True Detective Season 2 Official Thread

[Dominic Brehetto]

Nah man. Go back and watch it all again. It all adds up.

Is it believable in some fashion? Yes. Is it fact? No.

Every show has fan made theories that actually make sense but that the creators had no intention of it being true.

Unless the writer comes out and says that it is indeed the case then we cant accept it as being the truth.

 

[Red Shield]

Well they don't come right out and say she was. But if you follow all of the clues that show gives you... that's the only conclusion that you can come to.

damn season 1 was great

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

What them did having that drawing on the wall establish? Elaborate.

It established that his daughter was a victim - not a victim of the cult - but one of Marty's abandonment as a father. A running theme of female neglect/children all throughout the season. It only comes full circle and Marty's realization of this happens when he's lying up in hospital. The dialogue of when the two new detectives are trying to tell him about the case - he specifically says "stop, I don't wanna hear it" and runs into him embracing his family - the epiphany that brings him out his sleep of knowing a cycle like this wouldn't be created (not too dissimilar to the missing/neglected/abused children in the case), had he paid more attention to his own.

is this a joke post or are you just trolling now?

Rays character is driven by the event of his girl being raped,an event that forever changed him and linked him to Frank. Without that event happening he has no connection to Frank. Without that plot point his actions would be vastly different as he wouldnt actively be helping Frank in finding out who killed Casper etc.

Franks story line and background is the main driving force behind the plot,hence why he has had the most screen time of any character. What could possibly be a red herring between two characters whos background and actions are intrinsic to the plot thus far?

I'll ask you again, what do you believe the plot is?

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

It established that his daughter was a victim - not a victim of the cult - but one of Marty's abandonment as a father. A running theme of female neglect/children all throughout the season. It only comes full circle and Marty's realization of this happens when he's lying up in hospital. The dialogue of when the two new detectives are trying to tell him about the case - he specifically says "stop, I don't wanna hear it" and runs into him embracing his family - the epiphany that brings him out his sleep of knowing a cycle like this wouldn't be created (not too dissimilar to the missing/neglected/abused children in the case), had he paid more attention to his own.

Oh, well then obviously the black mountain stuff being on the board represents Pauls sexuality. You see,the black mountain is a symbol representing him as a person. His repressed sexuality is a black mark on his life. And the more he hides it the more of a mountain it becomes. This is expressed by him riding his motorcycle in the dark,the black if you will. A running theme of black emptiness in all the characters lives.





This is much more plausible then the writer or director using red herrings trying to trick the audience in an old fashioned whodunit murder case.


I'll ask again. What in Pauls storyline have i not been paying attention to as you claim that has so far affected the plot?


And while we are at it, what in Ray or Franks story line would possibly be confused with a red herring since you tried to throw that in there.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Oh, well then obviously the black mountain stuff being on the board represents Pauls sexuality. You see,the black mountain is a symbol representing him as a person. His repressed sexuality is a black mark on his life. And the more he hides it the more of a mountain it becomes. This is expressed by him riding his motorcycle in the dark,the black if you will. A running theme of black emptiness in all the characters lives.

That was corny.

What has led you to believe that Paul's past has nothing do with what you believe the plot is? You're willing to concede that it may tie in with "the plot", so then how exactly can you say that it's pointless and not "consequential" with what's going on? Why do you think Pizzolatto has beaten us over the head with layering all their stories? Do you believe he's trying to tell you something by visually dredging up Paul's past? Or what about Ani's past? Frank's past? Velcoro's past? What do these characters all have in common?

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

That was corny.

What has led you to believe that Paul's past has nothing do with what you believe the plot is? You're willing to concede that it may tie in with "the plot", so then how exactly can you say that it's pointless and not "consequential" with what's going on? Why do you think Pizzolatto has beaten us over the head with layering all their stories? Do you believe he's trying to tell you something by visually dredging up Paul's past? Or what about Ani's past? Frank's past? Velcoro's past? What do these characters all have in common?

No cornier than what you wrote since you have absolutely nothing to back up your stance.


And I dont believe Pauls past will play a role in the last two episodes. At all. I merely concede there is a very outside chance of it happening.


I can say its been pointless and inconsequential because quite literally so far it has been.


As for the rest, I do not believe this season is perfect. It has sloppy writing at times and Pauls character seems to fill the gay sub plot quota on tv shows now then anything of actual value.


All the other 3 characters past have played a role in the plot and moving it forward.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

No cornier than what you wrote since you have absolutely nothing to back up your stance.

And what is my stance exactly? I'm not making a stance on what's happening - that would be you. Again, what do you believe the plot is? And why does Paul's past/story have absolutely no relevance as to what's going on?

I fail to see the logic in you thinking his story is pointless, yet still holding onto the thought it could pay off - if it could pay off, then obviously there was a point behind everything that was told/shown to you this season about his past.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

And I dont believe Pauls past will play a role in the last two episodes. At all. I merely concede there is a very outside chance of it happening.


I can say its been pointless and inconsequential because quite literally so far it has been.


As for the rest, I do not believe this season is perfect. It has sloppy writing at times and Pauls character seems to fill the gay sub plot quota on tv shows now then anything of actual value.


All the other 3 characters past have played a role in the plot and moving it forward.

Play a role in what exactly? What won't Paul play a role in? What have all the other three characters "moved forward"? As far as I can see it, every character has moved the case and the recurring themes forward in their own way.

The very fact you're having a hard time acknowledging that the themes in the case and characters are one and the same both have equal importance (judging by the fact you think Audrey's spiral picture was a red herring and not telling you about the relationship she has with her father, or lack thereof), shows you aren't paying enough attention as to what's going on.

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

And what is my stance exactly? I'm not making a stance on what's happening - that would be you. Again, what do you believe the plot is? And why does Paul's past/story have absolutely no relevance as to what's going on?

I fail to see the logic in you thinking his story is pointless, yet still holding onto the thought it could pay off - if it could pay off, then obviously there was a point behind everything that was told/shown to you this season about his past.

Man,just shut up. You have no stance because youre fukking corny.

You seem adamant that im not paying attention to Pauls plot but yet cant bring up one tangible thing to defend you saying that.


So shut the fukk up,b.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Man,just shut up. You have no stance because youre fukking corny.

You seem adamant that im not paying attention to Pauls plot but yet cant bring up one tangible thing to defend you saying that.


So shut the fukk up,b.

All I'm asking you is, what do you think the plot is?

You seem adamant that Paul has no significance on the story when he's one of the main characters - I want to know how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

Play a role in what exactly? What won't Paul play a role in? What have all the other three characters "moved forward"? As far as I can see it, every character has moved the case and the recurring themes forward in their own way.

The very fact you're having a hard time acknowledging that the themes in the case and characters are one and the same both have equal importance (judging by the fact you think Audrey's spiral picture was a red herring and not telling you about the relationship she has with her father, or lack thereof), shows you aren't paying enough attention as to what's going on.

You have literally no proof that you are correct.


Tell you what,link me to an article of nic pizzolatto saying that was why the spiral was present for or acknowledge you dont know what the fukk you are talking about.

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

All I'm asking you is, what do you think the plot is?

You seem adamant that Paul has no significance on the story when he's one of the main characters - I want to know how you came to this conclusion.

I came to the conclusion by watching what is presented to me.


Now EXPLAIN what has happened in pauls story line or background that has moved the plot forward and has been so intrinsic to the show.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You have literally no proof that you are correct.


Tell you what,link me to an article of nic pizzolatto saying that was why the spiral was present for or acknowledge you dont know what the fukk you are talking about.

The very fact you think that I need to provide proof of this, shows exactly how much (little in this case) you understand of the show. Not everything is spelled out to you and not everything is directly about the case.

Interview with Fukunaga -

Looking at the comments on several reviews of the finale, there’s a particularly heavy obsession, borderline insanity, with why the “clues” about Marty’s daughter Audrey (the drawings, dolls, and crown) were never addressed.

I never read into what she was doing as having any relation to the crimes or the cult. I read Audrey’s behavior as being the direct result of an inattentive father. Seeking male attention in other places, or even seeking to get into trouble, perhaps, to get the attention of her father; it was not related to the killings or anyone around them. I don’t even remember seeing the spiral in her room. The general chatter around those things is great, but it’s probably the kind of chatter that wouldn’t have happened had all those episodes been released at once. The anticipation-speculation that comes with a weekly schedule is a double-edged sword. Because people have more time to talk about things, some crazy ideas get a lot of attention.

True Detective Director Cary Fukunaga on the Season-1 Finale and Why So Many ‘Clues’ Aren’t Addressed

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

The very fact you think that I need to provide proof of this, shows exactly how much (little in this case) you understand of the show. Not everything is spelled out to you and not everything is directly about the case.

Interview with Fukunaga -

The fact you cant find one ounce of proof behind your stance,and the fact the director doesnt even remember it being in the scene is proof that it meant NOTHING and was nothing more than a red herring.

If it meant something,they would remember it and acknowledge it. They dont. Because its not a theme. Its a red herring.

All this shows is how desperate you are to make a point here,when you have none.


Now,stop quoting me you imbecile.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I came to the conclusion by watching what is presented to me.


Now EXPLAIN what has happened in pauls story line or background that has moved the plot forward and has been so intrinsic to the show.

I'll explain to you by simply saying this - the case isn't the plot - the case and the characters' stories are the plot. They have equal relevance. This is why Pizzolatto opens up windows into their lives. Their stories don't have to tie directly into the case, and vice versa. Surely it's not for hard you to see this? You watched the first season didn't you? You're looking at this show wrong if you think all the characters (if any) tie directly into the diamond robbery/identity of the birdman.

The journey of the solving the case and the journey of the characters' past and reoccurring themes/memories from solving the case are the show.