Reply With Quote
I think he knew exactly where he was going and faked it for the call to his son. After he left, who knows.
It was definitely more of a happy ending than seasons 1 and 2. I liked that the new reporter who was making the do entary's theory of a pedophilia ring was completely wrong and she was nowhere to be seen in the finale. That was a nice subtle shout out to Rust and Marty though. This case was just much more simplistic and we were able to see the True Detectives solve it. I'm assuming Roland was gay and lived his life in the closet. Or maybe him and Tom had a secret relationship at some point. I guess the dog scene after he gets beat up at the gay bar is why he loves dogs so much in 2015. Did Wayne really forget where we was and that he was going to meet Julie at the end? Or was he faking it and just happy that she was alive and happy?
I think he knew exactly where he was going and faked it for the call to his son. After he left, who knows.
Sorry, fellas, Pizza already said that Roland wasn't gay (even before the finale) and that Hays forgot where he was or what he was doing at Julie's place.
There was also no real reason for Hays to fake his condition or for him to get out the car and talk to Julie in the first place. It's kind of hard to care about what happened in the finale, when everything has long since stopped mattering.
I'm sorry but if we're supposed to believe that Hayes, after a chance encounter with a kid and landscaper, had some sort of ghost-wife-aided epiphany that revealed Julie's true whereabouts, that's a re ed ing ending.
I'm choosing to believe that wasn't actually Julie. That his dementia brain invented that story in his mind momentarily to give the story a happy ending. Unless someone can explain to me how it makes any sense otherwise.
The contrivance is Hays knocking the book down and it just-so-happened to land on the page that mentioned Mike--the guy he met that same day. Hays then had an epiphany about Julie's actual fate, that manifested itself as his dead wife.
Pizza doesn't really do ambiguity. He already said on Instagram that Hays's episode of dementia was real, that Roland wasn't gay, and that Hays's son was supposed to figure out the mystery, but that part was cut from the finale.
Basically, once Hays and West killed that corrupt former cop, the story was over. Julie already escaped by then and Isabelle killed herself. Hoyt probably died long before 2015, so all that's left is the one-eyed black dude, whom the heroes let go.
I thought it was great good season
That's a valid interpretation, a big theme was how we tell ourselves lies to keep on going.
Great season overall. I enjoyed it.
The writer of the show literally said that that wasn't the case, so it isn't a "valid interpretation."
Ridley Scott said Decker was an android after 25 years of it being clear he wasn't, so shrug
Personally I think it was real, he forgot as he walked up the driveway, remembered again as he looked at the little girl while drinking water, then forgot once again.
First of all, Ridley Scott didn't write Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and he didn't write Blade Runner, either. Second, if a writer writes something, and then tells the reader what it means, how can that reader say, with a straight face, that the author's interpretation of his own work is wrong?
Pizza said that Hays went through an episode of dementia and that his son was supposed to solve the mystery, but it was cut. Any other interpretation is making up.
Nothing is open to interpretation apparently.
If somebody tells you that what you said doesn't mean what you think you said, would you be aggravated?
Pizza tries to be artsy and metaphorical all the time, it's not a stretch to interpret the final edit in a way that's consistent with what's been shown already.
Once the art form is created subjectivity takes over. The guy who made True Detective does not control Spurminator's perception.
It happens all the time, you don't have to take it personally. Sometimes, sure. I'd probably be more aggravated with people calling me Pizza all the time, however.
And Spurminator's perception of a piece of art, is not equally valid to the creator's perception of that art. No offense to him, but if the writer explicitly says that Spurminator's opinion is wrong, then Spurminator's opinion is wrong.
If one creates a piece of art and explicitly tells the viewer what it means, telling them that their opinion on their own work is wrong, is re ed.
Would you like it if people put words in your mouth? I wouldn't. I would hate it if somebody told me that I don't mean what I say.
Last edited by redzero; 02-28-2019 at 01:05 PM.
Meh. I think he is delighted with people interpreting what they choose and doesn't see it as refuting his vision as wrong.
I'm fine with this philosophy. I didn't know they had commented on it. I prefer ambiguity in cases like this but if the writers have directly stated the meaning, then that's the meaning.
In which case, it was a stupid hack ending that ruined a good season.
lol
It was partly annoying it wrapped up so nicely and perfectly, but OTOH I didn't have ending blue-balls like I did for True Detective 1
Cool information. I didn't think about this in that way. What do you think about your mind and how do you work with it? You need to have a great health improvement strategy. I think you will be really interested in this: whereweedlegal.com/choosing-where-is-weed-legal/ and you will get better in different areas by using this thing. Because with it you will find good ways in your life.
Jodie Foster.
No thanks.
i was about 2 episodes into season 2 and stopped watching, never went back
Season 2 should've been called something else. Has nothing to do with what season 1 was at all.
Season 3 is a return to form. Can watch it totally skipping s2. God only knows what's going to happen with 4 with all the changes.
Taking in season one...again
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
