There’s something to be said about a well-made HBO Original Series. At their worst, they’re a bit forgettable, but at their best they give audiences unforgettable experiences that people are still talking about to this day. Ever seen The Sopranos? How about The Wire? They appear in just about every “greatest shows of all time” list ever made.
One series that HBO has seen mixed success with is True Detective. When True Detective first arrived on the scene it was hailed as a masterpiece of storytelling and seemed poised to be the next juggernaut for the station. However, HBO’s hubris and hunger to replicate this success actually almost led to the complete failure of the series after its second season. This is a closer look into what parts of the series worked, what didn’t, and why HBO should still make a season 4.
Most detective shows certainly cover grisly topics and have darker tones (see Criminal Minds), but few had ever done what True Detective did in its first season. Viewers are introduced to a murder and the cops investigating it, but not as the events occur. Instead, the audience is receiving a retelling of these events from the detectives who investigated the case almost 20 years prior.
It becomes clear that what these characters are saying doesn’t match what actually happened all those years ago: they’ve changed significant details. Why they changed the details is just as interesting as the central mystery, though the two plots do eventually converge.
It’s a weirdly philosophical detective show as well, with the main characters discussing life, death, and the nature of existence. Matthew McConaughey’s famous “Time is a flat circle,” line that ended up being the inspiration for an entire Lincoln ad campaign. Speaking of McConaughey and his co-lead of the series Woody Harrelson, the two give career-best performances in the first season of the show. They really sell the relationship between these two men and the only disappointment regarding their characters by the end of the season is that we don’t get to see even more of them.
On paper, True Detective Season 2 sounded incredible. Starring Rachel McAdams, Collin Ferrell, Taylor Kitsch, and Vince Vaughn, HBO clearly hoped to make an impression with their casting choices and replicate the success of Season 1. However, in the hopes of keeping the hype alive around the first season, HBO wanted the second season to premiere just a year later. Writing, producing, and bringing a full show to television is a time-consuming process, even for a top-tier writer like Nick Pizzolatto. Just like how season 1 subverted expectations, season 2 was expected to reinvent the wheel once again.
The truncated timeline to make the second season is evident throughout the runtime. While the first season was based upon strong character interactions, the star-studded cast of the second season barely ever interacts with one another. Their stories are so loosely connected that a person may as well have been watching 3 separate series at the same time. Every single actor brings their best to the table and they give solid performances, but it’s just not enough to make up for the weak points of the script.
In attempting to make a true noir detective story, HBO told a tale where nothing matters that left audiences feeling indifferent. For example, audiences are supposed to care that Collin Ferrell’s character wants to see his son again, but the kid is totally unlikeable to the point that these scenes become tedious. It’s a real shame, because there are moments of greatness and points where the cast do come together that show glimpses what this season could have been were it allowed more time to develop. The show did not do nearly as well as a result and ended up putting the status of the series on ice for almost 4 years. Where season 2 failed to learn from the success of season 1, season 3 makes up for the sins of the second.
Season 3 went back to True Detective’s roots. Fans once again received a story about two buddy cops investigating a case. However, the fun twist here is that the case went unsolved and the lead character, played by Mahershala Ali, is now an elderly man starting to suffer memory loss. The season also introduced his character in 3 different time periods, but his memory loss makes him an unreliable narrator of past events for different reasons than the lies told by the main characters in season 1.
Once again, there is an intricate script that keeps up the pace well enough while also introducing plenty of twists and turns. Most importantly, there’s reason again to care about the characters because the story is engaging for the viewer and thoughtful in it’s presentation. It’s also the most timely of all three seasons, with the main character being a person of color and having to deal with that in different time periods of his life. HBO needs to have another story worth telling in order to make a successful season 4 of True Detective.
While nothing has been confirmed yet by HBO, fans still have their hopes up. It would be incredible to see HBO keep what worked about seasons 1 and 3 in mind but also make key changes. A new season of True Detective should have a female main character. They tried to do this in season 2 and while Rachel McAdams does well, the story fails to do her any favors. Such a story could touch on separate time periods again, with a stark contrast in how misogyny is portrayed in a police headquarters in the past vs. how changes after the “Me Too” movement have transpired. Should they commit to a fourth season this would be the freshest way to go while remaining true to the series roots and what makes it unique.
![\"IT電腦補習](\"http://itteacheritfreelance.hk/test/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/logo2-2.png\"){kind=logo}
www.itsec.hk
www.itsec.vip
www.itseceu.uk
Leave a Reply