True Detective

Lithose_sl said:

I don't know, maybe I'm not the sharpest tool here--but I would not be, at all, confident about coming down one way or the other on this. And that's why earlier I said this symbolism was kind of weak. For a show professing solid, but colorful narratives in a "whoddunit"--using ambiguous symbolism that's never explained cohesively feels like shit thrown in to inspire discussion without ever intending to lead anywhere, but rather it's just there to create buzz.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty confident it is nothing. But like I said before, I don't really like this whole pointless symbolism thing. Symbolism that is building to some greater truth like in Mulholland Drive or something, that really adds to the story and is totally awesome. This kind of thing is just frustrating, I think.

chaos_sl said:

I'm pretty confident it is nothing. But like I said before, I don't really like this whole pointless symbolism thing. Symbolism that is building to some greater truth like in Mulholland Drive or something, that really adds to the story and is totally awesome. This kind of thing is just frustrating, I think.

Click to expand...

agreed if it does turn out to be nothing.

Lithose_sl said:

For a show professing solid, but colorful narratives in a "whoddunit"--using ambiguous symbolism that's never explained cohesively feels like shit thrown in to inspire discussion without ever intending to lead anywhere, but rather it's just there to create buzz.

Click to expand...

What ambiguous symbolism? A circular painting that they've already admitted was a mistake? A mural painted in the psyche ward, which happens to match a painting of Marty's daughter? Knowing what we know now, it was also likely another prop mistake. Lastly, a scene of Hart, where people have slowed things down, looked at it frame by frame, and are trying to make mountains out of molehills, in what is likely just a continuity error(or an attempt to show how Marty can't get the job/cheating out of his subconscious)? Yeah, this show is just rife with "WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!?!".

EDIT: Soygen got the link first.

Marty imagining some of this stuff with his daughter is out of left field as much as anything else, as Lithose said. At this point us, the audience, have not been lied to or deceived. It would feel cheap if they add that in at the end.

Kirun_sl said:

What ambiguous symbolism? A circular painting that they've already admitted was a mistake? A mural painted in the psyche ward, which happens to match a painting of Marty's daughter? Knowing what we know now, it was also likely another prop mistake. Lastly, a scene of Hart, where people have slowed things down, looked at it frame by frame, and are trying to make mountains out of molehills, in what is likely just a continuity error? Yeah, this show is just rife with "WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!?!".

EDIT: Soygen got the link first.

Click to expand...

The drawings in his kids book which match drawings in the church and the one of the killer's mask, depicting a sex scene? And the point is, this is all fineif we find out Hart's daughter actually had shit done to her. If it's just dangled out there, and leads to nothing? Like some people are expecting? Then that is where it feels ambiguous and stupid. (For a whole list of reasons explained here, NOT including production errors.)

If you can't see why that would feel like bullshit but in the other direction? Then I'm afraid you're a lost PTSD sufferer, please go to the opposite wing of the lost Stockholm Syndrome sufferers and explain where the show touched you in the bad place.

And again, if in the final episode it gets mentioned she went to a Tuttle school, or some other concrete evidence that yes, she was involved; and we see Marty realizing it, then that's fine. But expecting the audience to swallow a detective, even a bad one, missing such ridiculously obtuse and obvious signs that had to do with his current investigation is just asking me to swallow to much suspension of disbelief. That's breaking the internal logic of the show in a way that takes something away from it, I have to effectively see Marty as not only a shit father and a bad detective, but as a human that should need someone to wipe his own ass because he's dumb as a fucking rock.

They specifically talk about police missing blatantly obvious signs, more than once. It wouldn't really be all that out of character.

chaos_sl said:

They specifically talk about police missing blatantly obvious signs, more than once. It wouldn't really be all that out of character.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's fine if he missed it and then when the pieces come together he says "how did I miss this??" (Well, it will still be a little wtf, but at least we'll know he is capable of putting 2+2 together) But if it's just left out in the gray, and one of the explanations as to how he could have missed so much evidence is that it's in his head? Then it's just a silly use of symbolism in a show that was supposed to be gritty and realistic.

Because while it was communicated that he's not the brightest bulb; it's also been communicated that he's a decent procedural detective, like how he tracked down the maid and it's shown he's decent at reading people (The Sheriff). So, having us just believe he saw all this, and his daughters behavior and never added it up? Feels kind of dumb from a character perspective. Having us believe this was in his head feels better from that perspective (Because then it makes sense why he didn't talk to the wife about the rape/orgy doll scene), but feels worse from a story perspective (Because the story was supposedly not trying to outsmart anyone.)

In other words, "missing what's right under your nose" is a subtle line to cross. And it got crossed with this, I feel, if it all ends up being "real". If it doesn't, then it feels like flimsy symbolism used to get people to talk but with no substance.

Why is it either Marty made the scene up OR his daughter was molested? My whole point was that Marty's sleeping around, his general absence as a father, and his particular line of work are what contributed to his daughters development. I absolutely believe the dolls were there AND I believe she wasn't molested.

The dichotomy between Hart and Rust's life was super heavy handed in those first 4 episodes. The resentment Rust had for Marty because he took for granted what he himself had lost. As has been pointed out, this is a story about these two men.

mkopec_sl said:

I have a hard time believing that rust met the scarred man in person at one of the tuttle schools and did not put 2 and 2 together especially being a keen observant man that writes/sketches everything down. Many people mentioned this to me in person while discussing this show. I think thats a huge flaw.

Click to expand...

I think that is more of the same. It was right in front of him, but he was so focused on LeDoux that he didn't even notice the man with the scars.

But you would think that when he came back to the school he would have revisited that meeting or something. We'll see Sunday how they deal with that but yeah, it seems at this point to be crazily out of character for Rust.

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:

Lithose you are over thinking a TV show that even the creator said is not what people are making it to be.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm not theorizing about the end. I just think, at this point, whichever way it ends is going to make that symbolism seem pretty obtuse. If it's just his perception (Even if the things were real), then the show was just tossing red herrings out. If his daughter was molested, and these were real signs, then there is no way Marty should have been able to talk without drooling. Again, I might be to strict about the character, but for me; they made Marty too smart to miss such obvious signs. Even if they tried to communicate obtusely that he was stupid and an absentee father.

Marty was never the one to think anything of the Tuttle family's involvement. It isn't until 2012 that Rust lets him in on all the evidence he's gathered. This wasn't a thing in '95. I can certainly see him not putting the two together.

StoiCynic_sl said:

. I absolutely believe the dolls were there AND I believe she wasn't molested.

Click to expand...

So wait, you believe she had no connection and somehow placed the dolls in the exact fashion of a ritual rape revealed later? And when she drew the masked guy having sex, that was also shown to be in the rape scenes, was that just a coincidence too?

You see how this is just so ham fisted? Asking us to swallow these ascoincidenceswould have been rejected as ridiculous on a show where Mcoughnhey wasn't dazzling everyone.

Lithose_sl said:

The drawings in his kids book which match drawings in the church and the one of the killer's mask, depicting a sex scene?

Click to expand...

Oh, Jesus, really? Now we're trotting out the drawings that Marty flipped through(which people slowed down frame by frame again and is the only reason why you think it's now somehow "connected")depict the exact murals in the school? It couldn't be that they just had a bunch of random props with "cult/yellow king/carcosa" shit on it, used them in the show at certain points, and after the audience goes and breaks them down frame by frame, things line up a little bit? Or the daughter heard about/saw sex(school, friends, whatever), depicted it in drawings on a dare, and some of the characters she drew had funny faces? "IT MUST BE CONNECTED! THE SYMBOLISM IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES, YOU JUST HAVE TO BREAK THE SCENES DOWN FRAME, BY FRAME, BY FRAME! THE MAN WITH THE FUNNY HEAD, DRAWN BY A 3RD GRADER, MUST BE THE MAN IN THE RAPE SCENES!".

Man, you are doing exactly what Fuck and Suck accused Rust of - twisting/leading things to fit your own narrative. Another reason why this show is so goddamn good.