I like his chick too
[Reply]

I love the neo-noir feel of the show so far.
[Reply]

Best part of the episode. She is stunningly beautiful.
[Reply]

[Reply]

Colin Ferrell is going to be great. I'm not sure about everyone else quite yet. I don't expect it to be as good as season 1... but even that took 2-3 episodes to really get going.
[Reply]

Very disappointing.

That being said it appears there simply isn't a reason to hire anyone outside of the Australian continent to do your cinematography. They're so fucking good at it.

Nigel Bluck follows Adam Arkapaw who may be the best going at the moment. I'll watch the show just for these kind of shots alone...


[Reply]

This is my least favorite episode.
[Reply]

Horrible episode. Terrible writing and laughable acting. Almost seemed like an SNL skit
[Reply]

Not surprising. Recent interviews suggest the show runner is a douche-bro of the highest magnitude and may have lucked into a compelling Season 1.
[Reply]

I'm believing this more and more.

Season 1 was awesome because about half way through reddit went crazy trying to figure out all this deep-rooted symbolism and hidden meaning, blah blah...

And the tracking shot scene was really badass.

Then it kind of fell apart.

Still looks great though.
[Reply]

No chance I learn the characters names in True Detective. They are Vince Vaughn, Colin Farrell, McAdams, and Riggins

— Brendan Clancy (@BrendanClancy) June 22, 2015

[Reply]

I'm not even joking when I say that gorgeous cinematography can allow me to overlook a ton of holes or weaknesses for a film, or in this case episode of essentially a miniseries.

In fact, I'm not even judging this against last season.
It has barely any connection with the previous story, and that's only people involved behind the camera.


I don't get all the rush to judgment after 1 episode. People are building up some mythical timeline as if right after episode 1 last season there was mass hysteria and the internets were ablaze with conspiratorial chatter.

I'll give you that the opening scene from last season raised some enigmatic excitement, but a lot of it was a slow burn. Often, the analysis and detection of the subtle clues is what made the show that much more significant and satisfying.

Rest assured, there are plenty of breadcrumbs littered about in the episode that may reveal themselves down the road. Yet, some seem to confuse boring with not being clubbed over the head with blatantly obvious signal flashing as to plot progression.

There's already a few items from this 1st episode that give pause for greater exploration. I haven't even looked online to see what other things people picked up on and speculative theories.

Where's the payoff in being spoonfed some homogeneous goo for a narrative exposition?

Quick and easy, and you can suck it up through a straw.

In opposition, it requires time and preparation to blend and then bring it to a heat. The end result is unquestionably more satisfying, because if you truly want something unique and rich in texture, it still requires you to chew your own meat.
[Reply]

That said, if it suck it sucks.

I just refuse to pass judgment after 1 episode
[Reply]

The first episode of last season was captivating since it only featured Hart & Cohle. This one was way too jumbled I think.

Last season every episode peeled away the layers of each character and the people around them using their competing recollections of the original investigation. We learned about who Rust and Marty were as we learned about the case.

This season seems to want us to learn about the characters then we get to the mystery. It also hurts that the roles seem cliched. Alcoholic dirty cop, empowered female cop with Daddy issues. There seems to be no subtlety to the story at this point.
[Reply]

Theres no way any character can possibly be as interesting as Rust Cohle.
[Reply]