Every week following the end of a “True Detective” episode, we want to bring you at least one more perspective on what transpired over the course of the hour. This should allow for some more reflection, and a chance to analyze a franchise that at least so far is worth analyzing.
What we are wondering in the immediate aftermath of the premiere is this: Did the show stay a little too truthful to the original series? Nic Pizzolatto created a masterpiece there, and while we had a different setting here and some new characters, we wonder if the tone needed to be as close to the original as it was.
Take, for example, the interview scenes. We’re not sure that we needed them. We’re not looking so much at a history lesson this time revolving around characters and a long-dead case being brought back to life. Instead, we had three officers of varying degrees and a career criminal at the center, and the story was strong enough to support itself without flashes to potentially another time, or at least an aesthetic that already feels so familiar.
Another question we wonder here is if the show made the right decision in setting itself in the Los Angeles area. While it feels like a darker, seedier version of the City of Angels we see in other cop shows, we feel like what made the first season and also other shows like “Fargo” so special is that they feel almost like they are coming from a completely different world. This still felt familiar, and the first season was so fantastic, it may need to do more to stand out.
Now, we turn it to you. What do you think about these issues? Be sure to vote in the attached poll!
Want to get some other news when it comes to “True Detective,” including a review of the season premiere? Then all you have to do is head right over to the link here now! Also, you can sign up here in the event you want some other TV news on everything we cover courtesy of our CarterMatt Newsletter. (Photo: HBO.)