gomerschlep said:

---

So season 4 is going to be set in Nebraska? Anybody else catch that?

---

Ah, please elaborate!

benchmark said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

So season 4 is going to be set in Nebraska? Anybody else catch that?

---

Ah, please elaborate!

---

Think this is tongue in cheek...the documentary chick brought up "the Nebraska case" along with the Louisiana case from season 1 when talking to Hays.

BowSowy said:

---

Aggie12B said:

---

After watching episode 7 for the third time, I have 3 questions that I wonder if someone could explain to me.
?1) Where in the hell did Harris get the knife that he was trying to stab Purple with, after Purple uncured him in the barn when Purple and Roland were questioning him? NVM, watching it again, I think it was Purple's revolver that they were fighting over.

?2) How in the F*** could Hoyt possibly know what happened the night before he called Purple and told Purple he wanted to discuss the events of last night, as I understand them?

?3) Who in the hell is in the car outside 2015 Purple's house?

---

The episode came out last night and you've already watched it 3 times? Damn dude.

---

Insomnia

gomerschlep said:

---

So season 4 is going to be set in Nebraska? Anybody else catch that?

---

Nic shot that down too.

I gotta say I really like the "after the show" segments he does as he walks us through the title of the episode and some of the more thematic elements to it. He does come off as a little stiff and pretentious but great insight into the thought process.

Loved where he discussed the shoot-out a few eps back and he shot that scene to go as fast as possible during the chaos so it could go as slow as possible once Hays got inside to talk to Woodard

Damn. I was kinda stoked about that for a minute. Underrated state.

gomerschlep said:

---

Damn. I was kinda stoked about that for a minute. Underrated state.

---

lol. Nebraska would be Fargo....without the accents.

speaking of Fargo season 4 stars Chris Rock (weird right) in a 1950s era KC gangster plot. So even Fargo skipped over Nebraska to KC. they've done ND, SD, Minn and now KC.

All my in-laws live in Nebraska and they have a huge family. The midwestern accent is alive and well up there. Good people though.

The main question now is that with all the facts we have and all the quasi firm theories, why are they still investigating in 2015? Not only West and Hays, but also the film crew?

It looks like in 1990 we're pretty sure Hoyt is behind everything, but if that were the case, why is anything in 2015 even pertinent? Hmmm....

Man, next week is gonna be awesome (I hope! )

It looked like in the preview for next week they show the Hoyt mansion in disrepair, abandoned. Leads me to think something goes down with Hoyt in the 90's

Didn't someone in the latest timeline already mention that he died a few years back?

grrrr

son of a b....

cannot make sp tags work - wtf? i've done them many times before.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at last night. Hoyt's dead. Harris is dead. Tom's dead. Especially with Hoyt out of the picture, there's really nothing left to "solve" in terms of justice being served, is there? I just don't understand the point of the latest timeline if it's only to put a few minor pieces of the puzzle together once and for all. Hays and West already know there was a broader conspiracy. They already know Harris killed Lucy (and assume he killed Tom as well). What significant realizations are left? What does it matter if they confirm their suspicion that a one-eyed black guy likely kidnapped Julie 35 years ago? It just seems like a lot of work to figure out some relatively minor details. And in terms of character arcs - if we're saying it's about the detectives themselves more than the case - there's really nothing apparent that needs to be mended or completed, other than Hays wanting to confirm his suspicious of something he's likely been right about all along, but will forget about again soon anyway.

I guess I'm still curious to know...

- Where Julie is now.

- Why Hoyt kidnapped Julie. Because he's A) a pedophile, B) wanted a "replacement" daughter or C) because Julie IS his daughter (as he and Lucy may have hooked up at some point).

- If not B or C, where does the pedo ring stuff come in? They wouldn't have mentioned that stuff as much as they have if it doesn't come back into play somehow.

- If Eliza has some kind of involvement or stake other than simply wanting to try and crack the case for her show.

... but none of that remotely compares to any kind of big "Who's the killer???" or "Are they going to catch the killer???" type question usually left dangling at this point in the story (as in season one). And again, it'd be different if some big suspect were still alive, or the detective's character arcs still weren't complete, but even those feel like they really don't need that much more attention.

Again, this is still high-quality storytelling, and easily one of the best shows on TV, I just wish I wasn't essentially feeling like a the equivalent of shoulder shrug emoji going into the finale.

Totally get where you're coming from and I share a lot of the same feelings but I'm a bit more optimistic that the finale will have a few oh sheet moments/revelations.

I really hope so. I hope I'm not coming across as too "arrogant" as to not leave room for the possibility of surprise. I would obviously welcome an unexpected "Oh, sh*t" moment or two, I just can't fathom what'd they'd be, short of Rust Cohle showing up to help bring this thing home.

TCTTS said:

---

I really hope so. I hope I'm not coming across as too "arrogant" as to not leave room for surprise. I would obviously welcome an unexpected "Oh, sh*t" moment or two.

---

It follows the same outline as S1. Grand conspiracy, cult/pedo ring implications with a large family (Tuttle/Hoyt) at the center, a somewhat forced event that helps cracks the case (MM helping a biker gang and then breaking into a mansion to steal a videotape / the one-eyed-black-man making a "I really should stay under the radar since I know they were looking for me and I'm easily identifiable but maybe I'll make an extravagant scene at this big book signing related to the case" appearance.

Ultimately in the end we get one guy loosely related to the family who was doing the killings (that doesn't really make an appearance until the last episode). This time we get the guy responsible making his appearance in the last episode.

If we assume the third "old-man" timeline isn't just there to hammer home Emmy nominations, I would guess that one of the political figures is making a run for a higher office and this reporter decided to dig to see if he purposely mis-directed a the investigation that made him however many years ago.

I feel like just yesterday you were telling me that this was a character-driven show and the characters are the story, not the case -- so are you really surprised that there's a lot of the case that really isn't going to get fleshed out?

I share your love for S1, but it was due to the acting, setting and that dread you mentioned... but the dread ultimately ended in a whimper as it lead up to some disgusting guy in a disheveled house out in the country, not some grand reveal. The stories are run-of-the-mill.

My biggest gripe with this season so far came in yesterday's episode with Hays "feeling the presence" of his younger self. The entire "time is a flat circle" stuff from MM in Season 1 that people had theory after theory about proved not to be relevant to the actual story at all, so are we really re-visiting that type stuff again in S3 with an episode to go? Seems like the series sometimes tries to pretend it's a lot deeper from a story-telling standpoint than it really is.

Quote:

---

I feel like just yesterday you were telling me that this was a character-driven show and the characters are the story, not the case -- so are you really surprised that there's a lot of the case that really isn't going to get fleshed out?

I share your love for S1, but it was due to the acting, setting and that dread you mentioned... but the dread ultimately ended in a whimper as it lead up to some disgusting guy in a disheveled house out in the country, not some grand reveal. The stories are run-of-the-mill.

---

This PERFECTLY underlines my point. True Detective IS a character-driven show, and IMO, season one PERFECTLY managed to meld the arcs of plot, case, and character in the final episode, in exactly the way you're alluding and should be. They got their killer (plot) - even if it was in a "whimper" (which I disagree with) - but the grander case went unresolved, and most importantly, Rust went from pessimist to finally having hope in the end (character), which was ultimately what everything was in service of.

I'm agreeing that this show is and should be character driven, but I've said multiple times now that I'm simply not seeing the "character" of it all that's driving the (somewhat lacking) plot. What is the Rust-goes-from-pessimist-to-semi-optimist arc in this season with Hays or whoever else? I keep saying that I don't understand what the character arcs, if any, are supposed to be leading toward, and you keep saying "but it's character driven" without pointing to specifics. I legitimately want someone to tell me what I'm missing so I have more anticipation going into Sunday, but no one here has yet to pinpoint what the "character" aspect of the show is arcing/driving toward, seeing as that's really what this is all about. I guess, maybe, it's that Hays wants to "solve" the case, in so much as THAT is at least a part of his "memory" that he can try to put back together? Or, rather, since he can't put his memory back together he's at least going to try and put this case back "together." But even then, again, he's just going to forget at all soon enough, so that seems somewhat unsatisfying.

Either way, it's just not all gelling for me like season one. Yes, the one-eyed-black-man is somewhat the equivalent of Errol in season one - in terms of the the overall chest pieces - but that plot point isn't anywhere near as compelling or creepy or as engrossing as it was in season one. I cared that they at least got the killer in season one (even though that wasn't the most important aspect, next to character), but here, I just don't care at all if the black guy - if he even is Will's killer - is caught or killed or not, because it's been 35 years since that happened, among other reasons.

I think as far as character evolvement goes, about all you can really point to is that the conclusion of the case will put Hays mind at peace (something it hasn't ever been, even before the case) and will re-kindle the friendship/bond that was once forming between the two detectives -- possibly with Hays providing the companionship that West needs, and West providing the care-taking that Hays needs.

But yeah, even with that it won't have the same impact of the S1 character evolution.

Stive said:

---

I think the giant curveball would have to be something around either:

a) The district/state attorney being heavily involved and in the middle of the final episode
b) The dementia being WAY worse than anything we've seen. He's imagining the partner with him, he's been in a home the whole time, something bad happened to him in '90 (shot in the head) and he's a vegetable now, etc.


I don't think they'd introduce a brand new character at this point (2015) to be the target.

---

B seems impossible. Nic has stated there is no unreliable narrator scenario at play. Meaning what we are seeing is real at least in so much as the real stuff. The obvious unreal stuff like the few Hays visions are of course in his head. But not scenes portrayed as reality.

Did we ever find out how Amelia died?

Not that I know of.

astros4545 said:

---

Did we ever find out how Amelia died?

---

I'm equally as curious as to when she died. The preview of ep 8 showed her with slightly graying hair. I think she was already gone when Hays dropped Becca off at college, which should have been around 2003. Based on that info, I'm assuming she died in ~ 2002/2003.... which would have put her at about 47-48 years old. Pretty young age to go.

Shelton98 said:

---

astros4545 said:

---

Did we ever find out how Amelia died?

---

I'm equally as curious as to when she died. The preview of ep 8 showed her with slightly graying hair. I think she was already gone when Hays dropped Becca off at college, which should have been around 2003. Based on that info, I'm assuming she died in ~ 2002/2003.... which would have put her at about 47-48 years old. Pretty young age to go.

---

Help me out...I can't recall when they revealed she died. I just remember euphemisms like "gone" "after she left us".....

benchmark said:

---

Shelton98 said:

---

astros4545 said:

---

Did we ever find out how Amelia died?

---

I'm equally as curious as to when she died. The preview of ep 8 showed her with slightly graying hair. I think she was already gone when Hays dropped Becca off at college, which should have been around 2003. Based on that info, I'm assuming she died in ~ 2002/2003.... which would have put her at about 47-48 years old. Pretty young age to go.

---

Help me out...I can't recall when they revealed she died. I just remember euphemisms like "gone" "after she left us".....

---

I think there was a comment in the 2015 timeline indicating she died a couple of years prior

This episode pretty much steered us in the direction we figured it would... after stewing on it for a day I have two questions about it...

1. If they were trying to make it look like Tom offed himself on the tower.... why was he missing one of his shoes? Sloppy framing work or will it pop back up in the finale?

2. How in the wide wide world of sports did Hoyt know what Hays/West did to Harris James? Was GPS even available outside of the military in 1990?

Shelton98 said:

---

1. If they were trying to make it look like Tom offed himself on the tower.... why was he missing one of his shoes? Sloppy framing work or will it pop back up in the finale?

---

I think I saw it on one of the lower stairs as they were climbing up. It just fell off and landed below.