The Killing - new show on AMC

[HalIncandenza]

here is someone defending the show.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/the-killing-finale-clearer-than-you-thought/?ref=arts

One thing I've read in a few places, in defense of the Killing/Holder, is what is mentioned here about Holder manufacturing evidence to speed up the process and get around bureaucrats. Why?

Was there a timeline that he had to have Richmond nailed by? It had only been two weeks since the murder; it's not like there's a statute of limitations issue or anything. Richmond was the main suspect for a day. Why would you manufacture evidence to speed up the process?

The crazy thing is, that really might be what the writers were going for, as dumb as they were all season. I mean, if they wrote Ahmed's wife as not being able to recognize Stan(one of the dumber things I've seen in recent TV), maybe they would be dumb enough to go this route with Holder, as well.

 

[Say Hey Deac]

PS what the fuck is a "showrunner"? Never heard that term before. Is that like a director or something? Why not just say director?

The showrunner is the person who basically oversees everything -- writing, directing, casting, etc. He/She doesn't write every script or direct every episode (that responsibility is usually split between a bunch of writers and directors), but the showrunner is the one with creative control.

For example, Matt Weiner is the showrunner of Mad Men. He created the show, maps out the general storylines, and usually writes and directs the key episodes. But he has a team of writers who end up writing most of the show's screenplays and directors who direct (e.g., Jon Hamm is directing the debut episode of Season 5).

Other well-known showrunners:

David Simon - The Wire
David Chase - Sopranos
Vince Gilligan - Breaking Bad
Joss Whedon - Buffy
Shawn Ryan - The Shield
Damon Lindelof/Carlton Cuse - Lost

 

[Say Hey Deac]

here is someone defending the show.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/the-killing-finale-clearer-than-you-thought/?ref=arts

That's the same writer who wrote this article, which calls into serious question whether she even watched the episode before writing the review. Her fellow critics are all over her:

[URL="http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/new-york-times-critic-presumes-solve-killing-28382"]http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/new-york-times-critic-presumes-solve-killing-28382[/URL]

 

[PhDeac]

The showrunner is the person who basically oversees everything -- writing, directing, casting, etc. He/She doesn't write every script or direct every episode (that responsibility is usually split between a bunch of writers and directors), but the showrunner is the one with creative control.

For example, Matt Weiner is the showrunner of Mad Men. He created the show, maps out the general storylines, and usually writes and directs the key episodes. But he has a team of writers who end up writing most of the show's screenplays and directors who direct (e.g., Jon Hamm is directing the debut episode of Season 5).

Other well-known showrunners:

David Simon - The Wire
David Chase - Sopranos
Vince Gilligan - Breaking Bad
Joss Whedon - Buffy
Shawn Ryan - The Shield
Damon Lindelof/Carlton Cuse - Lost

To Rubbins point, I knew about all those guys' involvement in their shows, but I never heard the term "showrunner" until I started reading/listening to Sepinwall. I think they were just called "creator".

This isn't the best place to post it, but I'm too lazy to start a post or read the whole thing, or give a proper link, but there is a long series of interviews with Community showrunner Dan Harmon breaking down every episode of Community last season. I found it linked off Sepinwall, but it's with another writer.

 

[RubbinsRacin]

Indeed, I knew about those dudes but always heard them referenced as creator. Live and learn.

 

[jaybone]

I understand all the criticism, but I still like the show and will watch Season 2.

The criticisms that there were too many red herring leads is off base though I think -- it is really difficult to sustain a single murder across an entire season without red herrings. There was a show 20 years ago that tried called Murder One, and it was okay, but they introduced multiple suspects from the get go as if the case was the game of Clue. The show had a top rate pedigree (I think the creator was the guy who did LA Law) and got cancelled half way through the season, which was kind of funny because the case then was never solved.

There were a lot of great scenes in The Killing(s). Most all of the characters were believable. It was weird seeing Bruce Campbell is a middle aged man. I remember him as the boy wonder in the movie The Rocketeer.

You are sort of damned if you do damned if you don't in this genre. If everybody guesses the killer and the motivation and everything episodes in advance, you're criticized, but if you pull the rug out from under everyone 5 minutes before the end of the season, you're also criticized. I think there were plenty of tells in this show to indicate that resolution was not going to be high on the priority list. It seems to me that one of tragedies of murder or even accidental death is the futility of resolution for parents, friends, brothers, etc... the philosophy of the show seemed to be an extension of that.

 

[Say Hey Deac]

I understand all the criticism, but I still like the show and will watch Season 2.

Enjoy being the only one, dude.

 

[jaybone]

Okay. My wife likes it too, so there are at least two of us.

 

[Freakindeacon33]

here is someone defending the show.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/the-killing-finale-clearer-than-you-thought/?ref=arts

Didn't the promo for next season kind of completely contradict her theory? Didn't they imply that next season would be about finding the real killer? Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, because I was fuming at the end of the episode, but either way this reviewer is so wrong it's ridiculous.

Bottom line, after two days of reflection: A show in its first season that is based on cliffhangers every week MUST have some sort of closure at the end of the season, rather than just the mother of all cliffhangers.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Wow -- glad I didn't watch any of it.

 

[PhDeac]

Sepinwall's podcast on this was awesome. I appreciate well-placed anger.

They brought up some larger things that I didn't think about. I didn't watch Rubicon. I forgot that there was a huge uproar about that season (ended up being series) finale too.

This line from Sepinwall killed me: "They only have one move and that's misdirection."

After that line, it hit me. Watching The Killing was like watching offense under Grobe. The first two eps were pretty good and very promising then all we got was crappy misdirection for the sake of misdirection with little payoff. Thankfully there was enough talent to help make the show passable.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

Haven't listened to that Sepinwall podcast but I think it's a little harsh to mention Rubicon in the same breath as The Killing. Rubicon was a severely flawed show that was paced terribly, but at least it was earnest and interesting and it actually tried to wrap up the main story line of the season while leaving the door cracked for a future season.

 

[DeaconSlim2.0]

I've read several take-down pieces of the finale. One such review called in the "worst season finale in television history," which seems about right to me, at least among the shows I've watched.

What I'm really waiting for is the ultimately take-down piece about how, in light of the Holder revelation, nothing that we previously saw makes any sense. For example, the scene with Holder and the escort in the hotel room -- what the fuck was that? If he was in on it, why have that scene? And why the revelatory scene when he goes to the corner of whatever street, sees the Richmond campaign poster, and calls Linden? And why was he trying so hard to bust the teacher earlier in the season? I'm sure there's a laundry list of these questions that one could compile if one went back to watch previous episodes, which I'm obviously not going to do because this show sucked after episode 3. But, if I was so inclined, I feel confident I would conclude that NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE.

Lost in the terrible twist ending is the fact that Richmond as the killer was almost as stupid. That also didn't make any sense. But it's overshadowed by the stupidity of the twist ending. That says a lot right there.

Can't believe some of you are so inept at following the plot/sequence of events...

The whole scene with Holder wasn't necessarily showing that he was dirty from the beginning...THAT would ruin the entire season as nothing would make sense....

But what PROBABLY happened is Holder realized that the toll cameras were down (didn't Linden tell him to requisition the footage?...why would that call come to her)....and knew that if they didn't land Richmond, the whole case would just wash away because they were out of evidence and suspects.

Either that or someone (whoever was in the car) is paying him off to set up Richmond now that he was the prime suspect....which makes me think that it's the Mayor giving his last grasp at winning the election.

There is 100% no way that Holder was in on the setup/being dirty/etc from the beginning, it happened in the last day (last episode or two) and it was done to either close the case before all suspects were cleared, or as part of a bribe (Mitch?...Mayor?....who else would have motive to setup Richmond?)...

I didn't like the ending...especially after reading on wikipedia that Rosie's killer would be identified...which I assumed meant Rosie's case would end.....and then assumed they were going to draw it out a little longer and find proof of the killer, but whoever it was would be on the run or something....i.e, "identified" but not "captured".

Really don't understand having Belko kill Richmond, seems like they closed out his arc with the interrogation scene and his firing....but I guess that's his last ditch effort to ingratiate himself with the Larsens...

I guess the "cliffhangers" for next season are if Belko really pulls the trigger....who Holder got in the car with....and if Linden gets off the plane.

Oh yea...and who really killed Rosie

:wtftard:


Now I thought it was a pretty poor finale along the lines of The Sopranos "wtf, they didn't tell us what happened" bullshit....but I think it was better than most are making it out to be....

I will more than likely watch Season 2 if only to see how they justify or make up for the Season 1 finale.


All that said...how do you all wish it ended?....just cut and dry with the killer arrested and Linden off to Cali and then completely start over next season?....that would be a little odd to me....and I think even then people would be bitching about the weeks of deliberating between suspects and the in-depth focus on the family and characters only to have it all easily swept up into a tidy episode that concluded everything pretty simply.

I wouldn't say it was the worst finale ever....but it did lack a lot of what SHOULD happen in a finale for a show like this.

Funnily enough, they had a BB episode on after the 2nd showing of the Killing last night. I watched it, and combined with watching an episode of the Wire beforehand, it just made me angrier at The Killing.

Pretty sure they've been doing that all season...at least I've seen BB episodes between 12a-1a a few times

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

The Sopranos finale was good.

 

[HalIncandenza]

Haven't listened to that Sepinwall podcast but I think it's a little harsh to mention Rubicon in the same breath as The Killing. Rubicon was a severely flawed show that was paced terribly, but at least it was earnest and interesting and it actually tried to wrap up the main story line of the season while leaving the door cracked for a future season.

Well, I think they did more of a take on how different the show's finales were, yet both roundly criticized, i.e. that the Killing said "eff you viewers, you get nothing, no conclusion" while Rubicon sped itself up and wrapped up everything in a way too easy manner in order to appease the fans in case it wasn't renewed.

I thought Rubicon was a far, far better show. Yes, it was slow and had pacing problems (which, if paced correctly, the finale would have been more even as well), but it was a whole hell of a lot smarter of a show and was produced about a million times better. The story was good, but they just didn't approach it correctly, in terms of pace. The characters were also a lot better, imo.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

Well, I think they did more of a take on how different the show's finales were, yet both roundly criticized, i.e. that the Killing said "eff you viewers, you get nothing, no conclusion" while Rubicon sped itself up and wrapped up everything in a way too easy manner in order to appease the fans in case it wasn't renewed.

I thought Rubicon was a far, far better show. Yes, it was slow and had pacing problems (which, if paced correctly, the finale would have been more even as well), but it was a whole hell of a lot smarter of a show and was produced about a million times better. The story was good, but they just didn't approach it correctly, in terms of pace. The characters were also a lot better, imo.

I agree with all of that.

 

[HalIncandenza]

All that said...how do you all wish it ended?....just cut and dry with the killer arrested and Linden off to Cali and then completely start over next season?....that would be a little odd to me....and I think even then people would be bitching about the weeks of deliberating between suspects and the in-depth focus on the family and characters only to have it all easily swept up into a tidy episode that concluded everything pretty simply.

I'm not really sure. I think it would have been better if the killer had been identified at the beginning of the finale, then chased and caught at the very end or escaped in some way that implicated a partner of sorts that we didn't expect.

Either way, the only reason a lot of people continued watching was to find the identity of the killer, since the rest of the season sucked so hard outside of roughly 4 episodes. I don't understand how they throw that curveball at the very end when they didn't do shit for about 8 episodes in the middle. People should rightfully be pissed off.

I actually have far more of a problem with the people behind the show's resolution than the actual resolution itself. They used info that was present at the very beginning of the investigation as the final nail? They pull up to a gas station and the guy immediately says "yeah, I know the sedan, the guy, and the girl screaming." Ahmed's wife not recognizing the guy who beat her husband and who was also the father of the famous dead daughter who her husband taught? And finally, the laughably obvious "Linden's getting on the plane, here she goes, oh shit it's a phone call with evidence that will make her stay"?

How dumb do they think their viewers are?

 

[PhDeac]

Haven't listened to that Sepinwall podcast but I think it's a little harsh to mention Rubicon in the same breath as The Killing. Rubicon was a severely flawed show that was paced terribly, but at least it was earnest and interesting and it actually tried to wrap up the main story line of the season while leaving the door cracked for a future season.

They didn't lump this with Rubicon. They just mentioned that viewers were pissed about the finale.

 

[DeaconSlim2.0]

The Sopranos finale was good.

It was a good finale, but the "we're not really going to tell you what happens" bullshit ending was not.

I don't like the laziness of leaving things up in the air in the name of artistic ambiguity or to seem "cool"....having fans/viewers invest their time for 13 weeks (or in The Sopranos case, 8 years) only to fuck them out of a true ending is just evil.


Unlike The Sopranos though, this show still has more story to tell, and that's one of the only redeeming qualities of the finale.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

It was a good finale, but the "we're not really going to tell you what happens" bullshit ending was not.

I don't like the laziness of leaving things up in the air in the name of artistic ambiguity or to seem "cool"....having fans/viewers invest their time for 13 weeks (or in The Sopranos case, 8 years) only to fuck them out of a true ending is just evil.


Unlike The Sopranos though, this show still has more story to tell, and that's one of the only redeeming qualities of the finale.

I don't know if people still have this debate but Tony is definitely dead at the end of The Sopranos. Breaking down the scene, the season, and David Chase's comments proves that to be the case with almost complete certainty. If you have some free time and are interested still this breakdown of the scene and the entire final season is impeccably done.