Jump to content

True Detective Season 3

Patrick Bateman

By Patrick Bateman
in Movies and TV

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 504
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

yoladu
yoladu

my favorite exchange so far is when Woodard was being questioned by Hays and West West: “Do you like kids, generally?” . Woodard: “What the hell is the right answer to that?!”

sidis
sidis

jesus fucking christ man...are you a complete fucking idiot? you completely left off alexandra daddario's tits... fucking hell.

mdmost
mdmost

Seriously, that shootout didn’t get you excited? And Stephen Dorff is so great in this. I’m interested how they lazily pinned this on the Indian trashman. And did the Dad take the fall in 1990? I swea

Helobious

Helobious 9454

Posted
Posted
On 2/13/2019 at 4:59 PM, A-Tex Devil said:

 

The cutaway from when Emilia is interviewing the runaway to the landscaping guy out the window was too conspicuous not to mean something as well.  

Side of his truck said “Ardoin Landscaping”

Mike Ardoin is the kid that gave the detectives the info about the dolls in 1980. Same kid that waved at Julie as she passed by on her bike at the beginning of episode 1. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
billfromlaketravis

billfromlaketravis 11486

Posted
Posted

Freaking Pizzolatto. He introduces a 4th timeline in the second to last episode. When Wayne drops Becca off at college. Why? People are baffled by three story lines, so Nic just says f*** it, let's introduce a 4th timeline. Because it's True Detective and the delicate genius can do whatever he wants. 

The Harris James part was tough to watch. We've been building for that all season, and the guy doesn't say s***. What is Edward Hoyt going to say? Yes I did it. I abducted Lucy and killed her bother. Hell no. It'll be some short conversation where Hoyt blackmails Wayne into ending the investigation. 

The only interesting part of the Hoyt meeting is finding out how he knew about Harris James being killed the night before. Obviously Roland had to tell Hoyt. It'd be quite a leap for Hoyt to think oh Harris James didn't come to work this morning, he must have been killed by the two police officers that interviewed him recently. If Pizzolatto doesn't explain this in some detail, I might be out if there's a Season 4. 

I'm sure it'll end it much like Season 1. Nice tidy ending. Where they nail one guy and the larger conspiracy goes unsolved. 

Funny thought: Unless Mamie Gummer is in at least half of Episode 8, I can imagine Meryl Streep jumping down Pizzolatto's neck. Why cast a big name for a just a handful of scenes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38129

Posted
Posted

Only one episode left, and we still don’t know shit. Tom’s dead. Harris is dead. Yet we’ve learned nothing. They have a shit ton of explaining to do in one episode. 

What happened to the girl? Who was she taken by and why? Is she still alive? How did she escape? Who killed he brother? Why did they kill her brother? Why did they place those dolls by the body? Was Tom gay? Was Harris gay? Did Harris kill Tom? What happened to Wayne’s daughter? What happened to Wayne’s wife? Why didn’t she write a second book? 

I could go on and on. This fucking show 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14921

Posted
Posted

It’s been frustrating knowing that nothing is going to happen in the 80 and 90 timelines. All the closure is going to have to happen with two senior citizens, one of whom is about 50% gone.

Spoiler I guess but...

Did they show Purple’s wife in 2015 in the “next time on” shots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Player

Player 4575

Posted
Posted

The Harris James part was tough to watch. We've been building for that all season, and the guy doesn't say s***. What is Edward Hoyt going to say? Yes I did it. I abducted Lucy and killed her bother. Hell no. It'll be some short conversation where Hoyt blackmails Wayne into ending the investigation. 
The only interesting part of the Hoyt meeting is finding out how he knew about Harris James being killed the night before. Obviously Roland had to tell Hoyt. It'd be quite a leap for Hoyt to think oh Harris James didn't come to work this morning, he must have been killed by the two police officers that interviewed him recently. If Pizzolatto doesn't explain this in some detail, I might be out if there's a Season 4. 




Why do you assume that Roland would give up Purple like that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, because it’s certainly a possibility. But since James was the head of security, I figure he had some kind of tech gear (tracking bug perhaps) in the company car that allowed Hoyt to find the car, and from there find out what had happened to James.

But yeah, I think that’s going to be a very short conversation between Hoyt and Hayes. “Drop the Purcell case, or you’re going down for the murder of James.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
billfromlaketravis

billfromlaketravis 11486

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Player said:

 


Why do you assume that Roland would give up Purple like that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, because it’s certainly a possibility. But since James was the head of security, I figure he had some kind of tech gear (tracking bug perhaps) in the company car that allowed Hoyt to find the car, and from there find out what had happened to James.

But yeah, I think that’s going to be a very short conversation between Hoyt and Hayes. “Drop the Purcell case, or you’re going down for the murder of James.”

 

Is Roland dirty appears to be hottest debate topic in True Detective threads. I want Roland to be good too, but I can't convince myself of it.  I'm concerned with the speed that Hoyt arrived at the Hays Household, and with Hoyt's conviction that Hays did something to Harris James. A reasonable person isn't that certain unless they've been told something definitive. 

A tracking device seems a little silly for True Detective, and wouldn't tell Hoyt much. It would just tell him that James' vehicle was stopped and driven to the barn. 

I've really enjoyed watching Dorff this season, but his confrontation with Ali after they buried Harris James didn't work for me. Pizzolatto is asking too much from Dorff. He can't go head to head with Ali. He doesn't have the acting chops to play off Ali in that way. 

Bitter old man Dorff, good. All other Dorffs, bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2275

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Only one episode left, and we still don’t know shit. Tom’s dead. Harris is dead. Yet we’ve learned nothing. They have a shit ton of explaining to do in one episode. 

What happened to the girl? Who was she taken by and why? Is she still alive? How did she escape? Who killed he brother? Why did they kill her brother? Why did they place those dolls by the body? Was Tom gay? Was Harris gay? Did Harris kill Tom? What happened to Wayne’s daughter? What happened to Wayne’s wife? Why didn’t she write a second book? 

I could go on and on. This fucking show 

 

I think Harris James killed the brother in law after killing Tom. I thought that was pretty obvious after last episode. Its possible that someone else was an accomplice like Roland if he has been dirty entire time, but I think it definitely was Hoyt security. 

Rest of the questions are wide ass open. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
utxmike05

utxmike05 1828

Posted
Posted

I don’t think the wife called Hoyt. Hoyt came over the next morning before Hays told his wife anything.

Roland dirty...eh. If he is then pretty good at playing it off. Although at times he does seem to want to “kill” the case or any momentum that they have. Example: Hayes getting out of the car when Roland wanted to call it a day. I dunno.

Hoyt must have been alerted by something when Harris was pulled over. They thought he reached for a gun but it was probably some pager or something instead. No way they put it all together in 12 hrs and arrive at Hayes without some signal.

I hope there is some real shady/creepy thing going on (even though that sounds fucked up). I don’t want the Hoyt to actually be some sorta nice guy saving kids from dangerous homes. Better be some twisted stuff! Julie better show face too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bamachine

bamachine 1231

Posted
Posted

I think Hoyt took Julie as a replacement for his granddaughter, to try and make his daughter happy, after she lost her husband and daughter in the car wreck. I should say, he bought Julie from the mom and her real dad, mom's cousin. The boy was an unfortunate thing. They tried to take her alone, he came along/got murked and he was also why Julie did not go along with the program

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Planet Houston

Planet Houston 4930

Posted
Posted
On 1/22/2019 at 1:50 PM, Planet Houston said:

The Hoyts (wealthy owners of the food company) are gonna have something to do with this.  Perhaps they looked to fill the void of losing their granddaughter by convincing the girl to run away to a "better" life.  Brother somehow died accidentally.

That's my completely ignorant guess as of now.

Hey look, I had the same theory almost a month ago!

Yeah, the ending will leave us unsatisfied and frustrated with TD once again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Tacky

Saint Tacky 1614

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Freaking Pizzolatto. He introduces a 4th timeline in the second to last episode. When Wayne drops Becca off at college. Why? People are baffled by three story lines, so Nic just says f*** it, let's introduce a 4th timeline. Because it's True Detective and the delicate genius can do whatever he wants. 

Scattershooting.  Maybe something happens or has happened to that daughter, which is linked to the investigation.  I can't fathom what or how, but she may be dead or missing. They've laid the ground work that Mom is overly paranoid and overprotective about her children.  Have they said how Hayes' wife died? [Edit: Cancer? If so, forget this about Mom's departure] Maybe she takes her own life when the daughter dies or goes missing.  Maybe Hayes doesn't remember any of this, and his son and daughter-in-law are just telling Hayes his daughter's in California and doesn't like to come home just to keep him from remembering how/why she's gone and to keep him on an even keel.  

Edited by Saint Tacky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2446

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Saint Tacky said:

Scattershooting.  Maybe something happens or has happened to that daughter, which is linked to the investigation.  I can't fathom what or how, but she may be dead or missing. They've laid the ground work that Mom is overly paranoid and overprotective about her children.  Have they said how Hayes' wife died? [Edit: Cancer? If so, forget this about Mom's departure] Maybe she takes her own life when the daughter dies or goes missing.  Maybe Hayes doesn't remember any of this, and his son and daughter-in-law are just telling Hayes his daughter's in California and doesn't like to come home just to keep him from remembering how/why she's gone and to keep him on an even keel.  

It’s been said in this thread before but the dinner table scene and Hays’ son’s frustration were around the fact they JUST TOLD Hays that his daughter was in California and then he asked again.  It was, in my opinion, to show the depth of the dementia. If it turns out his daughter died a while back that is going to be an eye roller for me.  

They’ve pretty much laid out the answers to most of the mystery at this point. So I can still see this thing landing nicely. There are some fringe questions that won’t get answered, but that’s for the Simpsons’ comic book men on this thread to say “worst third season of true detective ever” befause their pet theory wasn’t right   

But so long as (1) we get some clarity as to the initial abduction, and (2) we find out what Julie’s fate is in 2015, I am not sure there is anything else that needs to be answered at this point.  We know Hoyt held Julie in the pink room for years, then she escaped and hung out with runaways.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3916

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 


Is she really a big name? Her mom is for sure but all I know MG from is Mr Robot.

 

No.  She has a sister, Grace, who acts too and is the same basic age.  They look very similar and to your post, they get confused with each other all the time so that it feels like their work gets merged.  Mamie is in TD.  Grace is in Mr. Robot.

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Wife saw Hays burning clothes in a barrel late the night before, then Hoyt shows up. Wife knew something was up. I have no idea if she’s involved, I’m just clarifying that she knew something at the point Hoyt shows up. 

Why would Amelia call Hoyt?  I think Amelia wants to talk with Wayne so badly because she's lost herself in the case.  She took her small children to a bar in the middle of the night chasing a source and forgot about them to the point she thought someone may have taken them from the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dennis Taylor

Dennis Taylor 18829

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Freaking Pizzolatto. He introduces a 4th timeline in the second to last episode. When Wayne drops Becca off at college. Why? People are baffled by three story lines, so Nic just says f*** it, let's introduce a 4th timeline. Because it's True Detective and the delicate genius can do whatever he wants. 

The Harris James part was tough to watch. We've been building for that all season, and the guy doesn't say s***. What is Edward Hoyt going to say? Yes I did it. I abducted Lucy and killed her bother. Hell no. It'll be some short conversation where Hoyt blackmails Wayne into ending the investigation. 

The only interesting part of the Hoyt meeting is finding out how he knew about Harris James being killed the night before. Obviously Roland had to tell Hoyt. It'd be quite a leap for Hoyt to think oh Harris James didn't come to work this morning, he must have been killed by the two police officers that interviewed him recently. If Pizzolatto doesn't explain this in some detail, I might be out if there's a Season 4. 

I'm sure it'll end it much like Season 1. Nice tidy ending. Where they nail one guy and the larger conspiracy goes unsolved. 

Funny thought: Unless Mamie Gummer is in at least half of Episode 8, I can imagine Meryl Streep jumping down Pizzolatto's neck. Why cast a big name for a just a handful of scenes?

I really didn't think of the daughter at college scene as a 4th timeline after it became part of a dementia episode in the 2015 line.

I started thinking that Roland seems to try and talk Wayne out of enough stuff to make me think he could be part of the coverup     

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2446

Posted
Posted

I’m on board with the Roland is dirty bandwagon. Watched e7 again and it seems clearer.  The barn interrogation is essentially a murder.  Roland knew he was going to have to murder James to keep him quiet.  And that’s the only reasonable way that Hoyt finds out. 

It doesn’t mesh with his anger with Hays walking away in the initial meeting in 2015.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mach 1

Mach 1 1677

Posted
Posted

I'll spoiler my assumption

Spoiler

There must be a mutual agreement between Hoyt and Hays (and I assume West) to keep the murder quiet in exchange for keeping the missing girl quiet.   West is cognizant of that in the present time and keeps cautioning Hays and his son, but Hays doesn't remember that part of the past so feels compelled to reinvestigate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, A-Tex Devil said:

I’m on board with the Roland is dirty bandwagon. Watched e7 again and it seems clearer.  The barn interrogation is essentially a murder.  Roland knew he was going to have to murder James to keep him quiet.  And that’s the only reasonable way that Hoyt finds out. 

It doesn’t mesh with his anger with Hays walking away in the initial meeting in 2015.  

I don't think Roland is dirty (why would Wayne enlist his help in 2015 if that were the case?) although Hoyt could have beaten/blackmailed him into providing information.  If Wayne suspected that Roland was in on it then Roland would have been persona non grata.  I also don't think it's a given that Hoyt wouldn't keep Harris on a very short leash (Harris is probably one of only a few people who could bury him, after all) and would have immediately suspected Roland and Wayne when Harris went missing.

The idea to interrogate Harris was pretty stupid though unless Roland/Wayne were willing to destroy their own lives and go full vigilante after the ultimate perpetrators of the crime.  Who is Harris going to fear more - local cops or the local oligarch and hardcore pedo/child trafficker?  Even if he wanted out he has to know that if he turns on Hoyt he's as good as dead.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2446

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

I don't think Roland is dirty (why would Wayne enlist his help in 2015 if that were the case?) although Hoyt could have beaten/blackmailed him into providing information.  If Wayne suspected that Roland was in on it then Roland would have been persona non grata.  I also don't think it's a given that Hoyt wouldn't keep Harris on a very short leash (Harris is probably one of only a few people who could bury him, after all) and would have immediately suspected Roland and Wayne when Harris went missing.

The idea to interrogate Harris was pretty stupid though unless Roland/Wayne were willing to destroy their own lives and go full vigilante after the ultimate perpetrators of the crime.  Who is Harris going to fear more - local cops or the local oligarch and hardcore pedo/child trafficker?  Even if he wanted out he has to know that if he turns on Hoyt he's as good as dead.  

I'll buy a listening device on the car or something.  There were just some ticks with West last night on second watch with family that I didn't pick up on before.  There are definitely scenes that play against the idea that Roland could be dirty/compromised.  So I definitely I am not certain, but believe it more possible now than before.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...