True Detective [HBO] [** Spoilers **]

FloatingVoter

Brendan Filone wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EANLj7szsw

In light of Brendan's discovery I can now condone Woody's dorning of the antlers and brutal manrape of McConaughey in the season finale. The fact that he invites Norm and Cliff along to participate was perhaps overkill.
Yes...True Detective is in fact "Cheers..Where Are They Now ?" in disguise.

Eod100

I'd heard about McConaughey having a chart to keep track of Rust's character but this is mad - 450 page chart:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/mcconaughey-reveals-the-four-stages-of-true-detective-rustin-cohle-20140304

Also find it class how he's watching the show week to week like everyone else and even watching eps 2/3 times: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/q-a-matthew-mcconaughey-talks-true-detective-20140303

Cork boy 55

The prison that keeps getting mentioned by various people is
"the farm" or "Angola" is the Louisiana state penitentiary
Enda needs to build one of these things

reading about it on wiki ...some setup
73 km2 site, $120 million budget, Designed to be self sufficent.
It is the largest maximum security prison in the United States with 6,300 offenders and 1,800 staff. it was a an airport, a tv station , factories , mills, farms(2,000 cattle) etc etc


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_State_Penitentiary

yabadabado

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The prison that keeps getting mentioned by various people is
"the farm" or "Angola" is the Louisiana state penitentiary
Enda needs to build one of these things

reading about it on wiki ...some setup
73 km2 site, $120 million budget, Designed to be self sufficent.
It is the largest maximum security prison in the United States with 6,300 offenders and 1,800 staff. it was a an airport, a tv station , factories , mills, farms(2,000 cattle) etc etc

few good books written about the jail.Hell on earth.

grizzly

Loved every episode so far. It reminds me of my favourite TV show growing up - Twin Peaks. The same creepy vibe that's always waiting just around the corner.

Brendan Filone

The scene where Marty was surfing the online dating site and eating the shitty microwave meal on his own hit me harder than most scenes this season. Woody doesn't display any sadness at all. He's resigned himself to this life a long time ago. That resignation to a life of loneliness knowing that you have no one to blame but yourself is scary to me.

P.Walnuts

They are both deeply unhappy and flawed men, Rust seems to accept this and is not ashamed to admit it, told Marty straight out all he does is sleep and work and wants to kill himself, Marty as always cannot be honest with himself, trying to pretend he is happy.

naughto

they are only happy when they work together and even then they p1ss and maon about it

ixoy

A 'Law & Order'-inspired opening credits for 'True Detective'. Contains images from up to about the fifth episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6yyBvLpCc

The Pontiac

Holy fúck!!

Up to date now after watching the last episode, so can finally read this thread.

After Breaking Bad, thought I'd be waiting years for anything to come close to it. True Detective is like a cross between The Wire and The Killing (Forbrydelsen) with improvements all-round. McConaughey and Harrelson are in league of their own - never seen acting like this on the small screen, even from Cranston!

Perfectly paced (didn't find it slow at all) - just the right medium for character development and storyline. No real cliffhangers, but you just want to watch the next episode now, as the storyline is just mesmerising. The script and direction have set the bar high for TV.

And finally, the opening theme tune from The Handsome Family is just sublime. I've seen 'em live about five times. They had a cult following up until True Detective. The theme now has over 800k hits from one YT clip..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4zluA60hjs

weemcd

Watching the whole series between now and Monday.

Waking myself up at like 6am to watch on Monday morning. I've only ever done this at the end of Breaking Bad S5. If they finish the season strongly it will probably be my all time favorite

weemcd

Guys. Anyone touched on episode one, at 45 minutes 4 seconds (454 is a recurring number for me, this is strange but anyway, I'm not crazy) Marty's kids are at the dinner table staring at Rust while Maggie makes small talk. They ask him if he fired his weapon before, he tells them, Marty fakes a page and leaves the room. When it cuts back to the room the girls whisper something to each other and giggle a little.

I've listened to it over a few times and slowed it down, the audio wasn't great on my video but it sounds a lot like

the king of the dolls

thoughts?

/edit


Earlier in this episode, they visit Sheriff Tate. They find a drawing of the face above, attempted abduction - the guy who chased some girls was described as a spaghetti monster.

What is everyone eating at the dinner table only spaghetti? and broccoli (green ears) what are the makers telling us?

Ignore what's in the brackets above, I probably am going crazy

GottaGetGatt

weemcd wrote: »

Guys. Anyone touched on episode one, at 45 minutes 4 seconds (454 is a recurring number for me, this is strange but anyway, I'm not crazy) Marty's kids are at the dinner table staring at Rust while Maggie makes small talk. They ask him if he fired his weapon before, he tells them, Marty fakes a page and leaves the room. When it cuts back to the room the girls whisper something to each other and giggle a little.

I've listened to it over a few times and slowed it down, the audio wasn't great on my video but it sounds a lot like

the king of the dolls

thoughts?

It does sound a little like that but i dont it is imo.Now you have me listening over and over to the fecking thing.

qwabercd

I theory I've heard is that

Maggie's father is one of the 5 men wearing the animal masks. Could explain the kids assembling the dolls.

weemcd

edited with some new info

Lirange

qwabercd wrote: »

I theory I've heard is that

Maggie's father is one of the 5 men wearing the animal masks. Could explain the kids assembling the dolls.

Also:

Maggie's father's house was on a lake. Her mother sounded like an enabler too.

Grimebox

qwabercd wrote: »

I theory I've heard is that

Maggie's father is one of the 5 men wearing the animal masks. Could explain the kids assembling the dolls.

I really, really think this is unlikely. My opinion on the dolls is that it is an example of how Marty's work was intruding on his family life. It was just a bunch of dolls haphazardly strewn on the ground. We (and Marty) attached that this meant some kind of abuse was taking place.

The writer Nic Pizzolatto hinted before at Rust's speech on time being meta-commentary for the show itself. The characters are stuck in a TV show doomed to repeat the same actions on every repeated watching. The audience are viewing their timeline as a circle from the outside. The whole season 1 is that flat circle.

You could extend the meta-commentary idea to the dolls. Marty mentions in the first episode that it is bad to attach a narrative to a case because then you will bend the evidence to suit that narrative. That is exactly what the audience is doing in the father-in-law/dolls theory.

There is actually no evidence to suggest the father-in-law is involved when you think about it. What is there? The dolls and one evening spent in at their house. That's it.

Maybe I'm the one who is going crazy.

Lirange

Grimebox wrote: »

I really, really think this is unlikely. My opinion on the dolls is that it is an example of how Marty's work was intruding on his family life. It was just a bunch of dolls haphazardly strewn on the ground. We (and Marty) attached that this meant some kind of abuse was taking place.

The writer Nic Pizzolatto hinted before at Rust's speech on time being meta-commentary for the show itself. The characters are stuck in a TV show doomed to repeat the same actions on every repeated watching. The audience are viewing their timeline as a circle from the outside. The whole season 1 is that flat circle.

You could extend the meta-commentary idea to the dolls. Marty mentions in the first episode that it is bad to attach a narrative to a case because then you will bend the evidence to suit that narrative. That is exactly what the audience is doing in the father-in-law/dolls theory.

There is actually no evidence to suggest the father-in-law is involved when you think about it. What is there? The dolls and one evening spent in at their house. That's it.

Maybe I'm the one who is going crazy.

I disagree. I think the people suggesting there is evidence have thought about it. Including myself.

It's actually a very simple and reasonable theory given what we've seen. It was much more than the the suggestive arrangement of dolls. In fact, it was Audrey's rather shocking explicit drawings of genitalia, nudity, and penetration moreso than the initial dolls scene. You can't just dismiss that as "haphazard" chance. That couldn't be brushed off and that's why on this occasion they had an earnest family chat with her. Pizzolatto has suggested that he's not a fan of red herrings or elaborate trickery to fool the audience. By this show's conservative standards this would be one hell of an anvillicious decoy. The story has clearly and deliberately established the differences between the two daughters to further the suspicion that the eldest daughter has had some traumatic experience(s). Supposing something did happen and it involved abuse, in this case it would need to be someone that would have the time and opportunity. The father in law would be a very logical candidate. The in laws had their scenes in episode 2 and haven't been seen in the intervening episodes since. What was the purpose of these scenes? What were they supposed to tell us? If it was just to provide a backdrop to Maggie's character then I would argue that those scenes weren't really necessary and didn't tell us all that much. Also, apparently some of these incidents happened on or near a lake. The in laws live on a lake. Remember the two girls out on the lake fishing by themselves? This scenario may or may not come to be in the finale but it certainly won't come out of nowhere or be inconsistent with what we've seen if it does.

P.Walnuts

Lirange wrote: »

I disagree. I think the people suggesting there is evidence have thought about it. Including myself.

It's actually a very simple and reasonable theory given what we've seen. It was much more than the the suggestive arrangement of dolls. In fact, it was Audrey's rather shocking explicit drawings of genitalia, nudity, and penetration moreso than the initial dolls scene. You can't just dismiss that as "haphazard" chance. That couldn't be brushed off and that's why on this occasion they had an earnest family chat with her. Pizzolatto has suggested that he's not a fan of red herrings or elaborate trickery to fool the audience. By this show's conservative standards this would be one hell of an anvillicious decoy. The story has clearly and deliberately established the differences between the two daughters to further the suspicion that the eldest daughter has had some traumatic experience(s). Supposing something did happen and it involved abuse, in this case it would need to be someone that would have the time and opportunity. The father in law would be a very logical candidate. The in laws had their scenes in episode 2 and haven't been seen in the intervening episodes since. What was the purpose of these scenes? What were they supposed to tell us? If it was just to provide a backdrop to Maggie's character then I would argue that those scenes weren't really necessary and didn't tell us all that much. Also, apparently some of these incidents happened on or near a lake. The in laws live on a lake. Remember the two girls out on the lake fishing by themselves? This scenario may or may not come to be in the finale but it certainly won't come out of nowhere or be inconsistent with what we've seen if it does.

You just kind of confirmed grimbox's point there tbh, you failed to mention any evidence at all linking the father in law to audreys apparent abuse, only that he would of spent time with her, no actual evidence. Now I do think that it is likely she was abused, given there is evidence of that, and it could turn out to be the father in law, but nothing at this stage points to him as a suspect.

Lovely Bloke

P.Walnuts wrote: »

You just kind of confirmed grimbox's point there tbh, you failed to mention any evidence at all linking the father in law to audreys apparent abuse, only that he would of spent time with her, no actual evidence. Now I do think that it is likely she was abused, given there is evidence of that, and it could turn out to be the father in law, but nothing at this stage points to him as a suspect.

In any TV cop show we never, ever see full evidence of anything, otherwise the show would be as long as an actual investigation.

What you have to do is take certain things as "TV-land evidence" - there hasn't been a single "wasted" character in this whole show - people in earlier episodes who seemed redundant are showing up in later episodes and doing important things. (girl from brothel ranch who Marty later has sex with, cop with moustache they are torturing, Sheriff Childress, the Tuttle guy - taken in isolation the first time we see these characters they are seemingly inconsequential - maybe Tuttle isn't, but the fact remains, the only people who haven't re-surfaced yet are Maggie's parents. In the setting of this show, that is very strange, and so it's leading people to believe that because of her actions - Barbie doll, childhood pictures, throwing away the crown, group sex, the later adult pictures - that she was probably abused; one candidate for that is the grandfather. It's unlikely to be Marty or Rust, and it's unlikely to be a "new" character - and we haven't been shown anyone else who would be close to the Hart family with access to be able to abuse the daughter, so yes, there is evidence for it being the grandad - not solid hard evidence that would stand up in court - but no show in the history of TV ever has that )

Lirange

P.Walnuts wrote: »

You just kind of confirmed grimbox's point there tbh, you failed to mention any evidence at all linking the father in law to audreys apparent abuse, only that he would of spent time with her, no actual evidence. Now I do think that it is likely she was abused, given there is evidence of that, and it could turn out to be the father in law, but nothing at this stage points to him as a suspect.

Well, actually I did. Some possible clues pointing that way, albeit circumstantial:

1. The in laws live on a lake. These rituals have been said to take place on/near a lake.
2. The mother in law had one speaking part, which was basically to tell her daughter the virtues of not interfering, to mind her own business, and be a dutiful wife. This is a tell tale sign of an enabler.
3. The father in law had one speaking part, essentially extolling the old values and old ways. This dovetails with the theory that a sex ring could also be using the satanic ritual elements as not only a cover for their sex crimes but also as a political tool.
4. If the daughter has been abused, as you agree seems a good possibility, there are not many candidates that would have had the time/opportunity. The father in law is one of them.
5. Marty has made potentially foreshadowing references to things being right under his nose.

So yes I did mention evidence. It's up to you to judge it for yourself. If you think so little of these ideas that it amounts to "nothing" in your eyes, that's OK. But I did make an effort in two previous posts to support this theory with some of this information.

kryogen

The Pontiac wrote: »

And finally, the opening theme tune from The Handsome Family is just sublime. I've seen 'em live about five times. They had a cult following up until True Detective. The theme now has over 800k hits from one YT clip..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4zluA60hjs

No matter how much I like the opening theme, and how perfect it goes with the show, I still hate The Handsome Family

kryogen

Im already sick of those videos, but that one is very well timed

P.Walnuts

Lirange wrote: »

Well, actually I did. Some possible clues pointing that way, albeit circumstantial:

1. The in laws live on a lake. These rituals have been said to take place on/near a lake.
2. The mother in law had one speaking part, which was basically to tell her daughter the virtues of not interfering, to mind her own business, and be a dutiful wife. This is a tell tale sign of an enabler.
3. The father in law had one speaking part, essentially extolling the old values and old ways. This dovetails with the theory that a sex ring could also be using the satanic ritual elements as not only a cover for their sex crimes but also as a political tool.
4. If the daughter has been abused, as you agree seems a good possibility, there are not many candidates that would have had the time/opportunity. The father in law is one of them.
5. Marty has made potentially foreshadowing references to things being right under his nose.

So yes I did mention evidence. It's up to you to judge it for yourself. If you think so little of these ideas that it amounts to "nothing" in your eyes, that's OK. But I did make an effort in two previous posts to support this theory with some of this information.

Are you sure about the lake reference? I thought the lake reference was something do with carcosa, could be wrong..

You two points about the dialogue really seem to me to be what grimbox said about attaching a narrative to events because they for with the overall picture

Essentially all we have in the grandfather is that Audrey was possibly abused and he would of had access, now to be honest I believe it could be the grandfather but I just think it's a,leap right now because people,are only suspecting him in the absence of any other credible suspect, not because there are any significant pointers to him

Grimebox

Lirange wrote: »

Well, actually I did. Some possible clues pointing that way, albeit circumstantial:

1. The in laws live on a lake. These rituals have been said to take place on/near a lake.
- doesn't mean anything

2. The mother in law had one speaking part, which was basically to tell her daughter the virtues of not interfering, to mind her own business, and be a dutiful wife. This is a tell tale sign of an enabler.
-Characterisation. Alluding to how Marty and Maggie's marriage is far from perfect. Shows Marty's rash nature. Things aren't perfect for Maggie but she ultimately relies on and is loyal to Marty.

3. The father in law had one speaking part, essentially extolling the old values and old ways. This dovetails with the theory that a sex ring could also be using the satanic ritual elements as not only a cover for their sex crimes but also as a political tool.
- Marty actually echoes this sentiment (extolling old values) later on at the dinner table. He does not understand why his daughter dresses the way she does. He makes a vague attempt to connect but ultimately doesn't want to and alienates her. You are really stretching if this leads to a satanic political sex ring cover-up

4. If the daughter has been abused, as you agree seems a good possibility, there are not many candidates that would have had the time/opportunity. The father in law is one of them.
- the dolls and the drawings. That's all there is to suggest Audrey was abused. I'm leaning towards her having suffered no abuse at all. The dolls' interpretation are in Marty's head. He often mentions how the job is negatively affecting him. The explicit drawings happen to normal children too. Father-in-law is literally in one scene, two if you include the phone call. It is extremely common and a trope at this stage for there to be tension between in-laws. He is simply her father-in-law, nothing more.

5. Marty has made potentially foreshadowing references to things being right under his nose.
- I personally don't like foreshadowing. I think it detracts from a story. This is conjecture, not evidence.

So yes I did mention evidence. It's up to you to judge it for yourself. If you think so little of these ideas that it amounts to "nothing" in your eyes, that's OK. But I did make an effort in two previous posts to support this theory with some of this information.

I added how I think those scenes could be interpreted. I don't necessarily agree with the above. I think there's a chance Audrey did suffer abuse, but I'm going to argue my corner for the sake of it. One of us can say "I told you so" next week :pac: The drawings are the one thing that don't add up unless its a red herring or attempting to show Marty as a good father.

My theory that hinges on the one line: "You attach assumptions to a piece of evidence, you start to bend the narrative to support it, prejudice yourself.", which is hinting to meta-commentary is equally as far fetched in fairness.

Realistically, I think the father-in-law nor Audrey will not feature in the final episode at all, certainly not in the capacity described above.

kryogen

In the spirit of making connections to suit the narrative, Marty is probably the spaghetti monster, he likes spaghetti, in another scene, where Maggie confronts him about the picture on his phone he is also eating spaghetti. This along with the family dinner lead me to believe the writer is telling the audience Marty is the spaghetti monster, through sub text.

Lirange

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Are you sure about the lake reference? I thought the lake reference was something do with carcosa, could be wrong..

Well yes I was referencing Carcosa, assuming the rituals re-enact. We don't know for sure where the rituals take place. Rust said the body of Dora Lange had been moved to it's location after she died.

P.Walnuts wrote: »

You two points about the dialogue really seem to me to be what grimbox said about attaching a narrative to events because they for with the overall picture

You could say the same about most of the theories. Why is my theory attaching a narrative and his (or any other) theories aren't? You're busting my arse here. You have high standards? We're viewers of a TV show not actual detectives.

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Essentially all we have in the grandfather is that Audrey was possibly abused and he would of had access, now to be honest I believe it could be the grandfather but I just think it's a,leap right now because people,are only suspecting him in the absence of any other credible suspect, not because there are any significant pointers to him

If my suspicions rested solely on that I wouldn't give it much consideration either. I think it's more than that. I've already addressed why.

Lirange

Grimebox wrote: »

-Characterisation. Alluding to how Marty and Maggie's marriage is far from perfect. Shows Marty's rash nature. Things aren't perfect for Maggie but she ultimately relies on and is loyal to Marty.

Two points: 1. The conversation did not allude to any of those things. It was the mother admonishing the daughter as if Maggie was the problem for getting involved. 2. Even if she had said something along those lines they would be superfluous to what the audience already knows at that point.

Grimebox wrote: »

- Marty actually echoes this sentiment (extolling old values) later on at the dinner table.

Yes, you could suggest it's generational mirroring. But that would probably make more sense if it had come from Marty's actual father rather than his father in-law. It does establish that Maggie's father has very conservative values.

Grimebox wrote: »

- the dolls and the drawings. That's all there is to suggest Audrey was abused. I'm leaning towards her having suffered no abuse at all. The dolls' interpretation are in Marty's head. He often mentions how the job is negatively affecting him. The explicit drawings happen to normal children too. Father-in-law is literally in one scene, two if you include the phone call. It is extremely common and a trope at this stage for there to be tension between in-laws. He is simply her father-in-law, nothing more.

I think the way they have been presented suggests they're more significant than this. There's also something else that Audrey drew: The spiral symbol. The same one found on the bodies.

Why does Audrey have all these issues but Maisie is so well adjusted and successful? This can happen in families but the show has made a point of underscoring the difference between the two daughters. I think the show has spent an inordinate amount of time on these things if they're actually relegated to the insignificance that you anticipate.

Grimebox wrote: »

- I personally don't like foreshadowing. I think it detracts from a story. This is conjecture, not evidence.

Well of course a lot of this is conjecture. What else would it be? Are you looking for actual proof? We're discussing a TV show not the McCann case.

Foreshadowing is a great literary tool in my opinion. It's cool to go back and catch things you didn't see before. Done well they can enhance my enjoyment of books and films.

Grimebox wrote: »

I added how I think those scenes could be interpreted. I don't necessarily agree with the above. I think there's a chance Audrey did suffer abuse, but I'm going to argue my corner for the sake of it. One of us can say "I told you so" next week :pac: The drawings are the one thing that don't add up unless its a red herring or attempting to show Marty as a good father.

My theory that hinges on the one line: "You attach assumptions to a piece of evidence, you start to bend the narrative to support it, prejudice yourself.", which is hinting to meta-commentary is equally as far fetched in fairness.

Realistically, I think the father-in-law nor Audrey will not feature in the final episode at all, certainly not in the capacity described above.

I think there's a good chance that either Audrey was abused or that she may have witnessed something very traumatic. Doesn't mean it will come off that way and I wouldn't necessarily be disappointed if it doesn't. It's been great stuff so far and I trust the writer to give us a great ending. I don't undertake to return back here in a week and say, "I told you so." For starters, I can't take credit for these ideas. They're not new speculations and have been going around the net. I just lean a bit in the direction of this theory because it just seemed to make sense and I suppose I also want to know more about what may/or may not have happened with Audrey.

kryogen wrote: »

In the spirit of making connections to suit the narrative, Marty is probably the spaghetti monster, he likes spaghetti, in another scene, where Maggie confronts him about the picture on his phone he is also eating spaghetti. This along with the family dinner lead me to believe the writer is telling the audience Marty is the spaghetti monster, through sub text.

Funny.

But on a serious note. Marty could end up being the monster at the end of the story, if something indeed happened to Audrey. We know how he becomes unhinged if a stranger's child has been hurt. Imagine what it would do to him if it was his own daughter? He would go ape-****. It's been suggested by some that the crucified dead girl at Lake Charles in the present day could be her! The coppers have been keeping that under wraps and maybe that's why they were probing for more details about the relationship between Cohle/Marty and why they went their separate ways. Digging for a motive? I guess it could be a revenge killing for Ledoux or Rev Tuttle. Or maybe she would have been groomed like the others. Of course, we don't know exactly how long it's been since Maggie last had contact with her. I've just come upon this theory. I'll have to mull it over and consider this more.

Alfred Borden

Just got around to watching that ep, was brilliant. definitely think ill watch this weeks one live so i cant be seeing any spoilers.

colly_06

How did noooooobody spot this

I can't believe the yellow king can actually be seen in lots of scenes :eek: