Official The Killing Thread (Warning: Potential Spoilers)

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by mredskins

I may get hammered here but it was not that bad. It was not Shakespeare nor was it as good as the first few episodes but it still held my attention.

You just had to know there was going to be a cliff hanger, waht would bring you back for season two? I think alot folks are just pissed they didn't say who the killer was and are bashing the episode because of that when in fact the actual episode was pretty good.

I thought the episode sucked. Even ignoring the fact that they didn't answer the central point of the show. The ep required several leaps of logic to even be believable.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I thought the episode sucked. Even ignoring the fact that they didn't answer the central point of the show. The ep required several leaps of logic to even be believable.

I guess I agree. this show had so much promise and it really fell flat on it's face.

Off topis kind of; Has anyone noticed that the HD picture on AMC sucks compared to say NBC, ABC, etc...

[JoeRedskin]

I think this sums it up pretty well: http://****thekilling.com/

NSFW (If not clued in by the title)

[JoeRedskin]

Wish I could take credit for this one but I can't:

"You're a gas station owner/attendant. Late at night you hear a girl screaming at your gas station (and maybe see her as well - I don't recall)

Do you:
a. Investigate
b. Call the cops
c. Do nothing, figuring she was just protesting against society's increased reliance on fossil fuels.

The next day (or day after), a girl's body is found in the trunk of a car in the lake in the park adjacent to your gas station. This is all over the news. Do you
a. Call the cops to report what you know, or
b. Do nothing, figuring it must just be a coincidence,
c. Yell at some kids to get off your lawn."

The Killing: Forbrydelsen Comes to AMC - TWoP Forums

[SmootSmack]

The only reason I'm pretty disappointed we didn't find out who the killer was is that I wasn't really too keen on watching next season. Now I feel I kind of have to...or maybe I'll just follow this thread.

But really the second half of the season I felt like I was watching it just to watch it, and to see Joel Kinnamanr's Emmy worth performance.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wish I could take credit for this one but I can't:

"You're a gas station owner/attendant. Late at night you hear a girl screaming at your gas station (and maybe see her as well - I don't recall)

Do you:
a. Investigate
b. Call the cops
c. Do nothing, figuring she was just protesting against society's increased reliance on fossil fuels.

The next day (or day after), a girl's body is found in the trunk of a car in the lake in the park adjacent to your gas station. This is all over the news. Do you
a. Call the cops to report what you know, or
b. Do nothing, figuring it must just be a coincidence,
c. Yell at some kids to get off your lawn."

The Killing: Forbrydelsen Comes to AMC - TWoP Forums

He was too busy 'sorting inventory.'

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wish I could take credit for this one but I can't:

"You're a gas station owner/attendant. Late at night you hear a girl screaming at your gas station (and maybe see her as well - I don't recall)

Do you:
a. Investigate
b. Call the cops
c. Do nothing, figuring she was just protesting against society's increased reliance on fossil fuels.

The next day (or day after), a girl's body is found in the trunk of a car in the lake in the park adjacent to your gas station. This is all over the news. Do you
a. Call the cops to report what you know, or
b. Do nothing, figuring it must just be a coincidence,
c. Yell at some kids to get off your lawn."

The Killing: Forbrydelsen Comes to AMC - TWoP Forums

I know that was bad really bad. Made no sense. Plus did the killer run after thus leaving the car sitting at the station or did he drive after her through the woods?

One thought is that guy was planted by Holder or paid off if you will. Remember Holder point them to that station. Maybe that is why the story seems so far fetched. Who knows I honestly at this point think the writers are too dumb to be that crafty with their story telling.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The only reason I'm pretty disappointed we didn't find out who the killer was is that I wasn't really too keen on watching next season. Now I feel I kind of have to...or maybe I'll just follow this thread.

But really the second half of the season I felt like I was watching it just to watch it, and to see Joel Kinnamanr's Emmy worth performance.

I am not watching next season. Like soooo many others, I was sticking it out to see who the killer was. At some point next year they will say who it was, it will be posted and I'll read it on the internet.

AMC may actually get wind of the likely mass viewer exodus and force the killer to be revealed early and with lots of lead in promo, though why anyone would believe them at this point is beyond me (yes - killer is revealed along with an extensive conspiracy that effectively still eliminates no one from consideration).

It's really a shame. The show had such promise early - the first couple of episodes were gripping. Also, given the crap they had to work with, I think the acting was strong even to the end. The elements of an excellent story were there and the premise was strong: Take a season to fully explore the various elements/human factors that are created by a murder. In addition, they got strong actors who had subtelty and range. Unfortunately, the writers and the "show runner" (is that a new term for director?) squandered it all with poor writing and a complete lack of a vision.

Yes, Ms. Sud - solving a crime in a single season is (can be) just as "formulaic" as solving it in an episode. But, you know what? Everything on TV is formulaic and derivative. Entertainment is formulaic and deriviative - You sing, you dance, you tell a story or some combination of the above. Just present your story well and it will be received well - maybe even acclaimed.

Here, Sud was clearly just to entranced with her own brilliance to see that she was putting out exactly what she claimed not to be - Typical crime drama short on fundamentals (Two weeks later you check the odometer/gas tank of the murder vehicle against existing records? And this is the top murder detective in Seattle?) and long on "shocking" reveals which turn out to be red herrings. I could go on and on and on. I am just pissed that I sat around hoping it would get better only to have my intelligence insulted with a big middle finger at the end.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The only reason I'm pretty disappointed we didn't find out who the killer was is that I wasn't really too keen on watching next season. Now I feel I kind of have to...or maybe I'll just follow this thread.

But really the second half of the season I felt like I was watching it just to watch it, and to see Joel Kinnamanr's Emmy worth performance.

Yeah the only character worth a crap on the show they went and gut-punched out of some idiotic sense of "surprise = creativity"

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am not watching next season. Like soooo many others, I was sticking it out to see who the killer was. At some point next year they will say who it was, it will be posted and I'll read it on the internet.

AMC may actually get wind of the likely mass viewer exodus and force the killer to be revealed early and with lots of lead in promo, though why anyone would believe them at this point is beyond me (yes - killer is revealed along with an extensive conspiracy that effectively still eliminates no one from consideration).

It's really a shame. The show had such promise early - the first couple of episodes were gripping. Also, given the crap they had to work with, I think the acting was strong even to the end. The elements of an excellent story were there and the premise was strong: Take a season to fully explore the various elements/human factors that are created by a murder. In addition, they got strong actors who had subtelty and range. Unfortunately, the writers and the "show runner" (is that a new term for director?) squandered it all with poor writing and a complete lack of a vision.

Yes, Ms. Sud - solving a crime in a single season is (can be) just as "formulaic" as solving it in an episode. But, you know what? Everything on TV is formulaic and derivative. Entertainment is formulaic and deriviative - You sing, you dance, you tell a story or some combination of the above. Just present your story well and it will be received well - maybe even acclaimed.

Here, Sud was clearly just to entranced with her own brilliance to see that she was putting out exactly what she claimed not to be - Typical crime drama short on fundamentals (Two weeks later you check the odometer/gas tank of the murder vehicle against existing records? And this is the top murder detective in Seattle?) and long on "shocking" reveals which turn out to be red herrings. I could go on and on and on. I am just pissed that I sat around hoping it would get better only to have my intelligence insulted with a big middle finger at the end.

Show runner is the prime producer of the show. In TV land director is a much less senior position as many shows have different directors week-to-week. That way a director can focus on an episode from an execution standpoint and not necessarily have to worry about the season story arcs and the organizational aspects of the show. Show runner is the person who manages the writing team usually and generally defines the arc of the show. They essentially "own" the show from a responsibility standpoint.

On another note: in reference to Smoot's last post. The only thing the show had that was consistently good was his character and the actor's performance...AND THEY EVEN HAD TO TAKE THAT AWAY IN THE END WITH SOME NONSENSICAL CRAP!!!

Memo to TV people. Characters can have hidden agendas...that is fine. Even characters that the audience has grown to like and appreciate can do things that are unlikeable. What characters can't do...because it doesn't follow in any logical sense...is act one way the entire season, especially in the "only the audience can see this stuff going on" context, and then act in a way completely contrary to all that they have been established as. They might as well have just introduced a whole entire new character at the end with no explanation. Holder can't be the slightly-off good-intentioned cop and then not all of a sudden. Perhaps if that was the facade he presented his co-workers when in reality we, the audience, knew he was less sympathetic it would have been acceptable. But that isn't the hand they played.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

SS - Can you get Bill Simmons to come on here and expand on this great article?
Bill Simmons on The Killing - Grantland

It seriously makes me mad that I wasted so much time with the show. I'd much rather have another season of Rubicon than the killing.
But, as sad as it is to admit, I might actually give season 2 a chance because I think the premise can be saved. Unless of course the backlash is so great that AMC just says "F it" and pretends they never agreed to keep going.

[SmootSmack]

Mr. Simmons and I aren't exactly best of friends

Watched the finale again. Tolerated it a bit more. Overall thought the episode wasn't awful, just expected some "closure" at the end. And I still don't know why I should feel bad that Rosie was killed, aside from the obvious. But we really know nothing about her

[JoeRedskin]

To me, the only thing that made the last four or five episodes tolerable was the acting.

[itvnetop]

Ah, I stand alone on this one. Loved the ending. Despite the network's promises, I didn't put my eggs in the reveal basket. I had no expectations regarding a final answer.

People are pissed and everyone's talking about it. Holder's ambivalent ending, Rosie's mystery ongoing, Season 2 picked up. I'm lovin' it.

Geez, they didn't answer "Who Killed Rosie Larsen?" after 13 eps. I think viewers forget that each ep. represented a day in the investigation. Some think the Ahmed arc took too long (and maybe it did represent 1/4 of the season). But it was a solid lead they followed for only two or three "TV" days. I see SS's criticism of wanting to know more about Rosie, but I think part of the show's mystery is finding out who she was. At the beginning of the investigation, the viewers only know that she was a bit contentious with her mother and she kept some suspect company. Towards the end, we learn she was experimenting with professional escorting. I'd say that's quite a bit of dead girl development within two "TV" weeks.

Although the billboards emphasize "Who Killed Rosie Larsen?", that's not how I watched this show. The mystery is a basis for the fallout on three levels- the Larsen family, the detective investigation and Richmond's campaign. Anyone remember Twin Peaks? ABC marketed the show as a murder mystery, but fans will tell you that finding out Laura Palmer's killer wasn't what kept them watching.

JJ Abrams had apologists galore after refusing to answer six seasons' worth of island mysteries (insert "Answers brought on more questions" and "It was always about the characters anyway" screams here).

[mredskins]

If you are down on the Killing still go watch Breaking Bad you have until 7/17 to get caught up for the start of season 4. Such a awesome series! I just finished season 3 on DVD, I put that action up against any Hollywood block buster. It was edge of your seat type stuff.