As great an episode as that was, I have a hard time believing that Holder is that fucking stupid.
Why do you do this to me Holder, why?!
I had a weird feeling something was up since it seems too easy getting the pic, but i really had no idea where the twist was going.
Ugh... 12 episodes and we learned nothing... I guess overall it was pretty good, but I still feel the same, it was too long and drug out. I'm not too happy that we still really learned nothing, but meh, I guess that's what makes a good mystery.
#thekilling @ twitter is pretty funny right now
It's is kind of odd that it got the green light for a second season being as how most of the reviews and comments from 90% of the people have been negative. Seems most people are like me and just didn't like it all that much. Or it could just be most people are just angry because the case did not get solved.
But I guess all in all, peoples reviews, comments, and opinions don't mean shit, ratings is all that matters, and it seems it did well on keeping its audience all the way through till the end. Let's just hope, for the Writers and AMC's sake, that they all return for the next season.
Knee jerk reactions. People are just pissed. I thought the episode ended fine, especially since they said they'd wrap it up and start a new case in season 2. I half expected them to just end the case right there with a huge cliffhanger and just start a new season with a new cast and new case without any resolution. Then they talked about wrapping it up in season 2 when they rolled credits. They could have pulled a Sapronos. It wasn't that damn bad. Only reason people are pissed is because they were so entrenched.
I just can't see how someone who is casual about the show would be so outraged.
And dragging on a mystery too long doesn't necessarily make it better. Remember Twin Peaks' second season? I don't recall ever being more pissed off at a TV show.
EW has a story on it already where they discuss Season Two.
I still hate it.Originally Posted by Executive Producer Veena Sud
Here's an article that pretty much matches my opinion, and provides a shockingly huge list of all the leaps of logic that had to occur to make the mystery happen, with the best quote being:
That specific quote is more about how the season went and less about the finale, but yeah, it still fits.Originally Posted by The AV Club
I feel the exact opposite. I much prefer the open ended formula that can end at any time than the convoluted Hollywood formula of nicely ending things every season. I don't want to learn everything, i don't wanna know everyones secrets. Once everything is explained, what's the point of going on? The article Reznor linked was pretty good and explains this a bit.
For whatever reason, the season finale of The Killing has made me re-examine the show completely. I realized there was certainly a fair amount of plot holes and illogical leaps, but the show had managed to maintain my suspension of disbelief until the last few moments of last night's episode. And now, I'm seeing plot holes in every corner and wondering why Linden & Holder are even still on the case, and prematurely rolling my eyes at the thought of how they are going to have to justify them being still on the case (or having a job) after getting two of their former suspects put in harm's way. They should both be on indefinite administrative leave once the false photograph is revealed, but I imagine that will be explained away in the first 15 minutes of the next episode.
It could indeed be an interesting series if it was impossible to predict how many episodes each "case" would take, and maybe that's what they are going for here. Maybe Rosie's case will take the first season and a half, but the next one takes only 3/4 of a season, meaning if you miss an episode, you could potentially miss the case solver. I would actually be OK with that from a conceptual standpoint; it might very well make for compelling viewing.
I understand that what the creators did was a calculated risk, and I to a certain extent I can admire that. They understood that no matter what happened last night, they were likely to lose some viewers. If they solved the case, some viewers were going to have that sense of closure and not feel the need to come back for the second season. If they didn't solve the case, they were going to piss off some viewers, but hopefully get them to come back next fall/winter/summer/spring to find out who killed Rosie Larsen.
But I doubt that they were expecting the tidal wave of vitriol I've seen from just about every TV critic this morning; the fans' reaction seems to be overwhelmingly negative as well. Of course, negative reactions are bound to be more vociferous than positive ones, but I can't imagine AMC was expecting or is happy with the results at this point.
While i can understand a lot of that Byrd, i also think that most people are just not used to a show with a formula like this, which leads to the negative buzz. They're expecting the same shit regurgitated into a "who done it" and they didn't get it. So many people didn't like the end because they were emotionally involved in the characters and needed closure. I think not giving them that was risky but also a lot more interesting in the grand scheme of things. I think you'll find more people that enjoyed it than hated it, but in the end, any buzz is good buzz.
I guess I just don't get "it". Is "it" supposed to be character development? Couldn't possibly be, all of the characters are pretty one-dimensional and unchanging throughout the entire series minus the relationships between the two detectives (which only really changed in the last couple episodes presumably only to be reset back with this dirty cop business exposed at the end of the finale) and the mayoral candidate and his girlfriend (which again only occurred at the very end of the season). Quite frankly, it's only been less than two weeks, how could these characters really develop within that time-frame and still seem plausible?
So is "it" supposed to be a showcase in which we see how the killing of a young woman can have a ripple effect and reach so far as to be a deciding force in a major city's mayoral election? I guess maybe? But if that's the case than those are some pretty intermittent ripples. It goes from the girl's immediate family (obvious), the detectives on the case (obvious), her friends (obvious), to her school/teacher (only starting to pull away a bit now), to all the way out to this election with nothing really in between. This is pretty much the same "regurgitated shit" we've all seen on Law & Order literally hundreds of times, just drawn out 13X more- the mother of the victim is shown stricken with greif in L&O for 3-4 minutes (if even shown at all besides sitting crying at the trial), in The Killing the mother is shown for HOURS by the end of the season and I just want to yell "OK, we get it! You are emotionally distressed and detached, let's move on to somebody else more interesting already". Then there's sideline stuff like the FBI raid and the campaign contributor came and went and was about as impactful as a fart in the wind.
I think with Lost you were dealing with some pretty crazy shit. Monsters, tribal hostilities, underground research facilities, people with demi-god powers, a moving island that could teleport you to the other side of the planet or the past and shoot magnetism into the sky. You really had to put yourself into the mindset that this is some seriously abnormal shit that could never occur outside of this fantasy land. Things that weren't explained could be written off as other-worldly magic and need not really be explored in any detail because 'that's just the power of the island' and because you aren't familiar with it, that's good enough. When something in The Killing isn't explained it's "what the fuck is going on here?!" because it is based in complete reality and murder mysteries are a genre that has been beaten to death and we are thus overly familiar and critical with them. There is no mysterious smoke monster or some buried hole that needs to be plugged to save the world, it's way way more ordinary than that and therefore has to be true to its constraints.I'm normally good with that -- I loved Lost, which was a show that often left a lot of things unanswered, didn't answer big mysteries with any obvious predictability or regularity, and whose season (and series) finales often produced more questions than answers. For whatever reason, last night's The Killing didn't work for me at all. Why did Lost's ongoing mysteries intrigue me and The Killing's prolongation piss me off so much? Since I watched it last night, I've been trying to figure out the difference in my reactions, and I can't put my finger on it.
After reading the AV club review, the Killing did have a lot of lose ends that weren't tied up. Being a mystery, a conclusion is something a viewer seeks. Considering this is a murder investigation and each EP is 1 day. 13 days and still no conclusion is reasonable for a murder case. I am hoping next season they conclude this case. Too much "random" stuff like smuggling the Somolia girl needs to be replaced with stuff that revolves around the murder case itself. A decent show and i will continue to watch.
Yeah, not interested in another show that jerks you around just for the sake of jerking you around. The producer keeps saying that they don't want their show to follow a formula but "jerking the audience around while trying to buy time for the writers to figure out the ending" already is a formula. The AV club listed many of the reasons why I checked out on the show but stayed just so I could see who was the killer. This show had so many useless scenes and episodes.
This is becoming like so many of those shows and movies that I hate: when the main characters could have resolved everything in 5 mins if they would only ask the right question or give a clear answer. Instead the 5 mins are getting expanded into 13+ episodes of bullshit.