not supernatural but suddenly that exists if its needed to change a pessimist into a believer in under 2 minutes.

Eps 5 & 6 were obviously made to make you question or speculate. Make you look at ep 1-4 again and generally distract you from the green eared monster.

Why anyone would want to rewatch it as an exercise in character development is beyond me. Two relatively normal detectives get de-balled and left ruined after failing to solve a case for 17 years. When all the philosophy adds up to nothing too. We know Rust and Marty end up broken pussies by the end so why put yourself through that again.

Because there are some out there who appreciate the type of show TD is, and not what others wanted it to be. If your focus is on nothing but the who done it aspect, then I understand the frustration. But personally I'm kind of tired of those kinds of shows, the ones that end up lying to the audience just to tack on some contrived ending. For the same reasons people harped on about the finale for Breaking Bad are the same reasons why I loved it. TD ended the way it should. It proved me wrong in several of my assumptions, but I'm okay with that. I won't disparage a show because the final destination doesn't meet my own predictions. Now knowing how the show wraps, a second viewing can be enjoyed with a proper focus on the characters and not the crime. In the end there's a reason why the show is called "True Detective" and not "True Crime."

I don't have a gripe where it went, I don't even mind how it went there, but I don't think that it was made clear it was going there. Considering the amount of people having theories that didn't come to fruition I think it's safe to say nobody really knew. Until maybe ep 7. Marty and Rust being the killer were pretty sensible compared to that stuff about it being a reenactment of the Vietnam war. but even in the end Rust having an near death experience or even seeing that vortex thing in Errol's lair was pretty far fetched. Was it a hallucination or was it real?

I'm not talking about the who done it, or the final prediction. I just think they did play it for ambiguity more than they admit. There the ones who want it to go to this fixed destination but they weren't really doing it on screen. I'm fine with who did it, or where it went.

I didn't find the story or the charcters development interesting or surprising. But it was written, directed and acted with great flair. I'm not much of a finale guy, I guess the Chinatown ending was cool, but they could have left it a bit more ambiguous, the determination to wrap up everything in the finale seemed forced. It's like we already got it, maybe just end it at ep 7. I like the Geraci scene in ep 8 though. That whole Geraci part was like Sopranos ep. I'll pass on the rest of ep 8 though. It doesn't really add much to the story.

Overall it was awesome, definitely some eps you can watch like Sopranos eps, out of the actual story. If you just stumble across one of the 1-7 eps you can just watch it.

Edited March 13, 2014 by wasted

[Guest NGOG]

Deleted scene of Rust and Lori breaking up: http://www.vulture.com/2014/03/true-detective-deleted-scene-rust-lori-breakup.html?mid=twitter_vulture

[wasted]

There's a deleted scene of Maggie with her new husband too?

[downzy]

Rusts hallucination was just another easier fix in a finale full of them. On one hand it's not supernatural but suddenly that exists if its needed to change a pessimist into a believer in under 2 minutes.

Eps 5 & 6 were obviously made to make you question or speculate. Make you look at ep 1-4 again and generally distract you from the green eared monster.

Why anyone would want to rewatch it as an exercise in character development is beyond me. Two relatively normal detectives get de-balled and left ruined after failing to solve a case for 17 years. When all the philosophy adds up to nothing too. We know Rust and Marty end up broken pussies by the end so why put yourself through that again.

Because there are some out there who appreciate the type of show TD is, and not what others wanted it to be. If your focus is on nothing but the who done it aspect, then I understand the frustration. But personally I'm kind of tired of those kinds of shows, the ones that end up lying to the audience just to tack on some contrived ending. For the same reasons people harped on about the finale for Breaking Bad are the same reasons why I loved it. TD ended the way it should. It proved me wrong in several of my assumptions, but I'm okay with that. I won't disparage a show because the final destination doesn't meet my own predictions. Now knowing how the show wraps, a second viewing can be enjoyed with a proper focus on the characters and not the crime. In the end there's a reason why the show is called "True Detective" and not "True Crime."

I don't have a gripe where it went, I don't even mind how it went there, but I don't think that it was made clear it was going there. Considering the amount of people having theories that didn't come to fruition I think it's safe to say nobody really knew. Until maybe ep 7. Marty and Rust being the killer were pretty sensible compared to that stuff about it being a reenactment of the Vietnam war.

I have to strongly disagree with your argument that Marty and/or Rust being the killer was a sensible theory until episode 7. The show provided enough scenes to prove otherwise, particularly with Rust. There's no way Rust is continuing an investigation on his own into his own murders. It would make absolutely no sense. Why would he bring them to his superiors? Why would he continue to push Marty with notions that there are other killers? As for Marty, there was enough character development in the first five or six episodes to reject any notion that he was involved. I go back to him admonishing the female pimp for hiring a young girl. Now, had Rust been in the room, then I would have agreed that it might have been an act. But it was just Marty and the pimp. For Marty to be a sadistic killer or women and young girls, that scene would have wrung false. It would have been a lie to the viewer, which would have seriously brought down the show.

I do think the audience was right to question the connections between the crimes and Marty's daughter, since there were some strong imagery and suspicious story lines to make a viewer wonder. In the end, the twist was nothing more than putting those suspicions to rest; that those similarities spoke to how Marty's life and work affected the women around him. As I've said, I don't begrudge those who found what the symbolism underwhelming by the end since more could have been there, but for those who didn't hold out for a greater conspiracy by the show's conclusion, True Detective did a great job for what it was trying to be.

[wasted]

To frame someone else. Was he working on the case or just doing the killings himself.

The madam/ pimp says he doesn't like it cos he doesn't own it. Maybe that's why he kills them. Then Beth turns up later and he fucks her, yeah that made me think he really cared. And she was talking Yellow king. Maybe he killed kids before they became prosts?

And when they do those dumb retell things they always retell it a bit.

And Rust was always insinuating things or talking psycho. Putting down a down payment or quoting Flat circle. Add in all the end of empire atmosphere with Rust leaning over prosts whispering I'm a cop I can do things with impunity.

All the time you were thinking well they could flip this the other way.

It wasn't really the show that made me say no it won't happen it was Pizzolatto saying it wouldn't. I'm not saying there wasn't stuff that leaning the other way but I think they were playing up to it too. Pizz said the traits of the killer are represented in Rust and Marty. With corruption everywhere and yellow king refs and symbolism flying around it wasn't clear.

Not everyone read what he was saying. I read that quote about not tricking around ep 5.

It's one of the few police procedurals where I suspected the detectives. Normally because normally the decs are kind of clean or its a series of books you know Rebus isn't Yellow king.

I think what the show did was start out with a lot of unknowns and slowly stripped away all the illusions. Part of the genius of the show is that Rust became the psycho for a bit, going against genre conventions made people doubt everything.

Edited March 13, 2014 by wasted

[Ace Nova]

I think you guys may be over-analyzing the possibility of future seasons "coming together' so to speak. Take the movie, "Pulp Fiction" for example. Eventually, all the storylines tied in together. This entire series is within the pulp fiction genre (not necessarily movie). You can tie in future seasons without having to lie or disguise anything to the audience....the film "Pulp Fiction" is a perfect example of that. There was no crazy twist in that movie....it just tied everything together, by the end, to tell a larger story.