Mindhunter [Netflix]

Jamiekelly

Highlight for me was Manson and Berkowitz. Both actors did a fantastic job and that's where the show really shines in my opinion. The Atlanta storyline was very good as well but felt a bit contrived at certain points, especially regarding the mother of the missing kid and the hotel worker. Both characters actually felt two dimensional. Knew the moment Holden met the mom how she was going to act throughout the series and I wasn't far off. Overall I thought it was still excellent. Very close to season one but just too much chopping and changing with the pace. Especially with Tench's son and Wendy storyline.

My only real criticism was actually the actor for Tench's wife Nancy. She just isn't very good. I could hear certain parts of her accent slipping so I guessed she wasn't American (And she isn't) but mostly she was just over the top in everything she said and done. Didn't seem like I was watching Mindhunter but some daytime soap when she was on screen alone. Didn't notice it for the first season because she doesn't have as much screen time but was defintely more obvious this season.

ohnonotgmail

AMGer wrote: »

The first time Gunn & Carr meet in S2 made me so happy - September & Olivia Dunham reunited from Fringe

Thats where i know from him from. He's a little bit chunkier than his time on fringe.

extra gravy

What was the point of the whole story with the son? They could have illustrated the pressures of combining the job and personal life in a more subtle way. And the wife was a pain in the ass. Hopefully she stays gone in season 3.

Fan of Netflix

3 episodes into 2nd second season and its so boring so far. Wendy is such a pointless annoying character. What has her lesbian dating life to do with serial killers? Just irrelevant box ticking nonsense.

Slydice

argh! catch-up mode

2.1:

Panic Attack

season.. this can't be good. Everything looks set to

push Holden into repeated encounters where he will panic

. I dunno.. unless

he's most ok in the interview rooms knowing he's in full control.

youcancallmeal

extra gravy wrote: »

What was the point of the whole story with the son? They could have illustrated the pressures of combining the job and personal life in a more subtle way. And the wife was a pain in the ass. Hopefully she stays gone in season 3.

I'm only on episode 6 of season 2 but it does seem

very contrived how Tench's son just happens to be involved in a murder that is so relevant to the work he is doing.

I was hoping it would all makes sense at the end of season 2 but sounds like it doesn't. I find the scenes like at the FBI retreat particularly grating when director Webster says something like how troubled kids are lost causes and will be like that forever.

Skerries

where are they going to to go with the

BTK killer seeing as he isn't caught until the noughties?

ohnonotgmail

Skerries wrote: »

where are they going to to go with the

BTK killer seeing as he isn't caught until the noughties?

I'm curious about that as well seeing as

the real FBI guys that Bill and Holden are playing had both retired by then

murpho999

Why all the spoiler tags for very basic things? Makes thread really hard to read

Tammy!

murpho999 wrote: »

Why all the spoiler tags for very basic things? Makes thread really hard to read

And it's doesn't matter whether you've watched on ahead or not, you still read them

Slydice

2.2: Still a bit of the

Panic Attacks

on the radar but certainly looks like

Holden feels right in control in a holding cell / the pressence of tench / a situation where he knows the prisoner is controller

. This episode is feeling like they are trying to get me thinking

Tench and his family are at risk

.. a little like how episodes in season 1 (the cat food scene) had me thinking similar about Carr.

murpho999 wrote: »

Why all the spoiler tags for very basic things? Makes thread really hard to read

Look to the thread titles. The ones with something like "** Spoilers **" are where spoilers generally show up without the tags.

Tammy!

Skerries wrote: »

where are they going to to go with the

BTK killer seeing as he isn't caught until the noughties?

Maybe they have some bigger storyline involving him but I think they partly chose him as an ongoing feature because it highlights the need at the time for profiling.

Remember when they were training others in the first series and the guys just didn't seem to have any insight into the motives etc but with him, he was writing letters to the police so he would be a clear case that would prove a very valid reason for their work if that makes sense.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

Why all the spoiler tags for very basic things? Makes thread really hard to read

It's just a little deference to others for a streaming show, where not everyone's watching at the same pace, or prefer to binge.

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

It's just a little deference to others for a streaming show, where not everyone's watching at the same pace, or prefer to binge.

I get it but why go into a thread about a show if you haven't watched it?

It's just that I find that many people put spoiler tags on things such as historical documented fact that does not need to be tagged.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

I get it but why go into a thread about a show if you haven't watched it?

It's just that I find that many people put spoiler tags on things such as historical documented fact that does not need to be tagged.

Can't speak for everyone, but with a show released all in one go, people watch at different rates, and may want to discuss or add some thoughts as they watch. It's a dead thread otherwise if we all just wait 'til we're done before posting.

Fair enough re. historical notes: I think if something's in the public record it probably can't be considered a spoiler in the truest sense.

ohnonotgmail

pixelburp wrote: »

Can't speak for everyone, but with a show released all in one go, people watch at different rates, and may want to discuss or add some thoughts as they watch. It's a dead thread otherwise if we all just wait 'til we're done before posting.

Fair enough re. historical notes: I think if something's in the public record it probably can't be considered a spoiler in the truest sense.

As the show closely follows historical fact any posts that mention what happened historically can spoil the show for those who have not reached that point in the show.

Snake Plisken

murpho999 wrote: »

I get it but why go into a thread about a show if you haven't watched it?

It's just that I find that many people put spoiler tags on things such as historical documented fact that does not need to be tagged.

Exactly I purposely stayed out of this type of thread where all episodes are released in one go by the likes of Netflix or Amazon.

I thought overall this was no way near as good as Season 1 with some pointless side stories.
Hope if there is a Season 3 it gets close to the high level set by Season 1.

Tammy!

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Exactly I purposely stayed out of this type of thread where all episodes are released in one go by the likes of Netflix or Amazon.

Yea I'd just stay out of the thread if spoilers bothered me. Luckily they don't as I practically grew up on them since my brother could or even can't keep his mouth shut

I use to like The Walking Dead forum and thread with each episode discussed freely. I know it's different because people watch Mindhunter at different times but it's a bit annoying having to put spoilers everywhere and it stops the flow of conversation. Plus as mentioned before some factual things in the show I wouldn't have even thought were spoilers.

Slydice

2.3:

Oh eh..

and still Holden with the potential Panic attacks

but no really.. that bar scene

fin12

I don’t think any of the lead characters are likable. The guy that cracked up a bit is very strange, sometimes I feel he’s got more in common with sick psychopaths than everyday people and that isn’t a good thing.

IAMAMORON

Just finished the 6th episode.

That creepie music is scary as fúck, freaking me out nicely.

I would prefer to see a bit more crime solving, like by half way through last season they had encountered and solved some random crimes on their travels, I kind of liked that.

I do like the way they are not concentrating on Holden's private life as much and more on Tench's. If you consider that a predominant part of the first season was dealing with his girlfriend you can see that the writers' have gaps to fill.

I still have a few episodes to go, but as second seasons go it has not been all that bad. I felt the first episode was a tad disappointing and a bit of a waste. Dwelling on the panic attack was ott, who cares? Most second seasons of any drama serial can suffer from writers block when the networks put the heat on for new episodes. It does appear that they have been given time to write a decent script.

Finally, I like the way that they are showing the BTK killer, because as a viewer we know that he doesn't get caught for years and years, long after these guys are retired. For me this emphasises that even with all the manpower and dedication and casework that goes into catching a serial killer, it is still extremely difficult to catch one. They are essentially random, they have similar traits, but you never know when or where they are going to kill someone.

Slydice

2.4:

Ah f*ck!

The other storyline with

the prison interview of Henley was done well. I guess it'll build up something between Carr and Gregg. So long as Gregg doesn't throw her under the bus. Henleys experience might help figure out what's happening down in Atlanta too.

Homelander

Is this comparable to say, True Detective S1, in terms of tone and style?

IAMAMORON

Homelander wrote: »

Is this comparable to say, True Detective S1, in terms of tone and style?

It is a completely different animal in my humble opinion. Don't expect any 2 minute shootouts. It is all very psychological. A lot of layered plotting and I think as a viewer you should be prepared to not get any payoffs on certain storylines in this series alone.

I like it, but it is more subtle than any of the True Detectives and they are not trying to copy or compare either. Different beasts.

Tammy!

I am still only on episode 2. I havent got around to the rest yet but one thing I find kind of funny is

whenever they do something dodgy and get found out by their superiors, the superiors always act as though they're strictly following their protocol and you think they're going to get in **** but every time it happens they always end the conversation basically with a 'ahhh ye don't worry about that'

IAMAMORON

Tammy! wrote: »

I am still only on episode 2. I havent got around to the rest yet but one thing I find kind of funny is

whenever they do something dodgy and get found out by their superiors, the superiors always act as though they're strictly following their protocol and you think they're going to get in **** but every time it happens they always end the conversation basically with a 'ahhh ye don't worry about that'

I think they are trying to highlight or emphasise how anal American government agencies were at the time. Real Iveagh league nonsense, it still kind of exists. These were the types of barriers they were attempting to break down. To be in the FBI you need 3rd level qualifications, they were less common in the 60's and 70's. Real old boy old school stuff.

They are also subtly dealing with issues of sexism and homophobia. You can see this with Wendy's storyline. You have to keep a perspective that these events were happening 40 years ago.

Slydice

2.5: Felt a bit like a filler episode. Like it was to Open the

Manson story, the Directors promotion

story and keep touch with the Atlanta and Brian stories.

The

Ed Kemper

scenes though.. reminded me of the feel of the first season!
WTF!!! Just googled the Actor! He was yer man

Hazel

in The Umbrella Academy! :eek:

The Princess Bride

I stupidly binge watched the entire 19 episodes over a few nights.

Now what am I gonna watch?
I really enjoyed it, might start all over again.

Slydice

2.6: So now I'm guessing

they'll catch Atlanta no problem.. just a matter of time now.

Brian is worrysome. Tench or the wife or both gonna break?

pixelburp

Caught the first two episodes and I'm sucked back in; it's so dry and procedural but that's kinda the appeal here. It's the mostly unvarnished triviality of it all that in many respects only heightens the looming dread and sense of evil in the waters that the main cast swim in. Waters that you can see are beginning to creep into their lives, especially Holden.

IAMAMORON

The Princess Bride wrote: »

I stupidly binge watched the entire 19 episodes over a few nights.

Now what am I gonna watch?
I really enjoyed it, might start all over again.

You bold girl.... that's what happens when you eat all your sweeties at once... tut tut.

pinkypinky

Was late to the party on the first season and only watched a couple of weeks ago. Finished season 2 last night.

I kept waiting for Nancy to mention

the photo that Brian had from Bill's office last season. Surely relevant to his behaviour.

Arghus

Try as I might I just can't get into this show, I'm amazed that it's getting all the rave reviews.

I watched the first season and thought it was alright, nothing more.

Two episodes into season two and I feel exactly the same way as I did during the last season. It has a style to it for sure; it looks a lot better visually than most stuff that is on Netflix, but I find very little as a whole to make me think "wow, this show is amazing."

The characters feel like cliches - the world weary cop, the up and comer with the crazy ideas that just might work - so much of the dialogue is just exposition, exposition. Conversations feel unreal and robotic. Everything just feels obvious, really obvious, all the time. And there's no tension, at any time, no matter how much the brooding soundtrack wants us to believe it.

I'm kind of amazed this is Fincher's pet project. Every one of his movies may not be brilliant, but his craft is usually immaculate. This show is so devoid of any personality and it's desperately dull.

The Black Oil

Arghus wrote: »

The characters feel like cliches - the world weary cop, the up and comer with the crazy ideas that just might work - so much of the dialogue is just exposition, exposition. Conversations feel unreal and robotic. Everything just feels obvious, really obvious, all the time. And there's no tension, at any time, no matter how much the brooding soundtrack wants us to believe it.

I like the show. It's not beyond some flub dialogue e.g. that the viewer would already know re FBI jurisdiction. Similarly, I also did eye roll a little when there was talk of a victim fitting a pattern based on what seemed to be very little. Holden's instinct or not.

LionelNashe

I think it has all been very good so far, but Season 1 was definitely better.

Anyone who has finished Season 2, go back and have a careful look at

the swarm of photographers and journalists who appear from minute 31 in episode 6.

Anyone who hasn't finished the season, no peeping.

Slydice

2.7: Damn like..

that march and Holden running with the cross felt so eerie .. I sure hope this isn't a case of them not catching the perp!

Jamiekelly

LionelNashe wrote: »

I think it has all been very good so far, but Season 1 was definitely better.

Anyone who has finished Season 2, go back and have a careful look at

the swarm of photographers and journalists who appear from minute 31 in episode 6.

Anyone who hasn't finished the season, no peeping.

:eek:

That's a great spot! Well done. Makes sense as well given his job type.

Calltocall

Homelander wrote: »

Is this comparable to say, True Detective S1, in terms of tone and style?

No it’s not and being honest it could do with an injection of the intensity that True Detective season 1 had, not to copy it, but the whole thing just feels flat, the acting in td1 was superb which brought a lot of that intensity, then again you had harrelson and mcconaughey the acting in this is not near that standard, a good show though and worth a look.

cdgalwegian

Homelander wrote: »

Is this comparable to say, True Detective S1, in terms of tone and style?

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It is a completely different animal in my humble opinion. Don't expect any 2 minute shootouts. It is all very psychological. A lot of layered plotting and I think as a viewer you should be prepared to not get any payoffs on certain storylines in this series alone.

I like it, but it is more subtle than any of the True Detectives and they are not trying to copy or compare either. Different beasts.

Calltocall wrote: »

No it’s not and being honest it could do with an injection of the intensity that True Detective season 1 had, not to copy it, but the whole thing just feels flat, the acting in td1 was superb which brought a lot of that intensity, then again you had harrelson and mcconaughey the acting in this is not near that standard, a good show though and worth a look.

Mindhunter has that authentic feel about it, in its depiction of its time, and also in its attention to detail, the way that Mad Men had. I'm starting season 2 Mindhunter soon, but although it doesn't seem to have the momentum that Mad Men had (as far as I can remember), I don't think it needs it (or the intensity of True Detective).
Mindhunter concerns the nascence of studying the "pattern killers", and much of it depends on the almost 'therapeutic type' relationship between the interviewees and the killers. I would imagine the background lives/personalities of the two main protagonists (Ford and Tench) play into this, and becomes more important. It's more thoughtful than whizz/bang.

AulWan

LionelNashe wrote: »

I think it has all been very good so far, but Season 1 was definitely better.

Anyone who has finished Season 2, go back and have a careful look at ... Anyone who hasn't finished the season, no peeping.

I spotted that too. It was masterfully inserted, barely a second on screen. Highlight of the season for me, so far.

I'm up to episode 7 and definitely thought season 1 was better, but this one is still good. I loved the re-appearance of Kemper, plus the guy who played Manson gave me chills.

I think the whole plotline of BTK in the background is to show us exactly that. There are always more serial killers hunting and killing in the background that are never caught or yet to be caught. I read a stat somewhere (don't quote me on this) that there are 8 serial killers active at any one time in the US.

AulWan

pixelburp wrote: »

Caught the first two episodes and I'm sucked back in; it's so dry and procedural but that's kinda the appeal here. It's the mostly unvarnished triviality of it all that in many respects only heightens the looming dread and sense of evil in the waters that the main cast swim in. Waters that you can see are beginning to creep into their lives, especially Holden.

Holden's intensity creeps me out a little, but that is kudos to the actor as Jonathan Groff is the complete opposite.

Have you noticed Holden's apartment? No personal objects whatsoever. It appears cold and sterile and spotless, it could be any hotel room.

I am always surprised that every time he comes home (even after weeks) the lights in his apartment are on.

IAMAMORON

AulWan wrote: »

Holden's intensity creeps me out a little, but that is kudos to the actor as Jonathan Groff is the complete opposite.

Have you noticed Holden's apartment? No personal objects whatsoever. It appears cold and sterile and spotless, it could be any hotel room.

I am always surprised that every time he comes home (even after weeks) the lights in his apartment are on.

I think there is a very definite underlining theme of loneliness and isolation within all the characters. They are all victims of their jobs and what they investigating. This is contrasting with the killers they are chasing, who is any different? All the suspects lead lonely insular lifestyles also, their only real way of expression is through their crimes or through the investigators capacity to solve them.

Take Wendy's character. She is highly intelligent and is a professor, yet she struggles to survive in common with many around her. Her sexuality has become a barrier even to her professional development, this isolates her. She struggled to maintain her relationship because she over analysed and misjudged her partner. She couldn't deal with the simplicity off their attraction, she wanted more from something that might not have been there. She couldn't compromise or empathise with her partner's life. This is arguably a psychopathic trait also.

Trench's family life has struggled due to his job. He has become a secondary victim off the psychos he is chasing.

Holden couldn't hold down a relationship either. He is most definitely odd, but he is based on real life person. He epitomises the type of anal investigator who instigated such a division. He is definitely a loner. No empathy either.

cdgalwegian

IAMAMORON wrote: »

He epitomises the type of anal investigator who instigated such a division.

He's a typical proctologist then.:pac:

Slydice

2.8:

Gotta be him right!? I mean like... the writers have sown some doubt but this guy matches up with Holdens guess!

Slydice

2.9:

faaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccck, what a low to find out about the other 27 murders at the end.

Overall, good season. Would have preferred more

of the Kemper/Manson interviews

but there was a lot going on and they had to spread stuff out. I'm guessing there'll be more next season.

Kinda worried about

Tench, Nancy and Brian. Things had started to look hopeful at the end of season one

.

Slydice

LionelNashe wrote: »

Anyone who has finished Season 2, go back and have a careful look at

the swarm of photographers and journalists who appear from minute 31 in episode 6.

Anyone who hasn't finished the season, no peeping.

:eek:

Fan of Netflix

I thought it was an anti climax and fairly disappointing. Season 1 was much better. Incredibly slow moving. The likes of Wendy and Nancy add nothing to the show. I found it quite boring really the way it was done. A show following the BTK killer around would have been a lot more interesting.

It didn't even show the murders.

dark crystal

I loved Season 2, thought the Atlanta Child murders case was fascinating and Bill's family life was a riveting subplot.Maybe because I read the book this series was based on, I knew how much Atlanta meant to the real life agent.

The guy who played Manson was excellent too and although I agree the Sharon Tate murderers should never be released, you did get a sense that at least Tex Watson realised how heinous the crime was and had some remorse. Manson was always in denial regarding the part he played.

As for BTK,

we know he wasn't caught until 2005, so I'm wondering is this going to be a lingering subplot, detailing the frustration when you can't catch a killer

.

Anyway, love this show - it'll be a long hard wait for Season 3!

Mr Crispy

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

I thought it was an anti climax and fairly disappointing. Season 1 was much better. Incredibly slow moving. The likes of Wendy and Nancy add nothing to the show. I found it quite boring really the way it was done. A show following the BTK killer around would have been a lot more interesting.

It didn't even show the murders.

Why would following a killer who wasn't caught for another couple of decades be interesting? As for the anticlimax, should they have changed the story in some way?

Edit: dark crystal beat me to the punch.

Fan of Netflix

Darch Nemesis wrote: »

Why would following a killer who wasn't caught for another couple of decades be interesting? As for the anticlimax, should they have changed the story in some way?

Edit: dark crystal beat me to the punch.

This is why sometimes stories based on true events are not as interesting or entertaining. True Detective Season 1 was far superior in every aspect.